God Doesn't Want Me To Know Him

[Locutus]

Can I ask, if you did hear from God, how would you expect that to happen?

In way which could be "heard". Not as a head voice, indistinguishable from ... a head voice.

If you want someone to find something which looks exactly like a grain of sand, don't hide it on a beach.

 

[The Cadet]

Well I believe I posted a verse that all of creation speaks to the glory and power of God.

Great. Now provide evidence of that.

Plants, animals, humans, our ecosystem and the solar system are all to intricate to have been created from nothing.

Isn't that literally what your god does? Creation ex nihilo? Not that it matters because the idea that something is "too complex"

I know people laugh sometimes in those of us who believe in God and the Bible, but to me the non-believers are putting their faith into something much less likely, random chance.

I don't have to put my faith in anything; the fact is that you have not justified your claim.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Would you be more specific? This is tiring. Otherwise I'm going.

I was quite specific in my previous post. Your position that...

"Plants, animals, humans, our ecosystem and the solar system are all too intricate to have been created from nothing."

...includes two fallacies. The first one is based upon the fact that no one is saying that anything can come from a literal nothing. Because you're arguing against a position that isn't actually held, you're committing a strawman fallacy.

In addition, if you're arguing that because something is complicated, it had to have been made by a god, you're committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. It's a type of false dichotomy.

 

[afishamongmany]

More than happy to accept the existence of a "life outside the material". All I need is evidence it exists and I'm good to go.
And if you feel your particular religion is the best option in that mysterious non-material world, I'll also need specifics on how to know who is who in that realm.
Can you help me out?

Hello Locutus,
Evidence – indication, sign, testimony, facts, in support of a conclusion.
Conclusion to be supported – That matter originates from, exists within and is maintained by that which is not matter but which is spiritual. The Spirit, which is God, is eternally existent and the source of all life. Matter of itself does not and cannot live.
Facts
1-The existence of matter.
A belief in a closed material universe randomly self perpetuating itself has no answers to the How, Where, Why, first causes questions. A belief in a creator God does.

2-The existence of the laws to which matter conforms.
A belief that these laws 'just happen' to be, is intellectual sloppiness.

3-The existence of life.
Matter does not live, it is not life. A machine does not live, it is not life. There is no difference between the body material of a living person and that of a dead body. The difference is that the living person has 'life', the dead body does not. Life must originate from what is living. Matter is inherently lifeless.

4-The existence of time.
As far as I know materialist all accept that this universe had a beginning. Though we can measure time and try to manage it, the reality is that we are completely bound to a past-present-future ticking clock. The logic of time is that there is a beginning, a duration and an end. We know nothing else yet we have a the concept of eternity and yearn for it. The logic of time is that it requires a decider and initiator, someone who gives it and governs it. We do that within the time of this material universe but the time that governs this universe requires someone who has not beginning, duration or end.

5-The existence of consciousness or humanness as against animalness.
There are people who believe that all humans are are a highly evolved animal among all the other animals. Such a belief does not match with observation or experience. The difference between humans and animals is definite and huge. We can only poorly imagine what it is like to live with the consciousness of a chimp. But we can at least try. Would any chimp try the reverse?

Because of language our individual consciousness is informed by and informs our fellow human beings. This personal and collective human consciousness (giving rise to all the science, art and human endeavour and achievement that it does) is a wondrous thing, imbued with personality, purpose, morality, and self awareness. This cannot have 'evolved' from dead matter and dumb beasts.

Mind comes before matter. Only a belief that all this originates from the mind and will of The Living God who is Spirit does justice to the reality we are continually conscious of.

6-The existence of good and evil and our recognition of it.
Matter is absolutely morally neutral and I would be surprised to hear that you believe that any of the chimps or gorillas of this world spend time pondering on the good or evil of their actions or of their own moral condition. This knowledge of good and evil is an inherent part of our nature that owes nothing to the atoms and chemical of which our material body consists.

