Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[stevevw]

Ah, you've met Stevevw then!

I have been debating with Archaeopteryx well before you came along.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well as far as I can see it is related. I know where you are coming from so I am addressing your implications as well as what you have directly said. Your implications are that I dont have an open mind. I said that I dont believe science or atheists in particular have an open mind. I used the example that they were willing to consider far fetched theories to explain what they see but not even mention God or that any supernatural influence could be involved.

And I keep dispelling your misconception, only to have you repeat it again and again. Once again, for the fourth or fifth time, in principle, there is no problem with positing Goddidit as a hypothesis. The problem arises in practice when it comes to supporting that hypothesis. All scientists have to play by the same rules, supporting their theories with arguments and evidence. But you don't want to play by those rules. Is it any wonder then that scientists aren't interested in what you have to say?

I was saying that their far fetched theories have some supernatural aspects to them.

Like what?

I havnt said that the science isnt holding up to as you worded it the "highest epistemic standards". I said they dont even keep to a fairly low standard when it comes to some of their theories. They can more or less say anything.

No, they can't, because they'll be called out on it, just like you're being called out on it.

As some scientist are saying there is room for both. They can work hand in hand.

How?

But thats the point I am trying to say is that you are only looking at it in a one dimensional view. There maybe other ways to look at it and gain insights about life and ourselves. This may also lead us to find answers that we couldn't see with the science.

So it won't actually advance our knowledge of cosmogony? Then what on earth is the point of positing it as a hypothesis?!

No your not following. I have said all the time that what is proposed by a God theory is indirect evidence. Just like the indirect evidence that scientists use for their theories about multi universes, string theory and holograms ect. There will never be any direct evidence that we can see like viewing God or a another universe somewhere as they are not in our dimensional reality. That stands to reason. So there will never by any direct evidence and that is why we have to have faith in the end. But as a believer I have faith and I also have some indirect evidence of God. I see this in nature and the universe as Gods creation. In the complexity of life in our DNA and with other little things that work in my life when I pray ect.

Science doesn't operate on faith, steve. This is another reason why most scientists don't take what you say seriously. You barge in, claim Goddidit is the answer, and then when your claim is held up to scrutiny, you demand exemption and offer faith as a solution. No wonder scientists don't waste their time on apologetics. You've got nothing to offer them.

But I still use logic and science in my life but see the things of God go beyond this. You will do the same except you will also base everything in the science method. So even when you may see something that may indicate that there maybe something going on that involves God or a power behind things you will snuff that out pretty quick with your worldly thinking. The worldly thinking wants evidence for everything and believes that nothing comes from God and all have a naturalistic explanation somewhere. So the foundation you start fro wont lead you to God but away from Him..

You're rambling, again.

No see thats the problem with anti God beliefs they go to an extreme. Just because we may entertain the idea that God maybe involved doesn't mean we throw science out the window. Some people do and thats their naivety. But that naivety can be seen in any area of a persons life. We can be unreal in love. But there are many scientists who use the logic of science to explain things and take things as far as they can. Without it we cannot arrive at a place where we can see where God comes in. So you have to include science if you really want to see God. Even atheists scientists like Hawking say this.

They are searching for the theory of everything and some say this is when we will find the mind of God. They are sort of joking but not really because if and when we get to that point we will be knowing a lot of stuff like how something comes into existence from nothing for example. We may not ever find it. But I can make a prediction now that what we will find will baffle scientists even more and bring up some hard to explain things that they will not be able to explain and cause them to ponder that there maybe some power behind things.

As I said in my previous post:

So if they can't explain how the universe came to be, you will conclude that it was God. On the other hand, if they can explain how the universe came to be, then that too you will conclude is God. Do you see why this is problematic? Regardless of whether science develops an explanation for the origin of the universe or not, your conclusion will be the same. This is why I'm not convinced that you hold your own hypothesis to the same epistemic standards as alternative hypotheses, because even if one of the alternatives gained unequivocal empirical support, you would still conclude that Goddidit. In which case your demand for evidence for the alternatives rings hollow. The evidence is simply immaterial because your conclusion will remain the same.

Disingenuous double-standards of this kind are generally considered unacceptable in the scientific community.

