Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Delroy]

I googled historical science; from wiki-

"As a "historical science" (Paleontology) it attempts to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects"

"Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, philology and history itself.[3] This means that it aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[4] Hence it has three main elements: description of the phenomena; developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change; and applying those theories to specific facts.[3]"

 

[cancat]

This is a fair point. The question is "How far does it get you?" Remember it was Mojo's claim that child rape was inherently (objectively) wrong. Now I do no know about you but I think Mojo and I would both agree that a pederast who claimed the child "consented" to, say, anal penetration had no defence to the charge of rape and, more importantly, had committed a moral wrong (whiether we consider the wrong to be objective or subjective).

What follows from this is that, if child rape is inherently wrong it doesn't matter what "distinctions", as you put it, are made. What is inherently wrong is wrong irrespective of distinctions. That you are actually prepared to draw distinctions shows how subjective the whole subject of morality is.

I would say the distinctions were necessary because your scenario entailed a different meaning to the word rape. In the society you described there would be no concept of statutory rape. So in your example, a pederast who claimed the child consented to anal penetration would have a defence.

I think Mojo's choice of child rape was an attempt to find something so abhorent that it would be hard to find an argument against it being a universal human value and hence could be considered an objective value. Unfortunately for him the Old Testament contains examples of conquests where the victors take virgins as the spoils of war.

The question remains - if we find some acts and beliefs that are ubiquitous in humans can we say they are objective morals? Humans are the only animals on earth that has morality ie a considered view of right and wrong. To be moral is to be human. Are there some behaviours that are common to all humans? Are there some acts that are so out of kilter with past and present human behaviour that we can say they are not the behaviour of a human? Given the range of human behaviours I am sceptical on this point but remain open minded.

This is an unfair response. First, as Max Zero has pointed out, who are you to claim it is this society that is morally abberrant. Cart before horse?

See above what I meant by abherrent.

Secondly you reject my argument on the basis that I invented "hypothesised science". Of course I did. My point is obviously not that the hypothesised science is true. It is that we can imagine that the hypothesised science could be true. Your inability to deal with the hypothesis is merely a demonstration of the degree to which you are caught within the cultural norms you have been exposed to.

We are not only "caught within the cultural norms you (we) have been exposed to" but also the scientific norms we have been exposed to. At various stages in recent history you would have been ridiculed for believing the earth was round, the earth circled the sun, humans are evolved from apes, africans are as intelligent as europeans, etc. There is no way we can escape our humanity (subjectivity) in either our moral or scientific beliefs. How can we be certain our scientific beliefs are more objective than our moral beliefs?

 

[Pie eyed]

I googled historical science; from wiki-

"As a "historical science" (Paleontology) it attempts to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects"

"Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, philology and history itself.[3] This means that it aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[4] Hence it has three main elements: description of the phenomena; developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change; and applying those theories to specific facts.[3]"

It studies hard evidence in fossils, the strata they are found in, the accompanying fossil evidence as well as myriad other relevant "hard evidence"
It is not the study of an oral or written history but a study of real artifacts of living organisms which existed (still exist in death) which have a real and identifiable age, chemical and physical makeup and position on the evolutionary tree.

 

[Windhover]

We are not only "caught within the cultural norms you (we) have been exposed to" but also the scientific norms we have been exposed to. At various stages in recent history you would have been ridiculed for believing the earth was round, the earth circled the sun, humans are evolved from apes, africans are as intelligent as europeans, etc. There is no way we can escape our humanity (subjectivity) in either our moral or scientific beliefs. How can we be certain our scientific beliefs are more objective than our moral beliefs?

I think you are half right. Morality is certainly subjective.

You claim there is no way we can escape subjectivity in science (let's leave "science beliefs" to one side). You are of course correct in making that statement too. But I would qualify it thus. Science is a search for "objective" truth, that is determining what is reality based on a method ("scientific method") that seeks (not always successfully) to weed out subjectivity.

Furthermore I contend that our senses have demonstrated over time that they create a reasonably successful model in our heads of an "objective reality". Although we cannot access (experience) that reality other than personally (subjectively) by definition that reality we are seeking to access has an objective existence independent of our individual existence.