We are discomforted by both good and evil. We know that things 'aren't right'. We know that we aren't right. From whence come such consciousness? In a random, impersonal, amoral, solely material universe such consciousness is an inexplicable anomaly.

Testimonies
1-All the above facts.
The creation evidences to its Creator.

2-The Bible.
It's very existence in our hands today, in every majority language and in many hundreds of the minority languages, is a testimony to an unseen, enabling, directing, providence. But within is the testimony of God Himself to Himself and to His purposes. It is brimmed full of the witness of many people to the existence of, and interaction with, a transcendental, spiritual, sovereign God and of a surrounding, unseen spiritual realm.

3-Jesus Christ.
As The Bible is God's word in paper and ink so is Jesus Christ God's word in the flesh. His testimony is “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”
His incarnation, life, death and resurrection testify to not only to God's reality but to his mercy and gracious love towards us creatures whom He created in his own image.

4-Those who have lived and are living by faith in Jesus Christ.
For almost 2000 years, since The Lord ascension and the coming of The Holy Spirit at Pentecost the witness and the testimony has continued and will continue until his return bodily. Because we have believed and receive we speak, and because we speak others believe and also receive according to God's promise.

5-History and the signs of the present time.
These also witness, in the fulfillment of prophecy and the workings and interventions for judgment and mercy of a supernatural God in this natural time space world.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ok Locutus, so I wonder if this will be of any help to you? I'm fairly sure that none of it will be new to you. As a sincere seeker it is highly probable that you will have already have examined all this evidence in far more depth than it is presented here. If not, these days, there is an abundance of resources and sources for a sincere seeker to do so.
If you think I can be of any further help then feel free to contact me.
God bless you
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

I was speaking about incoherent answers that lead to the statement "It's not me but the holy spirit that convinces you." It's used as an excuse for faulty reasoning, as in "It doesn't matter if my logic is circular or I'm resorting to an argument from ignorance. I'm not required to make any sense since the holy spirit is the one doing the convincing, not me.".

Hi Todd,
Ok no problem, Christians like all other humans may sometimes sound/be incoherent. But to say, that someone saying that The Holy Spirit is The One who convinces us of God's truth is 'an excuse', is a mean spirited understanding. It is a coherent statement of what Christians believe; In what way is it an excuse? What does it excuse? Certainly not incoherence.
Christians like the rest of the human race have greatly varying levels of communication competency.
Go well
><>

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hi Todd,
Ok no problem, Christians like all other humans may sometimes sound/be incoherent. But to say, that someone saying that The Holy Spirit is The One who convinces us of God's truth is 'an excuse', is a mean spirited understanding. It is a coherent statement of what Christians believe; In what way is it an excuse? What does it excuse? Certainly not incoherence.
Christians like the rest of the human race have greatly varying levels of communication competency.
Go well
><>

But it is an excuse. It's always used at the end of a conversation when the theist has been shown to have employed faulty logic when trying to argue for their beliefs. Instead of owning up to their logical mistakes, they throw out that particular phrase, which amounts to "So what if I can't argue logically? I don't have to."

The bottom line is that if you're going to present arguments for your theistic beliefs, especially in the Philosophy forum, you better know what you're doing, or no one is going to take you seriously.

 

[afishamongmany]

I don't refuse to recognize that. I simply ask for evidence. I have yet to see any convincing reason to believe that there is life outside of the material universe. I'm not even sure "outside of the material universe" is even a coherent concept, to be honest. But at the end of the day, it comes down to evidence. I see no reason to believe in life outside of the material universe, therefore I do not believe in life outside of the material universe. Why do you believe in life outside of the material universe?

Hello Cadet -see my latest post to Locutus.

How does one despise something one does not believe exists?

