|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2001 : 02:05:15 [Permalink]
|
Slater, you claim to be a christian author scientist, and with equal aplomb, you claim there is no god.
"No, I never said that. I am an Atheist, a working scientist and a published author. The Christian part are words that you put in my mouth."
Clear enough, but if me put words in your mouth, did so with your willing assistance.
Think there is just nothing in science's toolbox to address issues of, what did you say.., the supernatural.
"Science deals solely with the natural (read: reality)"
Would have said physical reality. My reality includes science with a god.
That leaves the author's hat left, and in the absence of proof, it, too, would be fiction, or a personal opinion.
"That would be what my Editor at Doubleday is saying at this point. My writing on this web-site is my way of avoiding what I really should be doing.
It's a hell of a lot easier to respond than it is to create."
God said that too! *L*
"I respect those who don't wish their views to be part of a public forum, and those who do. Those who use public forums and expect their views to be above comment, or want to participate with only vague references to their views, I hold another opinion on. To "tease" is not a valid way to share information."
Acually completely agree, and hope, that my views are known well enough. Please, tease me no more, what is this definition of god, then?
"The personal problem that I am running into here is the difference between "Pagan" beliefs and Christian. The Pagans have an art, a poetic metaphor, in their religion. The Christians view all their metaphors (god, eternal life, devil, born again, resurrection, etc.) as if they were facts based in reality.
I've been using the "Christian brush" to tar everyone, and it was wrong of me to do so."
Honest enough and understandable as well, assuming your encounters to be with many more christians than others. Am not really clear as to what constitutes a "pagan," perhaps am one. If my conception of god seems ambiguous, it is because it really is ambiguous, to me as well.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 09:27:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Science deals solely with the natural (read: reality)"
Would have said physical reality. My reality includes science with a god.
The reality that science deals with is the testable, confirmable, one.
If we are talking about a "reality" that is your own personal one then we have left the realm of science and landed squarely in that of art.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 18:36:49 [Permalink]
|
Welp, must concede, that can find no support for the word, moral, requiring a divine authority. My friend, who suggested it may have been a regional convention, is doing post-grad work, out of the states in a rather chaotic area just now. His own historical references are here at home, and have imposed on him enough. Have looked in the Encyclopedia America, The Encyclopedia of Philosphy, and in the Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, and was unable to find the term "moral" used without any reference to ethics. There were references to "christian ethics" but nothing that was completely seperate and distinct. The closest could get, and it is a stretch...
Synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous.
right·eous adj.
Morally upright; without guilt or sin
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Copyright ©1996
Well, said it was a stretch. Being content with my beliefs, have gone through much more material, than ever would have on my own, some might be of interest, dunno. Here are some exerts.
Subject(s): RELIGION & science; RELIGION -- Philosophy; MONOD, Jacques; SOCIOBIOLOGY; MEMETICS
Author(s): Barlow, Connie
Source: Humanist, Mar/Apr98, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p17, 6p
THE WAY OF SCIENCE
Not long ago it was intellectually fashionable to declare that religion's time had passed. Religious experience--and even more so, religious dogma and superstitions--were regarded as drags on human progress. Supernatural belief bound the individual to pre-rational states of consciousness and choked societies with doctrines invented in pre-modern times. Marxists assailed skyward-looking religions for lulling the downtrodden into accepting a wretched existence here on Earth. Nietzsche proclaimed, "God is dead." Meanwhile, secular humanists held a mirror to themselves, turning to humankind and human culture as the only aspects of heaven and Earth worthy of reverence. We ourselves were the beginning and end of all meaning and value.
Smug disregard of the religious impulse has recently fallen out of fashion. Many people now realize that a sense of the sacred need not be based on superstition and supernaturalism. Joseph Campbell, who held that religion was whatever put one "in accord" with the universe, delighted in the mythic metaphors of diverse religious heritages while savaging those who corrupted the metaphor by claiming its material truth. For Huston Smith, religion is that which "gives meaning to the whole." Lawrence Kohlberg judged religion to be that which "affirms life and morality as related to a transcendent or infinite ground or sense of the whole." Theologian James Gustafson puts forth a definition of religion that is as accessible to atheists as to theists and that, moreover, offers possibilities for making peace with the Earth. In Gustafson's view, the religious capacity manifests as "a sense of dependence, of gratitude, obligation, remorse or repentance, and of possibility." Philosopher Loyal Rue defines religion simply as "an integrated under standing of how things are (cosmology) and what things matter (morality)." Note, therefore, that one need not be a theist to be counted among the religious. Rue is such an example; his religion, which is shaped from a scientific (specifically, evolutionary) understanding of the cosmos, is religious naturalism.