Obviously not so with morals, as I think we now agree.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I googled historical science; from wiki-

"As a "historical science" (Paleontology) it attempts to explain causes rather than conduct experiments to observe effects"

"Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, philology and history itself.[3] This means that it aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[4] Hence it has three main elements: description of the phenomena; developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change; and applying those theories to specific facts.[3]"

Thanks for clearing that up.

I think what got lost was the context of my statement that not all sciences operate by reproducable experimental observations.

Windy said that the ressurection is not directly observable so it is out of court re 'reproducible observations'. So I countered by saying that not all sciences operate by making direct observations (Historical Sciences) and yet are still considered reliable. If you are going to count out history as evidence for God (which BTW has a very scientific methodology) then you should also count out the historical sciences as invalid.

Windy is very inconsistent in his thinking re science, you simply can't say on one hand science is valid except if in finds evidence for x which I believe is a delusion.

 

[Max zero]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I think what got lost was the context of my statement that not all sciences operate by reproducable experimental observations.

Windy said that the ressurection is not directly observable so it is out of court re 'reproducible observations'. So I countered by saying that not all sciences operate by making direct observations (Historical Sciences) and yet are still considered reliable. If you are going to count out history as evidence for God (which BTW has a very scientific methodology) then you should also count out the historical sciences as invalid.

Windy is very inconsistent in his thinking re science, you simply can't say on one hand science is valid except if in finds evidence for x which I believe is a delusion.

I think it you who are being a bit selective in your interpretation. While historical sciences may have elements which are not currently viewable or may not be viewable in a reasonale time frame they are measurable objective facts which we can gain information.

While there is some evidence for a man calling himself Jesus there is no evidence that there was anythig divine about him.

 

[Loose Cannon]

It studies hard evidence in fossils, the strata they are found in, the accompanying fossil evidence as well as myriad other relevant "hard evidence"

Of course there is evidence, otherwise it would not be called a science. But what tests under controlled conditions are being performed? These are observations. Inferences are then made about how, when and where the organism lived which are not immedately apparent from looking at their fossilised remains.

It is not the study of an oral or written history but a study of real artifacts of living organisms which existed (still exist in death) which have a real and identifiable age, chemical and physical makeup and position on the evolutionary tree.

Aren't the writings and the people who wrote them real? What about the archaeological evidence for their life, are these not 'hard evidence' too?

 

[cancat]

Furthermore I contend that our senses have demonstrated over time that they create a reasonably successful model in our heads of an "objective reality"

Really? How so?

How does a perceived view of objective reality differ from a perceived view of objective morality?

Although we cannot access (experience) that reality other than personally (subjectively) by definition that reality we are seeking to access has an objective existence independent of our individual existence.

This statement would have been considered true until the 1920s. Schrodinger's Equation entails that the observation of something changes its state. There is no independence between reality and our existence.

This is why I find Pirsig's discussion of morality in terms of a new metaphysics that unites subjective and objective quite interesting.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I think it you who are being a bit selective in your interpretation. While historical sciences may have elements which are not currently viewable or may not be viewable in a reasonale time frame they are measurable objective facts which we can gain information.

OK there is a continuum between the true experimental science and a historical science. Most sciences have elements of both. Cosmology is like that. We can directly observe things like the reshifting of the stars which increases with distance, the cosmic background radiation and the lumpiness in the selfsame radiation. Also stars in different stages of evolution. But other things like 'Dark' matter and energy, black holes and the Big Bang it's self have not been observed and are thus inferential.

While there is some evidence for a man calling himself Jesus there is no evidence that there was anythig divine about him.

What do you think you would expect to see if he was Divine?

 

[Max zero]

OK there is a continuum between the true experimental science and a historical science. Most sciences have elements of both. Cosmology is like that. We can directly observe things like the reshifting of the stars which increases with distance, the cosmic background radiation and the lumpiness in the selfsame radiation. Also stars in different stages of evolution. But other things like 'Dark' matter and energy, black holes and the Big Bang it's self have not been observed and are thus inferential.