By not believing they exist.

afishamongmany said: ↑
and do not give honour, praise and thank to the One who gives us every breath we take.
And this is somehow worthy of eternal torture? Not prostrating ourselves 24/7 to someone simply because they put us into this world? What a horribly vain god you worship.

afishamongmany said: ↑
A clay pot is a very good metaphor for what we are and of course The Potter may indeed do what ever He wants with His pots.
Even if the pot can think, and feel, and experience? Imagine a potter capable of creating living clay golems, capable of feeling pain. Would you not call the potter a monster for smashing his "pots"?
Ah well, maybe at least it is something that you don't actually believe in this vain monster god you love to wave.
My God is a loving Saviour and The Just Judge of us all.

afishamongmany said: ↑
Remember, “Faith is the evidence.”
If so, what of the faith of a Muslim or a Hindu?
The faith that is the evidence is faith in The Living God and Jesus Christ Whom He sent into this world. All other ground is sinking sand. Read chpt 11 in the letter to the Hebrews for more detail.

Ok good night you guys, believers and unbelievers, seekers and finders.
Tomorrow is another day - God willing
><>

 

[The Cadet]

I'll get to this later. I think you are taking a rationalistic approach to life, and that's why God seems hidden. Life is more than living in your head, you need a heart too or you are missing a universe of possibilities.

What's wrong with taking a rationalistic approach to life, though? It consistently produces an internal model of reality most directly correlative to external reality. In almost every aspect of our lives, we are expected (and often suffer greatly for not doing so) to think rationally and skeptically. Not thinking critically about medicine may very well cost one of my father's friends her life. Not thinking critically at the dealership will often end you with a crap deal and a crap car. I'm not sure what my "heart" has to do with anything; if you mean just going off of "gut feeling" or impulse... Well, that has a notoriously bad track record.

So... all religious people are just dumber than atheists? Think of the implications of what you are saying here.

Maybe I phrased it poorly...

...You ever encounter someone who is incredibly smart, well-rounded, and then on a certain topic, you just cannot talk to them, because it's obvious that they've shut their brain off? I've met people like this. In fact, a lot of my religious friends are like this. I have little doubt that, say, my uncle Jerry is a far smarter man than I am, but when it comes to God, I can't help but shake my head at some of the absurdities that come out of his mouth. It's because he was taught to hold things on faith, so he... really just doesn't think rationally on the subject. And many of the things he takes on faith have poisoned his mind. Not that you'd notice it dealing with him on any other subject - but once religion comes up, it's like someone beat him over the head with a crowbar as a kid.

You're idolizing science and technological supremacy, and ignoring the universe full of other possibilities, possibilities that can give meaning and vision to your life beyond the technological monstrosities of western culture

It's less that, and more that I'm just not aware of any other functional system for discovering the truth. Empirical rationalism works. It helps us understand the world around us, and science is, fundamentally, the most effective method of empiricism we've found. Do things exist outside of science? Maybe. But I don't know, and I don't know what method we could possibly use to establish that they do. I keep on asking this question, and I never really get a decent answer. It's always about the possibility, but nobody ever takes the step of figuring out how we go from possible to actual, or even probable for that matter. :/

(we are destroying the planet... it's not a scientific problem at this point, it's a moral problem, and much of it is due to not subjecting our technology to any kind of moral vision beyond "the bottom line").

The solution, however, will probably not come by going back to farming techniques that could feed a population one tenth the size of the one we have today.

For some people, God is present in the birth of their child, or a beautiful sunrise, or holding a loved-ones hand. The other day I was laying getting some much-needed vitamin D, looking up into the clouds that seemed to have so much depth and clarity to them... and I couldn't believe I haven't appreciated something like that before. Allowing yourself to be swept up into something other than the hard-nosed, left-brained scientific worldview is very important if you want to know God.

But that's what I have Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, and combinations of those three things for! Have you ever had sex on LSD while listening to Pink Floyd? Now there's getting swept up into something other than the hard-nosed, left-brained scientific worldview!

Jokes aside, though, I think Douglas Adams said it best: "Is it not enough to acknowledge that the garden is beautiful without imagining fairies at the bottom?" I can sit outside and acknowledge the aesthetic beauty of something without any need to invent a reason for why I find it beautiful. And simply because something is beautiful does not make it a matter of divine significance. I could believe that nature was so beautiful that it had to be made specifically for me to see it by a supernatural creator... But that would be incredibly vain, self-centered, and at the very least baseless if not flat-out wrong.