 

[stevevw]

And I keep dispelling your misconception, only to have you repeat it again and again. Once again, for the fourth or fifth time, in principle, there is no problem with positing Goddidit as a hypothesis. The problem arises in practice when it comes to supporting that hypothesis. All scientists have to play by the same rules, supporting their theories with arguments and evidence. But you don't want to play by those rules. Is it any wonder then that scientists aren't interested in what you have to say?

We seem to have a break down in communication. I am not saying anyone should believe in God because I am promoting a God hypothesis. I am just saying why not. I know you accept that which is good. But then when you state that it wont work because scientist have to support their hypothesis they cant do that anyway with their own ones. But they can still present them because they havnt got anything else at the moment. We know that a hypothesis has to be proven to be accepted. But in all honesty I dont think that any scientists will prove their hypothesis for what they are presenting with the multi universe and the others. Its impossible to do so just like the God hypothesis. We can only go on indirect evidence. So all those hypothesis are in the same boat.

Like what?

Like worm holes and black holes. Worm holes that can allow us to take short cuts through time and space and maybe travel into the future. Being able to travel inside a black holes. Multi universes where there could be another you or me living a slightly different life. Maybe some with strange creatures that are flat and wide or tall and skinny because of different gravity ratios. Hologram universes that are like flat screen TVs on walls in a universe ect. They are proposing may things like this and they are saying that some scientists who present a hypothesis that our conscience maybe something that exists outside our reality are talking quantum woo. They say that God is unreal, come on, Whose wooing who.

No, they can't, because they'll be called out on it, just like you're being called out on it.

No they cant get caught out on them because there unprovable. They are based in other dimensions where we can never go and prove them, just like God. So they can say whatever. They wont get questioned because most of them go along with it because its the consensus. But when you look into it there is very little evidence for some but they talk about them like there true. Thats because thats all they have and if they dont come up with something then there will be a deafening noise that points to God. So they have to fill that void with anything even if its crazy things.

How?

Well some scientists say that both science and philosophy are important and should be considered together. Science tells us how and philosophy tells us why.
Big Bang: Is there room for God?
BBC News - Big Bang: Is there room for God?

A complex God: why science and religion can co-exist

Religion And Science Can Coexist: Some Scientists Practice More Than The General Public - International Science Times

So it won't actually advance our knowledge of cosmogony? Then what on earth is the point of positing it as a hypothesis?!

How do you know it wont. It maybe that by including God we can understand better how something works. If we find in 100 years we still haven't worked out how quantum physics works where particles can be in two states or positions at the same time we may be able to say this is a act of God and thats why we cant work it out. That would allow us to move on and put that into perspective. What happens after thousands of years when we still cant work out how something comes from nothing. Will we keep saying no we cant include a God because there has to be a logical reason. We maybe overlooking what maybe the correct answer because of our refusal to include it. The fact is we can use science to understand something but by understanding how something works doesn't mean that that understand is what made it work. That is just the explanation. There maybe still a driving force that makes it all come together. So knowing that as well is important in the scheme of things. Otherwise we are having a very limited view of life and existence.

Science doesn't operate on faith, steve. This is another reason why most scientists don't take what you say seriously. You barge in, claim Goddidit is the answer, and then when your claim is held up to scrutiny, you demand exemption and offer faith as a solution. No wonder scientists don't waste their time on apologetics. You've got nothing to offer them.

Science doesn't operate on faith but people do and scientists can have faith in some of their hypothesis. Ones like multi universe will never and can never be proven so the scientists will cling onto these for a very long time. Even now they have had these type of things floating around for a while and some talk about them like they are true. But you once again putting words in my mouth. I havnt come along and said God did it. I have said that it should be a alternative hypothesis to what we are seeing with quantum physics and astrophysics at the moment. Because we are at the point where we are looking at how something comes into existence from nothing it seems to be a good fit for a hypothesis about how things are made out of nothing.

You're rambling, again.

Whats the matter cant you keep up. Because my mind is open to God as well I have a lot more things to see and include so I can see the world and universe with so much more potential. I can not only understand it from a scientific view but also beyond that. If we only know the mind of God it would completely baffle us into the point of awe. But what I am saying is not rambling. This is said by many people. This world and atheists see things one way. A person who believes in God will see how God works in the scheme of things. As the bible says their eyes look but they do not see.