What do you think you would expect to see if he was Divine?

Hard question. Many believers would have a hard time answering.

To be honest I can't see anything the Divine Jesus theory could throw up that would justify the claims made. How do you prove you are the som of the divine creator of the universe? Not disappearing for 2000 years would be a start.

For Jesus to be proven divine to me he would have to appear now in modern times.

 

[Windhover]

LC, despite you saying . . .

Thanks for clearing that up.

it is clear that you do not have the first understanding of scientific methodl. So when you say . . .

I think what got lost was the context of my statement that not all sciences operate by reproducable experimental observations.

. . . it is only you who continue "to be lost". If an hypothesis is not verifiable by reproducible experimental observation it might still be interesting, it might even be "true", but it is not "science". Geology, astronomy and paleontology are all "sciences" and all hypotheses within these studies are capable of reproducible experimental observations, including the approximate 13 B year age of the Universe. Scientists do not work out that the Universe was 13 B years old by asking some bronze age "wisemen" and taking their word for it. They conduct reproducible experiments that consistently support the hypothesis that the Universe is 13 B years old.

Continuing your "how lost can one person be" motif you totally misstate my argument thus:

Windy said that the ressurection is not directly observable so it is out of court re 'reproducible observations'.

What I said was that the ressurection was a single experimental observation to support the hypothesis that Jesus was the son of god (and hence proving god exists). I did not say it "was not directly observable". My point is that it is not a "reproducible observation" and thus not science.

When you then say, recalcitrantly, . . .

So I countered by saying that not all sciences operate by making direct observations (Historical Sciences) and yet are still considered reliable. If you are going to count out history as evidence for God (which BTW has a very scientific methodology) then you should also count out the historical sciences as invalid.

. . . you show a complete (and I mean "complete") lack of understanding of scientific method.

So it does not surprise that you should conclude thus . . .

Windy is very inconsistent in his thinking re science, you simply can't say on one hand science is valid except if in finds evidence for x which I believe is a delusion.

. . . and apart from noting you have discerned inconsistency in my thinking I really cannot make head or tail of the gobbledegook you have served up.

 

[Windhover]

Really? How so?

How does a perceived view of objective reality differ from a perceived view of objective morality?

I have already explained my view of this on this thread in reply to Evo and to Mojo.

This statement would have been considered true until the 1920s. Schrodinger's Equation entails that the observation of something changes its state. There is no independence between reality and our existence.

I think it is more fundamental than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (to which I think you are intending to refer). Phenomenologists had already recognised that all an individual can observe "of the world" (i.e. reality) is what is perceived by that individual through the senses and as interpreted in that individual's head.

 

[Pie eyed]

Of course there is evidence, otherwise it would not be called a science. But what tests under controlled conditions are being performed? These are observations. Inferences are then made about how, when and where the organism lived which are not immedately apparent from looking at their fossilised remains.



Aren't the writings and the people who wrote them real? What about the archaeological evidence for their life, are these not 'hard evidence' too?

I have no idea what you're on about here?

Someones musings is/are not evidence for their beliefs. I can write anything thing I like, it's not going to follow that it has any merit scientifically.
Their skeletal remains would certainly are hard evidence of their existence but do nothing to support their views and beliefs.

As others have already posted.
Science is only science when it meets the definitions of science.

Astrology, holistic medicine etc all make claims at being science but fall down the instant the scientific method is applied in even the most rudimentary way. Just like religion.

This way no science comes.

 

[Pie eyed]

Of course there is evidence, otherwise it would not be called a science. But what tests under controlled conditions are being performed? These are observations. Inferences are then made about how, when and where the organism lived which are not immedately apparent from looking at their fossilised remains.



Aren't the writings and the people who wrote them real? What about the archaeological evidence for their life, are these not 'hard evidence' too?

There are so many tests under controlled conditions that it would be impossible to list them all here.
I don't feel it is my job to educate you, especially with the entire internet at your disposal.
Suffice to say your statement is completely wrong in every way.

Inference never, ever enters into it. Period.

I do not know why you even bother to enter the discussion from such a weak standpoint and obvious lack of even basic understanding of the scientific realities.