Christianity isn't a monolith. That's something I've said a lot before. There really is not one "Christianity". There are some commonalities on the surface but even how we interpret what the doctrines mean in practical terms, can be very different.

No kidding, right? At this point, my criteria for "is a Christian" basically comes down to "believes that Christ exists and had some connection to the supernatural, and also self-identifies as Christian", because getting any more precise than that would likely cut off some sect I haven't heard about.

Mainline Lutherans aren't committed to the concept of Biblical perspicuity or universal applicability. It contains the Word of God, without being identical to it. You'll find that attitude is common in many churches that appreciate textual and historical criticism. The Bible only becomes the Word of God when it's read within the context of a community that confesses the faith, guided by the Holy Spirit. That's why Catholics and mainline Protestants have Synods and Conventions, to listen to God's Word and interpret the Bible collectively, and decide stances on difficult issues.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either on its own or as a response to my criticism. Again, if this is the book God wants to leave behind as testimony, why is so much of it... Well, garbage? Why muddle the witness with the myths? Why make it contextual on anything? Why bundle the story of Jesus together with false claims about a flood or a creation mythos?

I've read it. It seemed like black gallows humor to me. Not something I want to feast on.

Really? While some of the humor is indeed quite dark (such as pretty much everything in Mostly Harmless, which was IMO not the strongest entry in the series), I found the deadpan delivery of many of the jokes, particularly the Guide entries, to be absolutely jolly, good-hearted fun. The joke where Beeblebrox steps into the machine that shows his precise relation to the universe and it tells him that he is literally the most important thing in the universe, for example? Hilarious. Shame you didn't like it so much, those books helped me survive middle school better than almost anything else.

 

[FireDragon76]

q

What's wrong with taking a rationalistic approach to life, though? It consistently produces an internal model of reality most directly correlative to external reality. In almost every aspect of our lives, we are expected (and often suffer greatly for not doing so) to think rationally and skeptically.

I think you are just living in an atheist bubble of self-confirmation bias. In many areas of life, people are expected to be emotionally competent, not cold and calculating.

I'm not sure what my "heart" has to do with anything; if you mean just going off of "gut feeling" or impulse... Well, that has a notoriously bad track record.

So I guess you don't believe in intuition at all?

No, I'm not just talking about a gut feeling. But I am critiquing your view that autonomous reason is adequate to live a fulfilling life.

my uncle Jerry is a far smarter man than I am, but when it comes to God, I can't help but shake my head at some of the absurdities that come out of his mouth. It's because he was taught to hold things on faith, so he... really just doesn't think rationally on the subject.

Jerry is otherwise a smart man but on the subject of religion you assume he suddenly becomes stupid and that his beliefs are worthless. And you don't understand how that couldn't seem a bit... bigoted?

The solution, however, will probably not come by going back to farming techniques that could feed a population one tenth the size of the one we have today.

I'm Christian... but I'm not Amish!

In the discusion around global warming, invariably certain people grab technological fixes as the solution, and they put their hopes in that. I see that as inadequate. There are ,for lack of a better term, wrongs being committed here that need to be accounted for. And that requires being able to admit "we are wrong, the way we were doing things is not good". It will require sacrifice and unprecedented international cooperation. Something that even secular humanists admit is hard to deal with in their worldview (Australian philosopher Peter Singer even admits that global warming is a great challenge to secularists, because of the inability to justify moral absolutes).

Jokes aside, though, I think Douglas Adams said it best: "Is it not enough to acknowledge that the garden is beautiful without imagining fairies at the bottom?" I can sit outside and acknowledge the aesthetic beauty of something without any need to invent a reason for why I find it beautiful.

