# Philosophy - God and scientific evidence. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2007, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317 "2007-04-16T12:21:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/121 "2007-04-20T01:55:19Z")
**begbert2** , you bring an interesting point that I had not considered before. Maybe God, as observable in the natural world can only be described as an atribute of things. I will need to give that some extra noodle cycles. Still, I disagree that you can see beauty. You later make the point clearer when you say that you cannot see it by itself. I do believe that Beauty exists as an independent concept, even if not as a tangible thing. You cannot experience it by itself (at least not in a conventional way that you can share with others), but it does exist by itself. It is just that our experience of it must remain subjective. Still, after enough experiences of beautiful things, one can start to grasp a notion of beauty that is not dependent on the experience of beautiful things. One starts to get a grasp of beauty itself, that encompasses all aspects of it (in music, people, flowers, events, etc) Ditto for God, I believe. Although we cannot see God godself, we can spot divinity in all things to the point where we can start to form an image of God that is not dependent on individual experiences of God. Alas, this too is a subjective experience. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/122 "2007-04-20T03:10:20Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] I was referring to degrees of evidence. I attempted to state that purely subjective evidence is fine for choosing ice cream, but that more rigorous standards should be used for accepting evidence when forming core world world views and morals. [/QUOTE] Then perhaps we have a misunderstanding about what subjective evidence is. Every human on the planet uses subjective evidence, that is, their own personal interpretation of the meaning and value of events, to make moral judgments. That doesn’t mean I think we should use _only_ subjective evidence. It is coupled with observation and reasoning. It changes with experience and new objective evidence. But, concepts of virtue and evil, good or bad, when dealing with world views and morals are pretty much completely subjective aren’t they? we may share certain norms with society but they are still subjective values right? So once again, if you have a point to make, I’m not seeing it. > [@](#): > > They’re naturally imperfect because people are imperfect. But adding on the layer of religion makes it even more imperfect. You get another layer of interpretation, of subjectivity. And religion comes with a whole lot of each. ‘Love your neighbor’ is fine on it’s own, it doesn’t need religion. Religion detracts attention from the message by demanding attention to the organization. I don’t need to not eat meat on Friday’s to be able to love my neighbor. If a person decides to be a vegetarian does that make them a better person or worse? Once again you’re implying that if someone decides they personally value and enjoy the ceremony and structure of religion then they are wrong for doing so. It’s your opinion and you have no evidence to back it up with. It is imperfect because people are imperfect. On that we agree. Would people be less imperfect without religion or spiritual beliefs? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > My point would only be untrue if I tried to include the word ‘all’ in it, which I didn’t. You are not a typical theist, and you cannot hold yourself up as a normal example. People are capable of changing beliefs, I know it happens. But it doesn’t happen like people change their minds. Beliefs, and the faith that goes along with it, tend to be pretty deeply rooted, and one argument or event isn’t going to change their minds. If I think X is true, and someone shows me that it’s not, I can simple change my mind about X. If someone has strong religous faith that X is true, and someone tries to show them that X is not true, then it is highly unlikely in the extreme that the person will change their mind. It is more likely that they will react negatively, regardless of the actual argument made. You greatly oversimplify. Non believers also demonstrate an emotional attachment to certain beliefs, They believe things without evidence and they are reluctant to give up beliefs even in the light of evidence. Just like believers. Is it more common among religious folks? Probably. That doesn’t make your stereotype of what religious belief _tends_ to be accurate. Any shift in a belief system is likely to take some time for either believer or non believer. > [@](#): > > So what? My point stands: science can give us morality. Holy Smokes. This is so wrong. No science does not do that. Ask around. Perhaps some other atheist dopers would like to chime in here. > [@](#): > > And more, if you’re going to suggest that the morality Jesus and Buddha preached came from a divine source and not commen sense or logical deduction, then I’m going to need to see some evidence. I’m not out to prove anything to you about divinity. My point is that people who do believe have in the past, and continue to make valuable contributions to society. For you or anyone to claim they could do so without their faith is an unsubstantiated opinion. For you or anyone to imply that would somehow be better is the same kind of judgment you seem to resent form believers. > [@](#): > > Religion isn’t just