 

[Loose Cannon]

LC, despite you saying . . .

The point here was simply that I did not invent the term, which I seem to be accused of.

it is clear that you do not have the first understanding of scientific methodl. So when you say . . .

. . . it is only you who continue "to be lost". If an hypothesis is not verifiable by reproducible experimental observation it might still be interesting, it might even be "true", but it is not "science". Geology, astronomy and paleontology are all "sciences" and all hypotheses within these studies are capable of reproducible experimental observations, including the approximate 13 B year age of the Universe. Scientists do not work out that the Universe was 13 B years old by asking some bronze age "wisemen" and taking their word for it. They conduct reproducible experiments that consistently support the hypothesis that the Universe is 13 B years old.

I'm glad that you made sure you bolded reproducable experimental observations. What experiment(s) lead scientists to devise the Standard Geological column? What experiment lead paleotologists to tell us the life habits of T-Rex? What experiment lead cosmologists to infer the existance of 'dark matter'?

Continuing your "how lost can one person be" motif you totally misstate my argument thus:

What I said was that the ressurection was a single experimental observation to support the hypothesis that Jesus was the son of god (and hence proving god exists). I did not say it "was not directly observable". My point is that it is not a "reproducible observation" and thus not science.

Is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs reproducible? How about the Big Bang? What about the glacial deposits of the last ice age? Are these not science?

When you then say, recalcitrantly, . . .


. . . you show a complete (and I mean "complete") lack of understanding of scientific method.

So it does not surprise that you should conclude thus . . .


. . . and apart from noting you have discerned inconsistency in my thinking I really cannot make head or tail of the gobbledegook you have served up.

Meh, I would be really worried as someone as confused as you thought I actually knew something!

Anyway, what I keep asking and you keep dodging is how you actually are able to tell fantasy from reality?

 

[Loose Cannon]

There are so many tests under controlled conditions that it would be impossible to list them all here.

You don't have to list them all. Just one or two would suffice.

I don't feel it is my job to educate you, especially with the entire internet at your disposal.

I stand in awe at the magnificence of your intellect.

Suffice to say your statement is completely wrong in every way.

Inference never, ever enters into it. Period.

Really? So inference is not part of the scientific method?

in·fer·ence(

n

f

r-

ns)
n. 1. a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
b. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.



So you don't think either of these would be useful in doing good science?

I do not know why you even bother to enter the discussion from such a weak standpoint and obvious lack of even basic understanding of the scientific realities.

You have to actually demonstrate that my understanding is weak. Can you actually answer any of my questions or will you continue to bluster?

 

[Loose Cannon]

Hard question. Many believers would have a hard time answering.

OK this is how I see it:

1. He was prophesied about detail. At the time he came people were looking for him.
2. He did numerous miraculous signs. Even outside the Bible he was known as a miracle worker.
3. He rose from the dead
4. Despite an unpromising beginning he left a vast legacy (ie the Church, the New Testament) which has lasted 2000 years.
5. He lived the perfect life.

To be honest I can't see anything the Divine Jesus theory could throw up that would justify the claims made. How do you prove you are the som of the divine creator of the universe? Not disappearing for 2000 years would be a start.

He left so the Holy Spirit would come, which spreads and multiplies his impact.

For Jesus to be proven divine to me he would have to appear now in modern times.

Why does he have to prove it twice?

 

[Cooee Cobber]

Why does he have to prove it twice?

The problem with Jesus “proving” he was divine 2000 years ago is that all we have to go with today seems to be scripture. If this is sufficient to go by then how do I distinguish between the claims of the bible and other religious texts such as the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita? They obviously can’t all be true. There’s also the fact that these texts come from a pre-scientific age where superstition was abundant so that makes me take them with an extra grain of salt or two.

For me to believe Jesus would have to be able to reproduce his miracles under controlled scientific conditions and then have the experiments peer reviewed etc etc.