Of course, but you believe when you die that beauty is going to be gone... forever, for all purposes that matter to you. My Christian faith gives me hope that will not be the case. When I see something beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, I'm looking into a glimpse of eternity seen through a glass darkly. One day I will see that beauty face to face. And it means, the cloud, the tree me, everything else, is part of something greater that was meant to resonate with that intuition of beauty. I'm not some random accident of nature, and neither are you.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either on its own or as a response to my criticism. Again, if this is the book God wants to leave behind as testimony, why is so much of it... Well, garbage? Why muddle the witness with the myths? Why make it contextual on anything? Why bundle the story of Jesus together with false claims about a flood or a creation mythos?

Because that's the way God has chosen to reveal himself. And it's the scandal of particularity that Judaism and Christianity both share, that has been a stumbling block for the pagan world ever since. God's grace comes to us principally through the physical, earthy, messy stuff of this world, the detestable and lowly things (Jesus born in a manger and dying on a cross being another example), and always has and always will.

Again, most human beings, regardless of their religion, don't share your hangups, and seem to grasp a transcendent being doesn't have to fit inside the box or cage of their own desiring... now who is being the self-centered one here?

 

[ScottA]

I have not been presented with convincing evidence that a god exists.

Any omniscient, omnipotent god would know exactly what would be necessary to convince me, and would be easily able to make that happen.

Ergo, assuming that God exists, God necessarily has no interest in whether or not I am convinced of his existence.

Now, if we assume a literal hell, wouldn't this be a horrific moral oversight on God's end?

Now is not the time.

I mean, your whole life...is your time, not just the part you have experience thus far. His timing is perfect...but you are not waiting on Him, He is waiting on you - this is something you [personally] need.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But it is an excuse. It's always used at the end of a conversation when the theist has been shown to have employed faulty logic when trying to argue for their beliefs. Instead of owning up to their logical mistakes, they throw out that particular phrase, which amounts to "So what if I can't argue logically? I don't have to."

The bottom line is that if you're going to present arguments for your theistic beliefs, especially in the Philosophy forum, you better know what you're doing, or no one is going to take you seriously.

What is the thread topic?

God cannot be discussed using logic for those who do not know Him.

 

[11god11]

Would you be more specific? This is tiring. Otherwise I'm going.

well done youre obviously a seasoned veteran :] why are people so intensely against Christ?and hard to reason with?

 

[The Cadet]

I think you are just living in an atheist bubble of self-confirmation bias. In many areas of life, people are expected to be emotionally competent, not cold and calculating.

There's nothing about rational thought that excludes emotion. Just because the first tool I reach to is rationality doesn't mean my emotions and the emotions of others don't factor into that. There's no dichotomy here - empathy is often best achieved by first reasoning about how best to achieve it.

So I guess you don't believe in intuition at all?

I believe intuition is far less useful than many people give it credit for. On issues outside our direct experience, it is almost completely useless. Particularly science, philosophy, and mathematics are riddled with cases where our intuition has failed us in outright famous ways (if you have the time, I'm a big fan of this video outlining many such cases). But here's my favorite example: it's intuitive that making punishments for crime more draconic will reduce crime, and that releasing criminals from prison would increase crime. Neither is actually the case, though, and actual research bears this out, but this intuition has led to a lot of destroyed lives.

If you have an intuition, it can be a good starting point for examination. But if you cannot actually figure out why you have that intuition and back it up with reason, then all it is is a dangerous bias.

Jerry is otherwise a smart man but on the subject of religion you assume he suddenly becomes stupid and that his beliefs are worthless. And you don't understand how that couldn't seem a bit... bigoted?

I don't just assume; he makes statements that are patently absurd, and rejects all manner of logical argument. Perhaps a better example is my friend Yosarian. This guy is one smart cookie, knows his way around boats and knots better than anyone, and is extremely well-cultured and well-read. He also believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I've tried to point him to the evidence, and he has no interest in it. At all. He is clearly completely incapable of seeing this issue rationally, as smart as he is otherwise. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here.

