Does God exist?

[FireDragon76]

No it wouldn't. One of Dennett's main areas of interest is cognitive science.

So? His "cognitive science" is reductionistic materialism, basically saying mental states, such as self-awareness or intentionality, are illusions created by neural activity. That means psychology becomes pointless, only left to reiterate whatever neuroscience discovers about the brain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So? His "cognitive science" is reductionistic materialism, basically saying mental states, such as self-awareness or intentionality, are illusions created by neural activity. That means psychology becomes pointless, only left to reiterate whatever neuroscience discovers about the brain.

How does it become pointless, especially given that a large subset of psychology is neuroscience? Even assuming reductionistic materialism, I don't think Dennett would cast aspersions on behavioural explanations that do not appeal to an underlying neurological mechanism. In fact, I seem to recall that in one of his works he talks about 'levels of analysis' to make this point even clearer. Dennett doesn't, to my knowledge, deny the usefulness of explanations made on the behavioural level. Indeed, much of cognitive neuroscience today is about integrating explanations across levels of analysis.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Sure, go ahead. It has been debated tons already but I accept your challenge.

I will set up a thread in the debate proposal section.

 

[bhsmte]

So? His "cognitive science" is reductionistic materialism, basically saying mental states, such as self-awareness or intentionality, are illusions created by neural activity. That means psychology becomes pointless, only left to reiterate whatever neuroscience discovers about the brain.

I think you should become more familiar, with Dennett's work.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you think you are more moral than the one who thinks it is objectively wrong for that to happen?

There isn't anyone who can be objective about it. No matter how hard you try, you will have bias about whether or not that is immoral.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

There isn't anyone who can be objective about it. No matter how hard you try, you will have bias about whether or not that is immoral.

And those who have a bias towards killing atheists because they are atheists?

What of them?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And those who have a bias towards killing atheists because they are atheists?

What of them?

What about them? They think what they are doing is moral, and I personally don't. I don't understand what you are trying to go with here.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What about them? They think what they are doing is moral, and I personally don't. I don't understand what you are trying to go with here.

in your would, how do you adjudicate between two conflicting moral views?

 

[bhsmte]

in your would, how do you adjudicate between two conflicting moral views?

The same way many do, you pick the one you feel is correct.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The same way many do, you pick the one you feel is correct.

By what you feel.

I rest my case.

 

[bhsmte]

By what you feel.

I rest my case.

Based on; life's experiences, upbringing, social surroundings and a little bit of genetics.

So yes, you go ahead and rest your case, whatever case you had.

 

[PsychoSarah]

in your would, how do you adjudicate between two conflicting moral views?

I take into consideration my own experiences, which include what I was raised to consider to be moral, and that will usually give one position enough of an edge over the others that it is easy. Sometimes situations appear to have no moral answers, while others have many apparent moral routes.

 

[ob77]

Does God exist? What's the evidence pro/con? What do we make of the Anthropic Principle, the problem of evil, and so on?

Discuss.

No other written work provides the history that the Bible does. The old testament is the fountainhead of the Hebrew language, no other written work predates it, other that Asiatic and Assyrian written histories. They do not contain the origin of the earth or the universe. The Assyrians history goes back about 74,000 years, to the great "Mantevera" - a great onslaught, a great upheaval, between the chaos monster satan and Murdock, the God of the universe. This is when they document the great war in heaven between satan and his angels and Michael and his angels, and satan prevailed not.
Peter speaks of the three world ages- the world that then was, the world that is and the world that is to come. We are in the world that is. The world that was belongs to those things that predate man- the dinosaurs and such who were destroyed at the end of that particular earth age. Where Genesis states that the world was created void and without form- is the Hebrew, Tohu vah bohu- which is "became that way through divine action", not created that way. This earth is very old, but not as old as we are, for we were with the Father before the world was framed............Something else here I might add. That when names were written in the book of life - were from before the foundation of the world- that word "foundation" is actually that great Kebow- which is Hebrew for "overthrow" = Satan's attempt to overthrow God's kingdom. Satan prevailed not, yet those that stoodfast with Yahveh and did not side with Satan, had their names written in that book.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nice of you to completely forget the Hindu Vedas

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I take into consideration my own experiences, which include what I was raised to consider to be moral, and that will usually give one position enough of an edge over the others that it is easy. Sometimes situations appear to have no moral answers, while others have many apparent moral routes.

The radical Islamist could say the same thing you are saying and thereby conclude that it is moral to kill you and your family because you are not worshipers of Allah.

Its all a matter of perspective and opinion in your world. The Jihadist is doing what is right in his own sight and since he thinks it is right, to him it is right. People may have different opinions, but no one in your world would dare accuse the Jihadist of doing anything really wrong because "right" and "wrong" refer to nothing more than people's fleeting and fickle opinions and feelings.

Are you not glad that you live in a society that does not base their laws on people's feelings and opinions? How do you feel living in a society where those in power think the exact opposite of how you think?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The radical Islamist could say the same thing you are saying and thereby conclude that it is moral to kill you and your family because you are not worshipers of Allah.