The human religious capacity is also being taken seriously today in part because of the work of biologists with impeccable credentials as scientific materialists. These scientists made the astonishing discovery that the religious impulse (for good or ill) may be too deeply rooted to be rooted out.
Umph, as someone in this thread might have said... Still found this article reassuring to me own stand. Have read about two scientists in Philadelphia, Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew Newberg, who are tracking how the brain responds to religion. They have found evidence that a certain kind of religious enlightenment - in this case, Tibetan Buddhist meditation - corresponds to increased activity in the brain's frontal lobe and decreased activity at the top-rear of the head. Found this by Ana Veciana-Suarez a columnist for The Miami Herald.
"I know many who think that science and religion rest on opposite edges of a wide chasm. My friend subscribes to this theory: You can't have one without dismissing the other.
I disagree. I live simultaneously in awe of logical debate and in reverence of God. I believe they are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Science and faith can be two ways of seeking the same thing. Both are an ongoing search, an infinite journey. Science requires controls; faith, surrender.
I have told this to my friend, a brilliant, well-educated, professional woman. I want to comfort her. But while you can teach science - its universal equations and processes - you can only FEEL your convictions of God's existence."
Better said than me could have. Bottom line, thou, my assertion that morality requires divine authority, remains just that, an assertion.., for now anyway.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/23/2001 18:44:08 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 19:16:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Better said than me could have. Bottom line, thou, my assertion that morality requires divine authority, remains just that, an assertion.., for now anyway.
You realize that your assertion implies that those that do not believe in a god are immoral?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 19:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Mmmmm..., what, another unintended consenquence?!?
In context, would say a good moral person believes in god, a good person who doesn't share that belief, would be an ethical person. To be literal within my assertion, an immoral person, would be a bad beliver. Your point is good though, and as stated, can find no valid source for my assertion...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/23/2001 19:39:24 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 21:11:45 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately, Nubi you fail to qualify your assertion leaving one with the impression that no god belief results in an immoral person. This is one of those things that many of us without a belief system resent hearing again and again from theists. It's almost as bad as opening an email that starts 'UR goin 2 burn in hell!'
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 02:06:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mmmmm..., what, another unintended consenquence?!?
Perhaps unintended, but those that do not subscribe to your personal belief system have seen where this goes for some time.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 09:43:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mmmmm..., what, another unintended consenquence?!?
In context, would say a good moral person believes in god, a good person who doesn't share that belief, would be an ethical person. To be literal within my assertion, an immoral person, would be a bad beliver. Your point is good though, and as stated, can find no valid source for my assertion...
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/23/2001 19:39:24
Nubi,
As others have stated here, failing to qualify your statement implies that those lacking a God belief are immoral. This is simply not true. The problem seems to stem from a mistake in thinking. A saying that sticks with me and helps me to respectfully debate an issue is "your opponent is never evil in his own eyes." The response to a poster who asked for clarification indicated that perhaps you agree with the implication that those without a God belief are immoral. I do not see morals as being faith dependant, rather they are societially dependant. Although faith provides some rationalizations for a moral, it is not the only source.
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 10:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do not see morals as being faith dependant, rather they are societially dependant. Although faith provides some rationalizations for a moral, it is not the only source.
This would seem to be supported as the more correct position.., damn it! 
quote:
As others have stated here, failing to qualify your statement implies that those lacking a God belief are immoral. This is simply not true.
Given the sad state of my assertion, *sigh*, still the use of moral or morality, and the like, would have implied a belief in god by the subject of judgement. If so, within my unfounded assertion, your statement would be a oxymoronic one. Those lacking a godly belief, could only be judged as unethical or bad, for whatever reason, and not immoral. Had assumed these distinctions were obivous, apparently incorrectly. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/24/2001 10:33:31 |
|
|
|
Kristin
Skeptic Friend
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 10:43:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Given the sad state of my assertion, *sigh*, still the use of moral or morality, and the like, would have implied a belief in god by the subject of judgement. If so, within my unfounded assertion, your statement would be a oxymoronic one. Those lacking a godly belief, could only be judged as unethical or bad, for whatever reason, and not immoral. Had assumed these distinctions were obivous, apparently incorrectly.