In the discusion around global warming, invariably certain people grab technological fixes as the solution, and they put their hopes in that. I see that as inadequate. There are ,for lack of a better term, wrongs being committed here that need to be accounted for. And that requires being able to admit "we are wrong, the way we were doing things is not good". It will require sacrifice and unprecedented international cooperation. Something that even secular humanists admit is hard to deal with in their worldview (Australian philosopher Peter Singer even admits that global warming is a great challenge to secularists, because of the inability to justify moral absolutes).

I... Don't really get why Peter Singer would say that. Modern secular ethics as described by people like Harris or Dillahunty does not seem ill-equipped to deal with global warming. In fact, looking into it, Singer is speaking specifically about his own moral system, preferential utilitarianism. I don't know enough about preferential utilitarianism to say either way, but looking at how Dillahunty defines a secular moral system, I don't see why it would be incapable of accounting for the wrongs of global warming. And it's not typically the atheists who are unworried about global warming. If any affiliation seems unworried, it's the evangelicals.

Of course, but you believe when you die that beauty is going to be gone... forever, for all purposes that matter to you.

I believe that when I die, everything will be gone for all purposes that matter to me, because I will cease to be. The objects will persist long beyond me, and it's extremely likely that people long after me will consider these things beautiful, but my subjective perception ends at that point. I see no reason why this:

My Christian faith gives me hope that will not be the case. When I see something beautiful or aesthetically pleasing, I'm looking into a glimpse of eternity seen through a glass darkly. One day I will see that beauty face to face. And it means, the cloud, the tree me, everything else, is part of something greater that was meant to resonate with that intuition of beauty. I'm not some random accident of nature, and neither are you.

...Should be the case. To me, it seems like wishful thinking at best.

Because that's the way God has chosen to reveal himself. And it's the scandal of particularity that Judaism and Christianity both share, that has been a stumbling block for the pagan world ever since.

See, you seem to understand what a problem this is. So to loop back around... If God wants me to know him, why

Again, most human beings, regardless of their religion, don't share your hangups, and seem to grasp a transcendent being doesn't have to fit inside the box or cage of their own desiring...

Demanding that the actions of a being which supposedly exists make even the slightest bit of sense, particularly if there's dispute about that being's existence or goals, is not unreasonable. I mean, essentially, here's what it boils down to in my head.

It makes very little sense for the testimony of the living god to be filled with errors, contradictions, and absurdities.
It makes a whole lot of sense for the mythical writings of ancient peoples to be filled with errors, contradictions, and absurdities.
It makes very little sense for a god who wants to know us to hide his existence from the world and not offer clear signs of his existence.
It makes a whole lot of sense for a god who doesn't exist to hide his existence from the world and not offer clear signs of his existence.

Now, maybe god is just acting exactly the way you might expect if God wasn't actually real... For whatever reason. I just can't fathom a good reason to believe that that's the case.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What is the thread topic?

What's the name of this forum?

God cannot be discussed using logic for those who do not know Him.

So you're unable to use logic in discussing gods? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

 

[The Cadet]

Hello Cadet -see my latest post to Locutus.

I'll just be nice and say that it's not impressive or convincing, and leave it at that.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's nothing about rational thought that excludes emotion. Just because the first tool I reach to is rationality doesn't mean my emotions and the emotions of others don't factor into that. There's no dichotomy here - empathy is often best achieved by first reasoning about how best to achieve it.

I disagree. Even from a biological perspective, empathy is much more complicated than simply thinking deeply about things, and it's possible to be highly intelligent but also have little or no empathy. I've known some highly intelligent people that were quite uncaring, even sadistic.

. Particularly science, philosophy, and mathematics are riddled with cases where our intuition has failed us in outright famous ways

Have you heard of Stephen Jay Goulds concept of mutually non-overlapping magisterial? I believe the rules of science are different from other human undertakings, like art or philosophy, or religion. You are trying to apply the rules of science to an area where it simply isn't as useful.

