WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

You're missing the point - we all make assumptions that are based on shreds of evidence, and beyond that it is down to reason. If I see vehicle tracks in my drive, it is reasonable to believe that a person drove a car into my drive, even though -- as Nexxo said -- the evidence isn't completely unquestionable. I can base many beliefs on the evidence before me, but to hold strongly that tyres rolled into my drive of their own accord and left tracks... is absurd.

Your reply is a perfect example of how people dismiss reason as if it's not part of how we evaluate what we believe based on the evidence we have available.

There is no imperative, but I can't envisage somebody who holds no belief disagreeing with somebody who does. To say, "I don't have any opinion on the subject, but I disagree with you" is a contradiction.

 

Totally disagree - science doesn't prescribe anything, nor can it. We ourselves make descisions based on our experiences with what science teaches us. Does science teach you that you shouldn't stick your finger in a naked flame? Nope; all science teaches you is that if you do it, you will burn your finger. Your own ability to reason, and possibly a bad experience with a candle as a toddler, is what teaches you not to stick your finger in a naked flame... but it's still not an imperative - you don't HAVE to stay away from the flame, but it would be prudent.

 

Off topic but going back to the subject of evolution, I've been reading The Selfish Gene recently and he talks about how the Selfish Gene Theory (which is not the same as the theory of evolution) can explain the rise of eusocial insects and as his example he uses the Hymenoptera order (already my favourite order of insectsl know your enemy etc.). The Hymenoptera are interesting in that the females are diploid (they have two sets of chromasones, one from their father and oe from their mother) while males are hapoid (they only have one set of chromasones, all of them inherited from their mother) but also the fact that, since all the gametes a male produces are genetically identical sice they do not undergo meiosis, all the females in a brood share the same paternal genes and so are more closely reated to each other than to their mother thus and individual's genese are more completely replicated if the individual gains another sister rather than giving birth themselves and so the Selfish Gene Theory allows for sterile worker castes who effectively 'farm' their mother. (The 'success' of an individual can be measured by how well their genes survive, genes that survive the best are the ones that turn up more often in the future.)

This might seem quite complicated and it's not a completely satisfactory explanation (there are examples of eusocial animals which are not more closely reated to their siblings than their progeny) but I find it fascinating.

On another note I find Dawkins method of argument very compelling. This worries me a bit as it has a potential to deviate my opinion from one based purely upon evidence presented to me, however I think the very reason why I find him persuasive is becasue his arguments are very complete.

 

Science is a discipline, as in "behaviour in accord with rules of conduct". It is a way of acquiring knowledge following rigorous principles that protect us from the perceptual and reasoning biases and errors that human cognition is riddled with. As such it is most definitely prescriptive --in how to acquire knowledge.

You are getting confused with its product: scientific knowledge (e.g. sticking your finger in a flame hurts and damages it). That is indeed not prescriptive.

 

Again no, its the simplest reason based on past knowledge of how tire marks are normally left and therefore as humans tend to base themselves on past performance affecting things the same in the future we assume thats the reason they are there and dismiss all other reasons as to fanciful. but 1. it doesn't guarantee that they are in fact tire marks,or 2. that the tire mark where from a car, a simple minded fellow might be going house to house trying to sell a tire and when seeing no one is home knocking it down the road again with a stick, it could have fell from a plane and bounced away. 3. my point was you assumed it to be someone you knew, and in truth it could have been a delivery driver, a religious cold caller etc. you leapt to someone you knew.
We deduct, and normally correctly that a car was present, and that normally the only people who turn up on your drive might be people you know. but in truth the only thing the evidence shows is a tire was present. that is all the evidence can ever prove. Anything further is interpretive and from further evidence turning up.
to be honest your reply is typical of people misusing evidence to prove points, with the dismissive "isn't it obvious" thrown in at the end.

One doesn't follow the other, it can be I don't agree with your premise and also disagree with you" not having a belief is not having no opinion.

 

^That. I feel ashamed of my wording sometimes, you wouldn't think I scored A for Eng Lit & B for Eng Lang @ GCSE level; curse you internet for robbing my vocabulary...


As for sticking for finger your finger in a flame; science tells us what will happen & that the outcome will be pain & injury. As inquistive beings many of us will at some point try to test that 'hypothesis' and find out that it is actually true & can be proven- making it a fact.