Can you clarify this please? I know you already have to a lot of others, but.. are you saying that (atheists) people who do NOT believe in A god, ANY god, are unethical, but not immoral?
this doesn't make sense, as ethics is an word used to either describe a code of conduct, or is directly related to morality!. Hell, a Satanist could be ethical if they were the timid type 
eth·ic (thk)
n.
A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.
Good judgement comes from experience: experience comes from bad judgement. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 15:58:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you clarify this please? I know you already have to a lot of others, but.. are you saying that (atheists) people who do NOT believe in A god, ANY god, are unethical, but not immoral?
Hope not!
In the context of my unvalidated assertion, that morality requires divine authority for meaning. Judgements of moral behavior, could only aply to those, who believe in a god. Their actions could be found to be moral or immoral, as well as ethical or unethical. Judgements of those, who do not believe in a god, would have been confined to only a question ethics.
quote:
this doesn't make sense, as ethics is an word used to either describe a code of conduct, or is directly related to morality!. Hell, a Satanist could be ethical if they were the timid type
Absolutely, timid or not.
The purpose of posting the question, "Does Evil Exist," was to examine the consenquences of a godless existence upon concepts of morality. My unsubstantiated assumption of there being a divine authority for morals, was the basis of my approach to the question of, "Does God Exist". With that assumption lacking validation, the approach doesn't make sense. OK?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 23:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]
The purpose of posting the question, "Does Evil Exist," was to examine the consenquences of a godless existence upon concepts of morality. My unsubstantiated assumption of there being a divine authority for morals, was the basis of my approach to the question of, "Does God Exist". With that assumption lacking validation, the approach doesn't make sense. OK?
[/size=3][/font=Arial]
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
religion may be a mechanism for defining morality and moral behavior. it certainly is not the only path to morality. any viable society or social order needs some commonly understood idea of what constitutes ethical behavior. corporations or professional organizations often have very clear ethical guidelines for the emoloyees at all levels. perhaps the motivation is efficiency, rather than seeking god's approval.
i am an athiest, i am a school teacher. as a school teacher, i am guided by well defined ethical rules and guidelines of the profession, with real penalties for ethical lapses.
there are many example of ethical systems in the corporate world, in big science, in acadamia, government that can exist in the absence of any need for god at all
but having had a margarita or two, i am losing my train of thought. good night
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 12:00:40 [Permalink]
|
@tomic
quote:
I was watching a documentary on Stalin the other night and had this idea about what evil is. And this goes along with what I said earlier about how moral behavior is behavior that, when adhered to, increases the chances of a population's survival.
I think this definition of morality is insufficient. Survival is not enough. Morality also requires that a society act to protect and further the quality of life for all it's members (in as much as that is possible). Slavery doesn't necessarily prevent the survival or reproductive success of the slave. It does reduce the quality of the slave's life. This is sufficient grounds to call it immoral (in my opinion).
I believe that morality is a human invention. This does not, to my mind, invalidate it or imply that it be subject to the current whims of a particular society. A society may be more or less moral depending on how well it's ethics match the underlying ethical absolutes. The real task would be to define those absolutes and figure out the rules for applying them to real world situations. At the very least there would have to be a moral hierarchy. E.G. Most people think lying is bad. But most people would consider lying to protect a life as moral. So honesty may be a lower moral standard that preservation of life. Of course, in a lot of situations, it gets more complicated.
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2001 : 17:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"I like the silent church before the service begins,
better than any preaching."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
It would seem this thread is exhausted, no one has offered any comments to it for some time, now, and so will make this my final post to it. From the start, in the other forum on the existence of god, knew there was no scientific proof to be offered as to the existence of god. So me chose a rather oblique approach, unfortunately, an inaccurate one, based on moral values and the definition of moral. Had me entered with a post to the effect, that i think its quite possible to hold a belief in a god, the creator, the architect of this universe that we find ourselves within, and a reliance upon the scientific method at the same time, think it would have been dismissed out of hand.
Am no better, nor worse, than any one of you, but it is a subject that occupied much of my thoughts, though more so in my youth. That which shapes and moves behind the fabric of reality, god, random chance, or nothing at all? As the demands of mundane life closed in, the task of putting food on the plate and keeping a roof overhead, forced me to set the question aside, unresolved. Think it was the wisest course possible in retrospect, and would advocate it to any, who would listen.