As I said in my previous post:

So if they can't explain how the universe came to be, you will conclude that it was God. On the other hand, if they can explain how the universe came to be, then that too you will conclude is God. Do you see why this is problematic? Regardless of whether science develops an explanation for the origin of the universe or not, your conclusion will be the same. This is why I'm not convinced that you hold your own hypothesis to the same epistemic standards as alternative hypotheses, because even if one of the alternatives gained unequivocal empirical support, you would still conclude that Goddidit. In which case your demand for evidence for the alternatives rings hollow. The evidence is simply immaterial because your conclusion will remain the same. Disingenuous double-standards of this kind are generally considered unacceptable in the scientific community.

I am not demanding anything. That is what you are saying I have said. I am presenting a case of God or a supernatural power being an alternative to what we see in life and existence. Once again for the 5th or 6th time I am saying that the evidence for what science presents with what they are seeing with how something comes from nothing is no better that what is said about God. I am not saying that science is immaterial as I have said it has its place and allows us to get to the point where we are looking at how something comes from nothing.

I have constantly used examples of science to make my points. I like quantum physics and try to study it and learn more about things. I find by understanding how things work through science I gain an appreciation for God. So its not absence of science that I invoke God but the opposite. But there has to be a point where science cant always answer the question.

Life must have had a beginning. It had to have come from nothing. So how can science ever answer this. This is where we are almost at now with quantum physics and the higgs boson. That is why there's all this quantum woo and crazy theories because they cant explain what they see. Some of it is over the top but a lot of it are genuine attempts to explain the crazy and unusual things happening near the point where existence comes into reality. Thats all I am saying. Not that God is the answer or has more proof. But that they should have equal consideration and maybe the only way we will be able to explain this. But it only has come into the equation after we have used the science to find out what is going on.

A science explanation isn't what causes something. As John Lennox said the maths or calculations and explanations dont do anything or create anything they just explain how things work. Science could be just pulling apart how God created things at the moment. But how will they ever explain how something comes form nothing. If they cant ever explain it then maybe they will have to admit there is something creative and all powerful behind things. Already there are some things that cause us to think this way. Even though they try to explain it its really a poor attempt at trying to put some naturalistic explanation on something that is so incredibly complex and amazing.

The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God.
Newsweek: Science Finds God

Anyway I just checked and we have gone off the topic so maybe we should be getting back to the subject of morals. This has been interesting but should be discussed in another forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We seem to have a break down in communication. I am not saying anyone should believe in God because I am promoting a God hypothesis. I am just saying why not. I know you accept that which is good. But then when you state that it wont work because scientist have to support their hypothesis they cant do that anyway with their own ones. But they can still present them because they havnt got anything else at the moment. We know that a hypothesis has to be proven to be accepted. But in all honesty I dont think that any scientists will prove their hypothesis for what they are presenting with the multi universe and the others. Its impossible to do so just like the God hypothesis. We can only go on indirect evidence. So all those hypothesis are in the same boat.

Why don't they take your proposition seriously? Perhaps it has something to do with the double standards you employ. You don't want to play by the rules. That's fine. Just don't play then.

Like worm holes and black holes. Worm holes that can allow us to take short cuts through time and space and maybe travel into the future. Being able to travel inside a black holes. Multi universes where there could be another you or me living a slightly different life. Maybe some with strange creatures that are flat and wide or tall and skinny because of different gravity ratios. Hologram universes that are like flat screen TVs on walls in a universe ect.

It's weird. But weird is not equivalent to supernatural.

They are proposing may things like this and they are saying that some scientists who present a hypothesis that our conscience maybe something that exists outside our reality are talking quantum woo. They say that God is unreal, come on, Whose wooing who.

No, they don't all say God is unreal. I wish you would stop putting words into people's mouths. And yes, that is woo, as Moriarty explained in the video.

No they cant get caught out on them because there unprovable. They are based in other dimensions where we can never go and prove them, just like God. So they can say whatever. They wont get questioned because most of them go along with it because its the consensus.

No, other scientists will call them out. Just like Moriarty called out Lanza. In my own field, psychology and neuroscience, there are a plethora of blogs devoted primarily to calling out shoddy or overblown claims.

But when you look into it there is very little evidence for some but they talk about them like there true.

I've already addressed this.

Thats because thats all they have and if they dont come up with something then there will be a deafening noise that points to God. So they have to fill that void with anything even if its crazy things.