You can't test god ( or are told you shouldn't- how many scientists do you hear say that about any given hypothesis they are developing?.. ), there for he remains unproven, and always will. On that note, the hypothesis of morality being external to life and originating from god can also be tested and disproved thusly:

My argument is that morality is an innate sense of right & wrong in humans, though it can be altered & stems from nature & nurture.

Some animals have an innate '6th sense', such as the ability to detect magnetic north for long range navigation ( birds ), or the ability to detect which way is up in order to right themselves in mid air ( cats ). These animals do no possess the concept of morality however- they act mainly on instinct.

Humans do not possess the ability to detect the electromagnetic spectrum through vision, nor do they possess the ability to detect which way is up ( or when it is about to rain or there is about to be an earthquake- like cows and elephants can respectively ).

Therefore, I propose that morality is no more a miracle from god than any other latent genetic trait or special ability; knowing right from wrong helps humanity to survive & prosper in any given climate*, just as much as the ability to navigate & stay upright allows animals to stay alive and find a mate.

*humans are irrational creatures, and will willingly destroy eachother & themselves to enforce their point of view- such as religious fanatics > suicide bombers for example.

 

I argue that morality is like sex. No, hear me out. The purpose of sex is to preserve the species. Higher animals (ranging from mountain goats to the Bonobo chimp) also use sex to facilitate social bonding and prevent/defuse social conflict. The animals don't know they are doing it for those reasons, of course; they do it because they experience the urge, and it feels good.

Morality works the same way. Even animals show "moral" behaviour to preserve the species: altruism, sharing and co-operation. Humans use morality to facilitate social bonding and prevent/defuse social conflict. Animals and humans don't necessarily know they are doing it for those reasons, of course; they do it because they experience the urge, and it feels right.

Morality and sex: two survival strategies. No wonder a lot of morality preoccupies itself with sex.

 

That, was awesome. Can my 6th sense be echo location?

"I don't have any opinion on the subject, but I disagree with you" is a contradiction. However, you weren't questioning a persons opinion (or lack), but their belief (or lack) these can be exclusive.

~a "I believe all fast cars are red"
~b "I don't believe colour has any affect on the speed of cars,"

~a holds a very specific belief ~b holds no belief in this area at all. ~b's lack of belief is in conflict with ~a's stance, a disagreement and empirical testing may follow.

 

That's not why I do it.

 

Congratulations, you've been promoted.

 

Once again, it's our capacity for reason that tells us how best to acquire knowledge; the scientific method is what we use. I'm not sure I agree with your definition of science as a discipline - science itself is "just" a method, a way to analyze knowledge, but there are scientific disciplines; science can't tell you that you "have to be careful" as you said. But it's a tangent anyways... my original point is that it can be viable to interpret facts as evidence.

I didn't say the evidence could prove my belief... my point is simply that it's possible to base a belief on a fact that is interpreted as evidence, which means that the belief cannot be proven but may still reasonably be held.

I disagree - there are scientific findings that can be interpreted rationally as evidence for God.

 

no you've got belief based on extrapolation of evidence not on evidence itself or interpretation of evidence.

I'll bite, such as?

 

The words 'rationally interpreted' may only be rational from one individuals/ section of society's point of view.

I can interpret the moon to be flat as that is how it appears in the sky to everyone- quite rational based on observation from the earth, and is indeed what many people believed in the christian darkages ( see also: flat earth, exact same reasons ). However, science & astrology has shown us it is most definitely a sphere....

 

Can be. Is not necessarily so. When the same facts have valid alternative explanations, there is no way of knowing yours is the correct one; there is no proof, only conjecture.

Any psychologist can tell you that our human capacity for reason is vastly flawed. This is why we developed the discipline of science (and took centuries to do so): as a safeguard against those human perceptual and reasoning errors that we are all prone to. That's what I mean when I say that science teaches us to be careful (in the interpretation of facts). And yes, science really is a discipline. The meaning of the word "science" has evolved over the centuries, from referring to scientific knowledge to the scientific method by which such knowledge is attained. It is defined as a discipline, as in: training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties; orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior; a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity. All scientists subscribe to that.

Again, can be, but does not have to be. Valid alternative explanations exist so the existence of God remains unproven. And anyway, isn't it supposed to be a matter of faith?

 

Yay! Level up!

Although I don't do it for that either.

 

You do it because you feel the urge to, and it feels good. But the function of that is to make you bond with your partner and ensure you make babies.

 

You mean this? Even for self-defence?

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone attempts to rape me I'm not allowed to use "any force necessary" to stop them? I've got to take care to be sure not to potentially cause lethal harm?