Have had experiences, where i knew with absolute certainity of the existence of god, privately first hand, but in all honesty, they were indeed emotional filled moments, and was most definitely in a "state of mind." Being alone, there was no way to prove them as "reality" to anyone else, nor was that even a question for me at the time. The first time i held my childern just moments after their first breath, were emotional states as well, and yet, has been confirmed as indeed physical reality. With the passage of time, the vividness of those moments dim, and wonder at times, if they were actually "real." It is human's nature to question, even ourselves, after all. Have never felt that degree of certainity with there being no god, only a conclusion based upon probabilities. Today, me thinks they were real. The most personal comforting revealation from my godly experiences, was the reassurance, that events are unfolding as they are meant to be. Whether humanity survives or not, whether am personally successful or not, it is as it should be. Knowing that, have slept better ever since, believing or not. My god is kind that way.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
- Steven Wright -
Have heard an infant's first major realization, is making the distinction between itself and the rest of the world/universe. When i contemplate in complete awe the scale of this universe we share, when looking into the stars, thinking about the march of evolution accross time, or the power contained within those tiny atoms, which are themselves made up of largely empty space, the schemes of DNA.., the wonders of reality, and my god leads me to 'un-learn' that first lesson. With my belief in god, i feel being part, a real connection with all i perceive again. And i do like it.
quote:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully,
as when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal
The scriptures? Tend to see them as historical documents, written by men, who obiviously belived in a god they wrote of, but found what moral guildance they offered, was generally shared by all i explored, while still being valid. Their differences hardly seemed a reason to wage war over. The religions explored, came to see, as living artifacts of the ancient world's politics. Their shared scheme, to out breed and to out kill or displace, those of competing beliefs. A common strategy found thoughout nature. The one exception containing some joy, which may be argued as more philosophy than religion, was Zen. It offers no promise of life everlasting, but to only fully experience this moment, now! No small feat, to my way of thinking. Unwilling to concede the concept of god intrinsically to religions, became firmly convinced, that no being of flesh, bone, and blood, should be allowed between one and their god. Guildance in finding, perhaps, but never as a spokesman for. Although have found many insprirational morally upright persons, that do practice within a religion, as am sure you have as well.
So you can see, me could count on no allies coming forth from either side of the question. My relationship with my ideal of god, has been a casual one, and he doesn't seem to mind. In fact have stood on both sides of the debate, and may move between them several more times before i'm finally through. But the door is always left ajar to the other possibility. Currently prefer to think there is a god, knowing humanity's role is extremely small to insignificant, this universe we share and as has been revealed by our sciences, is an awfully large stage for having no major players. Kind'a think whatever heaven or hell, there is, is experienced within our earthly lifetimes, and doubt there is more life, than what we experience in our corporeal form. *L* But do leave the door to possiblity open, willing to be pleasantly surprised. In either event, its certainly more than we've any right to expect, and am immeasurably grateful for the life given me. Thank you God.
"I will concentrate on the beauty of one blue hill in
the distance, and for me, that moment will be eternity."
-Alice Walker-
With the arbitrary nature of morals, having been estabished, how about concepts of rights, due process, how might they fair in our world of ever more people and ever less resources? I would ask my skeptical friends, will you leave to chance the natural forces of famines, plagues, and wars, to bring our population into control? Wars tend to eliminate the best of us, while famine and plagues are the harshest on the very young and our elders. With your reliance upon scientific methods of reason and thought, would think you able to at the least, propose a more selective method of population control than mere chance. Should you ever try, where might you hope to find the inspriration, courage, and guidance?
Knowing our current world created by humanity's will, slavery is still being practised, childern as young as ten forced to kill their parents to ensure their loyalty and then pressed into service as soldiers by their captors, depriving whole populations food as a weapon, ha!, the sins of humanity are as varied as many. Cruel, or perhaps evil, as they are, those methods are cheap and they work. The integrity and brilliance of Dubya's leadership of the free world is a reality, too. Even you, who believe there is no god, must admit, there damned well ought to be. Huh? *L* No proofs can be offered, but still would suggest you to be at least open to the possibility.
"Uncle"
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2001 : 12:59:28 [Permalink]
|
"Now a new symbol dominates the New York skyline, and the philosopher Plotinus offers the best account of it. According to Plotinus, evil is neither a demon nor Satan nor any kind of being. Evil is an absence. In the skyline now there is an empty space where the twin towers used to be. I gaze out my study window, where I am used to seeing the towers, and I can hardly believe what I see. I see nothing. Smoke and sky. It is the symbol of absolute evil."
-Paul Berman
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