But here's my favorite example: it's intuitive that making punishments for crime more draconic will reduce crime,

I think its more basic than that, some people believe that crime deserves punishment (even intelligent philosophers like Kant have said as much), for no other reason than the pain and suffering that crime causes, so their motivation is more retributive than therapeutic. They simply don't always care whether it reduces crime or not, that's not always the motivation behind harsh punishments

but this intuition has led to a lot of destroyed lives.

I'm no fan of jailing somebody for smoking pot but... maybe some of those people deserve those "destroyed lives"?

This guy is one smart cookie, knows his way around boats and knots better than anyone, and is extremely well-cultured and well-read. He also believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I've tried to point him to the evidence, and he has no interest in it.

It doesn't sound like he's smart so much as he has expertise in a narrow area, or possibly he's a schizotypal personality and attracted to odd thinking.

He is clearly completely incapable of seeing this issue rationally, as smart as he is otherwise. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here.

Well, the good news is that I believe HIV causes AIDS and I've never met a Christian in real life that thought otherwise. On the other hand, I have a friend who is an agnostic Australian who denies HIV causes AIDS ( and yes, it's very frustrating and a subject I just try to avoid). Poor judgement is not limited to just those who go to church. In fact I think its more likely once you stop believing in God you are more likely to believe anything.

I... Don't really get why Peter Singer would say that. Modern secular ethics as described by people like Harris or Dillahunty does not seem ill-equipped to deal with global warming.

Is this the same Sam Harris we are talking about? He's not a serious philosopher. He seems to just be stirring up a moral panic about religion without giving much respect to the depth or complexity of his subject. And his argument that we can have morality based purely on scientific data seems to be confusing is with ought. There's no reason a scientific worldview couldn't support a dysptoian society (think of Nazis or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World- the Nazi's had some very good scientists, but horrible human beings), as well as it would support his own political philosophy.

And it's not typically the atheists who are unworried about global warming. If any affiliation seems unworried, it's the evangelicals.

I never said atheists are unworried by it, but atheists ethicists like Singer have seen problems in articulating why anybody should ultimately care about it. The problem is so huge it's beyond the individual and her immediate concerns, and secular humanism is profoundly individualistic in its moral scope.

There are some conservative evangelicals that are also scientists, even climatologists. Have you seen the documentary, Years of Living Dangerously? And if you look at conservative evangelical clergy (who are usually more educated than the laity), I think you will find less denial of global warming than you think. The issue is really down to politics- liberals have done a poor job reaching out to social conservatives and have polarized environmental issues to the point the average conservative has less reason to trust mainstream environmentalists. After all, some environmentalists really do love animals or trees more than farmers, hunters, or construction workers. And it's here I think religious groups can help bridge this gap, since often religious groups can address diverse groups with common moral concerns (for instance, look at the civil rights movement and how many of its leaders or supporters were clergy or highly involved in religious institutions).

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Hi Cadet. Why bother with chatting to a bunch of delusional people on a forum site? Shouldn't you be out living your life to the full not worrying about God or those who believe in Him? If there really is no God, then how do you justify your time on this forum?

 

[The Cadet]

I disagree. Even from a biological perspective, empathy is much more complicated than simply thinking deeply about things, and it's possible to be highly intelligent but also have little or no empathy. I've known some highly intelligent people that were quite uncaring, even sadistic.

Psychopathy is a thing. But it's not the rule, and it doesn't come from an overemphasis on science.

You want a great example of what I've been talking about? Back in Descartes's day, people believed that animals were essentially automatons, incapable of feeling pain. This knowledge led to people essentially not caring about animal welfare at all, instead treating them the way you might treat a Roomba. It wasn't until we realized that they were far more than that that we got around to actually empathizing with them. Morality, more often than not, trails understanding. Someone who doesn't believe that global warming exists isn't going to consider it a moral issue. And of course, by thinking deeply about these issues, we can avoid trying to act on empathy in ways we really shouldn't (case in point).