 

[skilts]

The problem with Jesus “proving” he was divine 2000 years ago is that all we have to go with today seems to be scripture. If this is sufficient to go by then how do I distinguish between the claims of the bible and other religious texts such as the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita? They obviously can’t all be true. There’s also the fact that these texts come from a pre-scientific age where superstition was abundant so that makes me take them with an extra grain of salt or two.

For me to believe Jesus would have to be able to reproduce his miracles under controlled scientific conditions and then have the experiments peer reviewed etc etc.

It would have all been so much simpler if they'd managed to capture the crucifixion, and resurrection, on digital. Then, we'd all be able to watch it on Facebook, and there's be no doubt. It's all a matter of timing, like acting, or writing.

Edit: Love your user name. Are you Australian? How exotic.

 

[Max zero]

OK this is how I see it:

1. He was prophesied about detail. At the time he came people were looking for him.
2. He did numerous miraculous signs. Even outside the Bible he was known as a miracle worker.
3. He rose from the dead
4. Despite an unpromising beginning he left a vast legacy (ie the Church, the New Testament) which has lasted 2000 years.
5. He lived the perfect life.




He left so the Holy Spirit would come, which spreads and multiplies his impact.



Why does he have to prove it twice?

He has proved it once?

I think the actual statement should be: "its been claimed once."

 

[Max zero]

It would have all been so much simpler if they'd managed to capture the crucifixion, and resurrection, on digital. Then, we'd all be able to watch it on Facebook, and there's be no doubt. It's all a matter of timing, like acting, or writing.

Edit: Love your user name. Are you Australian? How exotic.

Yes it would of. Being the son/copy/same being as the creator of existance it shouldn't be too hard for him to pop over and put all this to rest.

I mean we have been waiting 2000 years.

 

[skilts]

Yes it would of. Being the son/copy/same being as the creator of existance it shouldn't be too hard for him to pop over and put all this to rest.

I mean we have been waiting 2000 years.

This rat is so cunning he knows that nobody likes a showoff. After all, it's all about being admired by 7 billion people. Such ambition. Such hubris.

God is dead. He died from incipient boredom.

 

[Cooee Cobber]

It would have all been so much simpler if they'd managed to capture the crucifixion, and resurrection, on digital. Then, we'd all be able to watch it on Facebook, and there's be no doubt. It's all a matter of timing, like acting, or writing.

Edit: Love your user name. Are you Australian? How exotic.

Well I'm sorry, I just have high standards when it comes to evidence for extraordinary claims. I know you weren't being serious about capturing the miracles on digital but I still wouldn't accept that either (at least not solely). After all, you can view the "miracles" of the Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba on youtube, attested to by thousands of eye-witnesses but I'd wager not many, including you, would believe them (they are pretty underwhelming though). The evidence should be proportionate to the claim.

And there was no need to poke fun at my username.

 

[DaftPunk]

I think a truly glorious statistic that is showing that Australia is heading to enlightenment is that religious marriage has crashed. Civil unions now outnumber religious marriages by nearly 2 to 1. Trend is increasing. I mean its nice to tick a box every four years but the ultimate sign of religious commitment is marriage. Fantastic news.

 

[Father Jack]

I'm glad that you made sure you bolded reproducable experimental observations. What experiment(s) lead scientists to devise the Standard Geological column? What experiment lead paleotologists to tell us the life habits of T-Rex? What experiment lead cosmologists to infer the existance of 'dark matter'?

Is the evolution of birds from dinosaurs reproducible? How about the Big Bang? What about the glacial deposits of the last ice age? Are these not science?

'Reproducible' isn't the exact same thing as 'testable', and the evidence for evolution isn't confined to the fossil record. Yes, you must infer, but you can test your theory when evidence is constantly being uncovered. We know we don't have the full story of evolution, whereas the Bible purports to 100% correct and thus new evidence either conforms or has to be disregarded.

What proof is there that the Bible is divinely inspired? What evidence outside the Bible has been discovered that backs it up? Why is it that more and more of what the Bible says has to be pushed back into the category of 'allegory' as scientific discoveries disprove literal content?

I get told that you require faith. Bugger that, give me evidence else i might end up believing any old thing. The current alternative to evolution is creation, one has mountains of evidence and the other has a book written by iron age goat herders.