Just so I know for the future, how far am I allowed to go? Am I allowed to say no? Can I scream? Can I push them away? Scratch them? Slap them? Pull their hair? Punch them? Hit them with my phone? Hit them with my bag? Hit their head against the ground if I get the chance? Hit them with a brick I find in the alley I've been dragged into? Fight back with the brick they used to beat me senseless?

What if it's my kids being attacked? I've still got to be careful I don't kill the culprit?

How far can I go before I get killed myself in the fight? I'm only 5'3". If a couple of 6'+ blokes were to attack me I'd have no chance in a 'fair fight', so an opportunity to use violence in defence could be the only way to protect myself.

Here's how I feel, and I understand this is my opinion at one end of the spectrum. ATM we're probably a bit too far the other way (in my opinion).

Society should grant it's citizens the rights to live within said society freely and without harm and not impinge on the rights of others to do the same.

Rapists (And perpetrators of other significant violent crimes against the person) lose their rights to live freely and without harm the moment they prevent another from living freely and without harm.

With these rights removed it is societies responsibility to remove the culprits from society indefinitely. No forgiveness, no parol, no excuses, no exceptions.

I consider nitrogen gas asphyxiation the quickest and most humane method of removal, although those locations allowing the death penalty generally prefer other methods that have an element of punishment to them and want a bit of suffering at the end (The people behind the original electric chair and lethal injections say this themselves).

I don't believe in punishing rapists. I don't believe in retribution. We should simply remove them from society.

At the moment, a rapist - even the most violent, depraved and persistent has the right to live with a roof over their head, food in their belly and a good book in their hands. I don't think they've earned that right. They had that right and they threw it away.

But...

Given how corrupt human nature is, even among those we put on pedestals as being honourable enough to judge others, I know my "Just kill them quickly and be done with it" approach SHOULD NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED as it's ripe for the picking as an easy way to dispose of anyone socially and politically undesirable. Who decides who is guilty? Who decides what crimes are severe enough to warrant such permanent removal?

It can't work

In "An ideal world" I'd like a 100% reliable method to convict rapists and remove them from society.

But as I'm wishing for the impossible, my ideal world wouldn't have these crimes in the first place and for everyone to live together in peace and fluffy fluffy harmony.

Oh and dinosaurs*. I want the frickin' dinosaurs to come back!

*nothing to do with rapists, just that dinosaurs are cool.

 

You need to read the whole post to understand the context of that statement.

Note the comma, followed by the word "but...", not a full stop that you put at the end of the selective snippet you quoted. If you are going to argue with me, please don't change my words and then pretend I said them because then you are in effect just arguing with yourself.

I said: killing a rapist is wrong, but that wrong is committed by the rapist. He would be forcing you to kill him, an act which both harms him and psychologically (if not physically) harms you. So the crime of harming him and you both is committed by him, not by you acting in self-defense.

 

@whisperwolf,

Most scientists agree that the Big Bang theory is valid, and many hold that it marks the beginning of everything that we know... the beginning of spacetime. If the Big Bang was such a singularity, then its cause must exist independently of spacetime. There's also the evidence drawn from the fine-tuning of the universe. Enormous subjects to cover, but in outline these are two evidences which point to a creator/theism. Unsurprisingly, not everybody agrees.

It's a moot comparison - the moon is physical, so it can be empirically verified like all other physical things. If you want to draw a valid comparison, then you need to compare beliefs, not interpretations of bare facts; that's why I asked if people hold a belief about the origin of the universe, and it's why I'm interested that people knock down the "God hypothesis" without having a hypothesis of their own to function as a counterargument.

Faith and evidence - if there had been no evidence for the resurrection, the Christian faith wouldn't exist. Christian beliefs are based on reliable historical accounts and facts, not on wishful thinking. The common atheistic misconception (read: dogma) is that Christians are "delusional" and can't possibly be rational or reasonable by believing what the Bible teaches, but that's just an opinion (usually an uninformed and particularly prejudiced one). In the same way that atheism isn't a worldview, there is a broad spectrum of "Christianity" and, frankly, many people who call themselves Christians dont' really have a clue what they're talking about or indeed what they actually believe, sadly.

Back onto the subject of the place of evidence in the Christian worldview, I feel that Lane Craig puts it succinctly and satisfactorily:

 

How do they point to a creator? I don't see they do that any more than evidence of a tyre on your driveway points to someone you know having visited. It seems to me you're taking a leap of faith that isn't supported by the evidence in front of you.