what you believe. There are many more religious people who do not follow your approach to non believers, who think it is ok to intrude and demand and expect people to believe. We wouldn’t be having a discussion like this if all religious people thought that way, it wouldn’t be necessary. Yes there are religious zealots and they range from a pain in the ass to dangerous. I’m not convinced that god belief is the crux of their personality problem. I’d say of all believers out there, way less than half actively intrude and demand and expect. Even many who may think everyone should believe as they do , don’t actively proselytize. I recognize that because of those who do try to jam their religion onto others it is completely justified to call bullshit on them. Have at it. > [@](#): > > Yes, it was. I’ve already explained it. Sorry you feel that way. > [@](#): > > I didn’t drag out any tired old quotes, I pointed out that religion is not the paragon of morality you try to hold it up as. Is that so? Then please show me exactly where I did that. Provide the quotes or admit you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > When you make statements like the first one in this quote you are implying that the opposite is true. You have made several other quotes like this in this thread, statements like: > > make it sound like you are advocating belief based morals. If you say that non-belief based morals are not superior, then the other half of the statement is that belief based morals are. Hell no it isn’t. I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Making a statement does\* not \* automatically imply the opposite is true and it’s ludicrous to suggest it does. Is this what you call logic? It’s unfortunate you seem to have missed my point completely but don’t misrepresent my posts. > [@](#): > > You are talking about specific instances for some reason, where I am not. My statement was very general. Your generalization applies to individuals. Thats pretty specific. You’re saying in general, someone else choosing god belief\* isn’t\* good even if their actions based on those beliefs _are_ good. What I have been trying to point out is that you have _no_ basis to make that subjective judgment for someone else. I’m also trying to point out that it’s the same act that non believers complain about when they talk about believers. It’s essentially the same as a believer saying everybody would be better if they believed in god. > [@](#): > > See that was what we call ‘logic’. I gave a logical argument, and you didn’t actually do anything to refute it besides wave your hand say you didn’t like it. If you can give evidence that choosing god over not choosing god had a distinct advantage, which you actually denied in the argument itself, then you might have a point. Who’s _we_? I just saw what _you_ called logic and it just wasn’t logical. You just keep missing the point and trying to put words in my mouth. I am \*not \*saying choosing god has a clear advantage. I have not said it or implied it. If that’s what you read into it then you are mistaken. Clear enough? What I’ve said repeatedly is that individuals should choose what works \*for them \*for personal growth, be it belief or non belief. We who observe the results of their belief systems should judge the actions. As a byproduct of interaction beliefs are challenged and shared, but we can still respect a persons right to choose their own path providing they aren’t harming us or others. For example, if you believe love thy neighbor makes sense as a secular philosophy and I believe love they neighbor makes sense as divine truth we are essentially in agreement where it counts. Our actions. There is no need either of us to “convert” or criticize the other. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/123 "2007-04-20T18:51:37Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Holy Smokes. This is so wrong. No science does not do that. Ask around. Perhaps some other atheist dopers would like to chime in here. [/QUOTE] I think this pretty much sums it up right here. No argument given, no evidence given, just hand waving and denial. I gave you a specific argument about how science can be used to make morality decisions. I gave an example. You have to try to refute them before you can say I’m wrong. Science gives us information about reality, including people. Given a (naturalist) definition of bad/good, this information can show X to be bad or good. Acting like religion or spirituality has a lock on morality is ignoring all it’s done _against_ morality, and assuming that god must have something to do with it for it to be proper morality. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/124 "2007-04-20T19:16:12Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] I think this pretty much sums it up right here. No argument given, no evidence given, just hand waving and denial. I gave you a specific argument about how science can be used to make morality decisions. I gave an example. You have to try to refute them before you can say I’m wrong. Science gives us information about reality, including people. Given a (naturalist) definition of bad/good, this information can show X to be bad or good. Acting like religion or spirituality has a lock on morality is ignoring all it’s done _against_ morality, and assuming that god must have something to do with it for it to be proper morality. [/QUOTE] I think the two of you are talking past each other. Science does not give us morality, but it can give us evidence we can use to make moral decisions. Here’s a non-controversial example. Say Race A enslaves Race B since they are clearly inferior (according to Race A) and not quite human. Science can show that the two races are genetically equivalent, that they diverged a very short time ago, and that in fact the inherent intelligence of the two races is indisitinguishable. That’s not defining morality, but it is powerful evidence that Race A is acting immorally. The religious component might come in if Race A was basing its belief on a holy book, and on faith. They might resist the findings of science, either to preserve their supposed superiority, or to keep the faith, or both. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2007, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/125 "2007-04-21T00:20:06Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I think the two of you are talking past each other. Science does not give us morality, but it can give us evidence we can use to make moral decisions. Here’s a non-controversial example. Say Race A enslaves Race B since they are clearly inferior (according to Race A) and not quite human. Science can show that the two races are genetically equivalent, that they diverged a very short time ago, and that in fact the inherent intelligence of the two races is indisitinguishable. That’s not defining morality, but it is powerful evidence that Race A is acting immorally. The religious component might come in if Race A was basing its belief on a holy book, and on faith. They might resist the findings of science, either to preserve their supposed superiority, or to keep the faith, or both. [/QUOTE] Maybe we are because I seriously don’t get it. I thought it was clear that sociology as a science can provide data but the moral component is separate, and still very subjective back in post # 103 when I said > [@](#): > > I didn’t think sociology made moral judgments. I thought it provided data from which judgment calls were made. and reiterated in post # 107 > [@](#): > > Sure, that’s people combining data from sociology with their own experience to make a moral judgment. Their experiences can include spiritual beliefs and teachings , and statistically speaking, most often do. or even your post # 104 > [@](#): > > In any case, the sociological judgment wouldn’t be a moral one, but one that noted civilizations with too much emphasis on war eventually collapse, or lose out to those without as much an emphasis. Sociology can provide data and from that data we might decide what is profitable or unprofitable, either short term or long term but the moral judgment about right or wrong is completely subjective is it not? Sociology cannot tell us slavery is morally wrong can it? In your example it may eliminate one of the moral justifications for slavery by showing it untrue but if a if a culture decided that it made good economic sense to dominate another race sociology couldn’t clearly show that was morally reprehensible could it? Is it morally wrong to kill babies with birth defects that will be an economic drain on society? Is it morally wrong to execute habitual criminals rather than support them through a life sentence? IMO there might be several scenarios where what we might view as morally wrong was statistically beneficial. As I’m sure you know. I’m not arguing form a place of faith based morals are superior. I’m simply trying to put to rest some repetitive inaccurate arguments I keep hearing. Should inaccurate unsupported faith based beliefs be challenged with inaccurate unsupported secular ones? It doesn’t sound productive to me. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2007, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317/126 "2007-04-21T01:01:47Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] I think this pretty much sums it up right here. No argument given, no evidence given, just hand waving and denial. I gave you a specific argument about how science can be used to make morality decisions. I gave an example. You have to try to refute them before you can say I’m wrong. [/QUOTE] That’s already been done. You keep missing it. I acknowledged that sociology and other sciences can provide data which can and should be used in making moral judgments. That’s not the same as saying “science can give us morality” There are important differences. > [@](#): > > Science gives us information about reality, including people. > Given a (naturalist) definition of bad/good, this information can show X to be bad or good. I guess I’m dense then. Please demonstrate how sociology or science can show that slavery is morally wrong and that isn’t purely a subjective call. I’m a little confused by you’re wording here. Are you saying that we must have a definition of good and bad \*before \* scientific data be used? > [@](#): > > Acting like religion or spirituality has a lock on morality is ignoring all it’s done _against_ morality, and assuming that god must have something to do with it for it to be proper morality. I have made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that is not my position. Yet here you are misrepresenting my posts again. I’ve tried to make what IMO is a subtle but important point. Either you just don’t get it or you are purposely disingenuous. I issued you a direct challenge in my last post. You avoided it. will you defend your statement or admit you were wrong? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophy-god-and-scientific-evidence/400317.md?page=6)