Its all a matter of perspective and opinion in your world. The Jihadist is doing what is right in his own sight and since he thinks it is right, to him it is right. People may have different opinions, but no one in your world would dare accuse the Jihadist of doing anything really wrong because "right" and "wrong" refer to nothing more than people's fleeting and fickle opinions and feelings.

Are you not glad that you live in a society that does not base their laws on people's feelings and opinions? How do you feel living in a society where those in power think the exact opposite of how you think?

I never said it didn't suck. It does, doesn't make it any less reality.

 

[quatona]

I never said it didn't suck. It does, doesn't make it any less reality.

Exactly. It´s not like I wouldn´t like everyone to share my moral values and ideas. Unfortunately that doesn´t make it so - regardless whether a God exists or not.

 

[quatona]

q, just know I don't use these words to be pompous. Been there, done that, and my life was made more insecure by it. Now I just like words, and I use them pretty much immediately, with a little revision here and there.

Whereas I am very suspicious of the way words can be used.

Well, I was just saying that there is authority in morality. Maybe you weren't saying that according to my understanding of authority.

Well, when I said "authority" I didn´t mean "authority" as you later introduced it in response to my statement, and I think that was pretty clear from the context.

Secondly, just because morality is convincing in itself (whether or not this means there's a "power" to morality in this sense) doesn't mean that God isn't needed as an authority.

Yes, that would be exactly what it means. It would, however, not mean that no God exists. And it wouldn´t necessarily mean that an existing God hadn´t created this sense of morality into us.

God might be needed to create this morality or sense of universality (I think all morality is mostly reduced to universality, which again isn't an argument for God but can be explained by evolution), in which case he's the authority of morality, and therefore accepting morality means indirectly at least accepting God's authority.

"Is needed" and "might be needed" are two substantially different statements. If, as you say, it "might be needed", you have some work to do in order to establish that it "is needed".
In your second sentence, you are presupposing that the morality that is "in morality" is congruent with God´s view of morality (which is an unsubstantiated premise).

I don't think we need to go into the details here. But the more complicated and less hillbilly-like theologians out there interpret Christ in non-physical form to be the Logos, which is the "tying together" of the universe, or that which keeps the universe in existence, and would apply to reason as well as morality as well. Which isn't at all to deny any adaptive, evolutionary aspect of morality.

Of course, this is a possibility (and one which - if we were to presuppose the existence of such a God - makes quite some sense).
That doesn´t mean God is necessary for such a convincing morality. It just means that God - if such exists - might be involved in the way we came to our moral sense. Two premises that need substantiation.

If you're making a point against divine command theory, I'm right there with you.

No, in my statement I haven´t been making a point against divine command theory, and I haven´t been making a point against the existence of a God. I have been making a point against a morality that isn´t convincing all by itself ("authoritative", in the way you used the word), and therefore requires an appeal to an "authority" (in the way I initially used the word) in order to be, though still not plausible or convincing, at least justified by an "authoritative" entity.
IOW, as soon as the claim comes up that God is necessary for morality the claimers are giving up on morality as being "authoritative" (in the way you used the word).

Interestingly, Aristotle and Kant were both theists, arguably "god-fearing" theists, and their conceptions of morality are the only serious ones to consider, IMO.

For purposes of this discussion it is entirely irrelevant whether they were theists or not. Their personal beliefs are just their personal beliefs. Even if their approaches were the only serious ones to consider - a proposition which would require substantiation -, it would be at best be relevant whether their approaches necessitated a God (or whatever moral law giving Higher Entity).

 

[Received]

Whereas I am very suspicious of the way words can be used.

You should check out analytic philosophy. I'm personally torn with this style of communicating, because this a debate board, so I should be extra careful with my terms, but that takes work and this is a recreational board, so I'm able to loosen my belt a little.

Yes, that would be exactly what it means. It would, however, not mean that no God exists. And it wouldn´t necessarily mean that an existing God hadn´t created this sense of morality into us.

Two people create a game, and the rules that go with this game. Are they authorities, or are just the rules themselves the authority? I think our problem is a difference in perspective.

"Is needed" and "might be needed" are two substantially different statements. If, as you say, it "might be needed", you have some work to do in order to establish that it "is needed".
In your second sentence, you are presupposing that the morality that is "in morality" is congruent with God´s view of morality (which is an unsubstantiated premise).

I meant "might be needed" in the sense of, "if God is needed for morality, rather than God not existing and/or evolution totally explaining morality," not directly with what we're talking about.

And I'll take it as an unsubstantiated premise, because we don't need to go into the details of this idea in order for us to consider contingencies with the argument we're talking about now, do we?

Of course, this is a possibility (and one which - if we were to presuppose the existence of such a God - makes quite some sense).
That doesn´t mean God is necessary for such a convincing morality. It just means that God - if such exists - might be involved in the way we came to our moral sense. Two premises that need substantiation.

Right, it doesn't mean it's convincing. That's what I mean when I say "might" above; I accept this as a possibility, not as a necessity. And again, no need for substantiation because we're just considering these possibilities as contingencies, not actual statements that need substantiation; that would be a separate argument, albeit related to this one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By what you feel.

I rest my case.

You clearly think your theism affords you superiority here. Explain how.