toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[alwight]

Morality is absolute for the Christian in that morality is revealed via revelation recorded down in scripture. Non-Christians, atheistic or otherwise, must also identify a basis for morality in their lives which serves as absolute for them. A common one is the Golden Rule, but also alternative religious authorities. Even those who try to claim morality is completely relativistic ultimately break down and recognize that there are definite evils, though they might not recognize an absolute basis for defining those evils as such.

It still seems to me that if there really is such a thing as an ultimate Christian morality then that is not exactly reflected in the expressed moralities of Christians, which often seems as different as they are, or indeed often with generally little difference to non-believers in effect.

While there may not be an established paradigm via which everyone models their morality, yet all recognize the necessity of morality (or ethics, if they want to be picky about terminology) in our lives. And, again, morality - though it lacks a universal paradigm like scientific forms of knowledge - is yet so vastly more important in our lives than science that there can't even be a proper comparison.

Sure, we wouldn't be a civilised society or at least one worth living in without at least a reasonable morality of some kind.

 

[DavisBJ]

Let's back up to pre-rant. Is calling the Christian God a "magic man" being kind and polite to Christians?

I can see where Christians might not like characterizing their God as just a magician. But Christians are resistant to admitting that, to someone on the outside, that is much of what the Christian God appears to be.

If the deepest exchange of ideas in this thread is derailed by something this trivial, then just admit that there are too many eggshells around, and someone is going to get all uptight and haughty if one gets stepped on.

 

[WizardofOz]

I can see where Christians might not like characterizing their God as just a magician. But Christians are resistant to admitting that, to someone on the outside, that is much of what the Christian God appears to be.

Is it kind and polite to call the Christian God a "magic man"?

If the deepest exchange of ideas in this thread is derailed by something this trivial, then just admit that there are too many eggshells around, and someone is going to get all uptight and haughty if one gets stepped on.

The derailment came from you taking issue with others pointing out the hypocrisy of P66's post.

It is page 15 however. Derailment is long overdue

 

[badp]

Do you also think that painting humanity as innately evil is a correct assessment?

Absolutely. Look at the history of the world. It is madness to look at human history and conclude that humans are not innately evil.

 

[csuguy]

I agree that if something is not amenable to scientific examination, then science will not provide a good yardstick to measure it by. But hopefully, those things will be the exception, and not the norm.

I have already shown that there are plenty of areas of non-scientific knowledge and that many of these are far more important than anything science has to offer.

Science has the advantage of immunity from religious preconceptions, from personal wants, and from national borders. If you are forced to use something other than science to evaluate an idea against, how do you assure that the evaluation is free from personal biases?

Well that's the ideal at any rate - that science is free of personal bias and beliefs. However, scientists and philosophers have long since cast off this illusion of modernity and now consider us to be in the postmodern era. Of course, it takes time for the lay populace to catch up.

Ultimately there is no such thing as approaching an idea or developing an idea free from personal biases. Scientific methodology, peer review, etc. help to limit preconceptions and biases but ultimately science is not free of bias, for scientists are not free of bias. I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's work The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, which present a very influential philosophic/historic view of science and how it progresses. Further, by automatically dismissing religious view (for religion is necessarily non-scientific) science has an automatic limiting bias to it in that it can't truly consider all possibilities, but only ones consistent with its underlying empirical philosophy.

 

[csuguy]

It still seems to me that if there really is such a thing as an ultimate Christian morality then that is not exactly reflected in the expressed moralities of Christians, which often seems as different as they are, or indeed often with generally little difference to non-believers in effect.

Are there differences of opinion amongst Christians about certain aspects of morality? Sure. But Christians also recognize an absolute authority from which morality is derived, even if they debate a couple points of interpretation.

As far as Christian morality not being terribly different from non-Christians, that has to do with Golden Rule. Many non-believers recognize the command to love your neighbor as yourself as good basis for morality. Conflicts arrise, however, over morals based upon the greatest command for the Christian - which is to love God with your entire being. Morals based upon this (I would put the issue of homosexuality, for instance, under this command) inevitably produce conflict since the non-believer necessarily doesn't accept the basis for them.

Sure, we wouldn't be a civilised society or at least one worth living in without at least a reasonable morality of some kind.

:thumb:

 

[DavisBJ]

You keep saying this. Why? It is completely absurd and has no grounding whatsoever. You are whimsically adopting a demonstrably failed system--scientism--as if it is the only option.

Perhaps you did not read the first sentence in my post, or else it better suits your purposes to ignore it. I explicitly said there are things science cannot address. Comprende?