For the ninth time, steve, you don't get to win by default. If no natural hypothesis ever gained widespread empirical support, then that would just mean that we are still at square one, which is ignorance, not Goddidit.

Well some scientists say that both science and philosophy are important and should be considered together. Science tells us how and philosophy tells us why.

I have no issue with science and philosophy working together. That's not what I asked.

How do you know it wont.

I don't know. That's why I asked you! I asked you what is to be gained by positing Goddidit as a hypothesis.

It maybe that by including God we can understand better how something works.

How?

If we find in 100 years we still haven't worked out how quantum physics works where particles can be in two states or positions at the same time we may be able to say this is a act of God and thats why we cant work it out. That would allow us to move on and put that into perspective.

But that's not an explanation, steve. That's you trying to mask our ignorance with Goddidit, itself a mysterious proposition.

Science doesn't operate on faith but people do and scientists can have faith in some of their hypothesis. Ones like multi universe will never and can never be proven so the scientists will cling onto these for a very long time. Even now they have had these type of things floating around for a while and some talk about them like they are true. But you once again putting words in my mouth. I havnt come along and said God did it. I have said that it should be a alternative hypothesis to what we are seeing with quantum physics and astrophysics at the moment. Because we are at the point where we are looking at how something comes into existence from nothing it seems to be a good fit for a hypothesis about how things are made out of nothing.

Why don't you listen? Why? How many times have I said that you can, in principle, posit Goddidit as a hypothesis? Why won't you take 'yes' for an answer? The issue, and I'm repeating myself here again, is that, in practice, you refuse to play by the rules of the game. You insist that your hypothesis is "a good fit," but you don't do any work to show that! This is why scientists don't take what you say seriously, steve. You think you can barge in, wipe the blackboard clean of all the equations, scrawl "Goddidit!" on the board, and declare that you've solved the problem, all without even so much as touching a cosmology journal. When asked to support that hypothesis, you simply point an accusing finger at the scientists and declare that unless they provide unequivocal empirical support for a natural hypothesis, yours is triumphant. You further state that even if they do provide empirical support for a natural hypothesis, yours is still triumphant! The blatant double-standard couldn't be more obvious.

Whats the matter cant you keep up.

No, I'd rather not waste my time addressing your every misdirect, which is why (in case you haven't noticed) I don't actually address everything you write. Only that which is relevant to the preceding discussion.

 

[stevevw]

Why don't they take your proposition seriously? Perhaps it has something to do with the double standards you employ. You don't want to play by the rules. That's fine. Just don't play then.

There is no double standard. we all know how science works and its accepted by everyone. We use it in our daily lives. No one is saying anything bad about science. If anything its the other way around. In some cases God and theism is pushed to quickly and unfairly out of the picture. If a student has religious beliefs in a science class room now they dont have a right to voice they opinions. A teacher can push their atheists beliefs and a student has to accept that. So we all know that science is the dominate thing when it comes to life.

I am just saying that now it is at this point of how something comes into nothing the normal science isn't always working. So we have to consider alternatives. But some scientists are accepting these alternative. Thats why we are seeing more of these other kinds of hypothesis like our conscience maybe a separate state we have or there maybe life after death with experiments. The science through quantum physics is pushing people to look at these things in the first place. But I have already backed this up with several sites showing how science and scientists are saying and doing this. You dont seem to either understand or believe me.

It's weird. But weird is not equivalent to supernatural.

Umm there seems to be a fine line which no one is stating for whats weird and whats moving into the supernatural. Meaning (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. To me what they are proposing a lot of the time with multi universes, other dimensions, holograms, worm holes and time travel ect is supernatural. See they get to expand their meanings and call it under the heading of science. This is what I am saying. There is a grey area where they seem to be able to invoke a lot of what they are accusing proponents of God in doing.

No, they don't all say God is unreal. I wish you would stop putting words into people's mouths. And yes, that is woo, as Moriarty explained in the video.

I'm not just talking about God but anything like the supernatural. In fact most things that are not within the consensus of mainstream science. Hence we see things like scientists saying its all woo. Or some of the people who have clout like Dawkins and Krause saying things like there is no God and “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” These are promoted things that represent the science and have a lot of sway. There is a concerted effort to take God out of the picture by many scientists.

No, other scientists will call them out. Just like Moriarty called out Lanza. In my own field, psychology and neuroscience, there are a plethora of blogs devoted primarily to calling out shoddy or overblown claims.