There's nothing rational about denying emotions. As XKCD put it:

What a person feels is among the most important and relevant things to that person at any given moment. Yesterday, when I got home from the gym, I felt awful. Just absolutely fat and miserable and disgusting and fat and stupid and fat. It would take an absolute idiot or a robot to not look at that and recognize that no matter how rational I am, those feelings are super important, and should be recognized and addressed as such. But it's the rational side of me that recognizes that no matter how much I want it, the correct answer is not to order the large meat lovers and a pint of Ben and Jerry's.

Have you heard of Stephen Jay Goulds concept of mutually non-overlapping magisterial? I believe the rules of science are different from other human undertakings, like art or philosophy, or religion. You are trying to apply the rules of science to an area where it simply isn't as useful.

I've heard of the concept, but don't find it particularly sensible if we don't have an alternative way of thinking for those other magesteria. There's a reason philosophy is often seen as a navel-gazing waste of time, while science never is. We don't really have a coherent or useful way to go about philosophy or religion. I'm actually fairly convinced that the reasons we like art can be scientifically investigated, and we just haven't found the right formulas. We're sort of getting there with music and books - see also: Dan Brown, who I am convinced is actually just a front for a robot who writes incredibly popular glurge.

It doesn't sound like he's smart so much as he has expertise in a narrow area, or possibly he's a schizotypal personality and attracted to odd thinking.

The latter. :/ But just to give you the idea of what I mean when I say that Jerry is smart, but acts like a moron when it comes to one specific subject. This is not a rare issue when it comes to religion.

Is this the same Sam Harris we are talking about? He's not a serious philosopher. He seems to just be stirring up a moral panic about religion without giving much respect to the depth or complexity of his subject. And his argument that we can have morality based purely on scientific data seems to be confusing is with ought.

Full disclosure: I have not read "The Moral Landscape". I have, however, read some excerpts about it, and I have listened to Matt Dillahunty speak at length on the subject, and heard from him that Harris is basically arguing the same thing.

From my understanding, the resolution of "is-ought" is that we create the "ought". We set goals, i.e. "we ought to have a functional society", "people ought to be as free as possible", etc., and then we judge actions in relation to those goals. IMO this is a fairly coherent manner of thinking about morality.

There's no reason a scientific worldview couldn't support a dysptoian society (think of Nazis or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World- the Nazi's had some very good scientists, but horrible human beings), as well as it would support his own political philosophy.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Also, the science that was most potent in guiding the Nazi's philosophical leanings was outright wrong - pseudoscience based first and foremost on prejudice and conspiracy theories. If you want to appeal to Brave New World, can I appeal to Star Trek?

I never said atheists are unworried by it, but atheists ethicists like Singer have seen problems in articulating why anybody should ultimately care about it. The problem is so huge it's beyond the individual and her immediate concerns, and secular humanism is profoundly individualistic in its moral scope.

I'm not convinced this problem exists in the ethical systems laid out by Dillahunty and Harris, as said. I can easily see how Singer's utilitarianism would have a problem with it, as the scope there is very small, but things like Hans Jonas's "Ethik der Verantwortung" do a slightly better job (although I am not a fan of that particular work).

 

[The Cadet]

Hi Cadet. Why bother with chatting to a bunch of delusional people on a forum site? Shouldn't you be out living your life to the full not worrying about God or those who believe in Him? If there really is no God, then how do you justify your time on this forum?

I'm having an enlightening and intellectually stimulating conversation with FireDragon76. I'm not bored. I'd call those good reasons to be here.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I'm having an enlightening and intellectually stimulating conversation with FireDragon76. I'm not bored. I'd call those good reasons to be here.

Okay man. I just sometimes wonder why some people who don't believe in God spend so much time debating with those who do. I understand that it is intellectually stimulating, but aren't we just delusional from the atheistic perspective? I wouldn't find myself very enlightened talking with delusional people, maybe irritated, but not enlightened. But then again, from an atheistic perspective nothing really matters since we are all just random organisms that are here for no reason and will one day die out, so do whatever you will.