Yes but what do they base this on. If scientists themselves dont understand quantum physics then how do they know that our conscience may be something that can be separate from us and live on in some realm. This is being found by more than just Lanza so its not as if its a one off thing. Even quantum physics in principle states this. But we dont fully know at the moment. But I have already posted support about what Lanza was saying by other more famous scientists. Lanza maybe taking it to a more extreme point but what he is basically proposing is something a lot of scientists are thinking now and is a fundamental component of quantum physics.
I wonder if Moriarity is as upset at Tegmark and the other multiverse hypsters, or at Krauss and Dawkins for trying to overreach about what science can [say] regarding God?
I will leave it at this for the time being because I am busy and dont want to lose what I have already done.
Thanks
Stevevw.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no double standard. we all know how science works and its accepted by everyone. We use it in our daily lives. No one is saying anything bad about science.

There is a very clear double standard. You've amply demonstrated it in your comments.

If anything its the other way around. In some cases God and theism is pushed to quickly and unfairly out of the picture. If a student has religious beliefs in a science class room now they dont have a right to voice they opinions. A teacher can push their atheists beliefs and a student has to accept that. So we all know that science is the dominate thing when it comes to life.

That isn't true. They can voice their religious beliefs, and they have a right to. But they shouldn't expect that everyone take those beliefs as seriously as they do.

I am just saying that now it is at this point of how something comes into nothing the normal science isn't always working. So we have to consider alternatives. But some scientists are accepting these alternative. Thats why we are seeing more of these other kinds of hypothesis like our conscience maybe a separate state we have or there maybe life after death with experiments. The science through quantum physics is pushing people to look at these things in the first place. But I have already backed this up with several sites showing how science and scientists are saying and doing this. You dont seem to either understand or believe me.

I have no doubt that there are people who peddle all sorts of New Age woo. You've demonstrated that much as well. The issue is that the woo only bears a tenuous connection to genuine scientific work. It's so wildly overblown that the most prominent reaction it elicits among scientists is the facepalm.

Umm there seems to be a fine line which no one is stating for whats weird and whats moving into the supernatural. Meaning (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. To me what they are proposing a lot of the time with multi universes, other dimensions, holograms, worm holes and time travel ect is supernatural. See they get to expand their meanings and call it under the heading of science. This is what I am saying. There is a grey area where they seem to be able to invoke a lot of what they are accusing proponents of God in doing.

What they are proposing is weird, but weird does not imply supernatural. Natural processes can be weird. In our exchange thus far you haven't objected to my labelling of these hypotheses as naturalistic. Yet here you decide, quite suddenly, that even naturalistic hypotheses are actually supernatural?

I'm not just talking about God but anything like the supernatural. In fact most things that are not within the consensus of mainstream science. Hence we see things like scientists saying its all woo. Or some of the people who have clout like Dawkins and Krause saying things like there is no God and “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” These are promoted things that represent the science and have a lot of sway. There is a concerted effort to take God out of the picture by many scientists.

Scientists have opinions on religion. Many scientists, like Dawkins and Krauss, have a hostile attitude toward religion. Importantly, when they speak against religion they aren't speaking on behalf of the scientific community as a whole.* Similarly, when theistic scientists attempt to reconcile science with religion, they too aren't speaking on behalf of the scientific community, which consists of people with varied views on religion.

* There is one notable exception, however. When they speak against Creationism in particular, they do appear to have widespread support from the scientific community, including theistic scientists.

Yes but what do they base this on. If scientists themselves dont understand quantum physics then how do they know that our conscience may be something that can be separate from us and live on in some realm. This is being found by more than just Lanza so its not as if its a one off thing. Even quantum physics in principle states this. But we dont fully know at the moment. But I have already posted support about what Lanza was saying by other more famous scientists. Lanza maybe taking it to a more extreme point but what he is basically proposing is something a lot of scientists are thinking now and is a fundamental component of quantum physics.
I wonder if Moriarity is as upset at Tegmark and the other multiverse hypsters, or at Krauss and Dawkins for trying to overreach about what science can [say] regarding God?
I will leave it at this for the time being because I am busy and dont want to lose what I have already done.
Thanks
Stevevw.

Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's Notion of a Conscious Universe | Nirmukta