Science has never been self explanatory or the primary means of evaluation, why would it be now? It would take someone with a significant lack of historical and philosophical knowledge to make such an odd assumption. What do you evaluate science itself against? And if science is your starting point, then why?

I (and most of the scientists I know) have little use for the fine points of philosophical sophistry. I know that some people say we should distrust a system which cannot be logically validated without reaching outside the system. I take a more pragmatic approach. While the philosophers are arguing the fine points of whether science is an internally logically defensible system, we go on and launch the next space telescope that works exactly as predicted and provides reams of new understandings about the universe.

You are welcome to join that select group over there in the corner, that has not yet, even after centuries, decided how many angels can logically dance on the head of a pin.

 

[badp]

While the philosophers are arguing the fine points of whether science is an internally logically defensible system, we go on and launch the next space telescope that works exactly as predicted and provides reams of new understandings about the universe.

What exactly is your point? I trust you are not saying that because one branch of science (e.g. mathematics) has given us many technological advancements, that we should blindly have faith in another branch that has not (e.g. evolutionary science).

 

[Dr.Watson]

I (and most of the scientists I know) have little use for the fine points of philosophical sophistry. I know that some people say we should distrust a system which cannot be logically validated without reaching outside the system. I take a more pragmatic approach. While the philosophers are arguing the fine points of whether science is an internally logically defensible system, we go on and launch the next space telescope that works exactly as predicted and provides reams of new understandings about the universe.

You are welcome to join that select group over there in the corner, that has not yet, even after centuries, decided how many angels can logically dance on the head of a pin.

Excellent! These are my exact feelings on semantic-pedantic philosophical mental self stimulation. That is to say, I haven't much use for it.

:first:

 

[alwight]

Absolutely. Look at the history of the world. It is madness to look at human history and conclude that humans are not innately evil.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Maximilien Robespierre, Attila The Hun.
We must therefore all be evil beasts because these were, why didn't I see this before. :doh:

 

[badp]

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Maximilien Robespierre, Attila The Hun.
We must therefore all be evil beasts because these were, why didn't I see this before. :doh:

If you're listing murderers, you're missing a few billion names.

 

[DavisBJ]

I have already shown that there are plenty of areas of non-scientific knowledge and that many of these are far more important than anything science has to offer.

Again I am hearing you say the heart and brains are more important than the legs and arms. I value my brains and heart, but I also know that there is an astounding difference between being a normal person and am immobile paraplegic.

Well that's the ideal at any rate - that science is free of personal bias and beliefs. However, scientists and philosophers have long since cast off this illusion of modernity and now consider us to be in the postmodern era. Of course, it takes time for the lay populace to catch up.

Ultimately there is no such thing as approaching an idea or developing an idea free from personal biases. Scientific methodology, peer review, etc. help to limit preconceptions and biases but ultimately science is not free of bias, for scientists are not free of bias. I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's work The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, which present a very influential philosophic/historic view of science and how it progresses.

Yes, any endeavor that man conducts, including science, will be subject to human biases. But science still has an advantage in that nature is the ultimate arbiter. If I, as a scientist, let my biases introduce errors into my research, then those that follow behind me and rely on my work will be stymied. Nature will not make their work succeed just because they want it to. Ultimately (and I have seen this happen), a scientist is forced to revisit the work of predecessors, and see where they went awry. So in the long term, personal biases do get filtered out.

Can you say the same for any other way of evaluating ideas?

 

[DavisBJ]

What exactly is your point? I trust you are not saying that because one branch of science (e.g. mathematics) has given us many technological advancements, that we should blindly have faith in another branch that has not (e.g. evolutionary science).

No, I am only saying that no one has found another methodology that is more immune from human biases than science.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Are you really desperate enough that you need to stoop to this, OEJ?

What -- pointing out the obvious?

 

[badp]

Can you say the same for any other way of evaluating ideas?

I can. Ideas have consequences. Those who came after Hitler evaluated his ideas and saw how incorrect they were. No one had to conduct scientific experiments to determine that Hitler's ideas were wrong and faulted.

 

[zippy2006]

Perhaps you did not read the first sentence in my post, or else it better suits your purposes to ignore it. I explicitly said there are things science cannot address. Comprende?

True to form, you have again failed to address the point.

I (and most of the scientists I know) have little use for the fine points of philosophical sophistry. I know that some people say we should distrust a system which cannot be logically validated without reaching outside the system. I take a more pragmatic approach. While the philosophers are arguing the fine points of whether science is an internally logically defensible system, we go on and launch the next space telescope that works exactly as predicted and provides reams of new understandings about the universe.

You are welcome to join that select group over there in the corner, that has not yet, even after centuries, decided how many angels can logically dance on the head of a pin.

You failed yet again to address the topic at hand, instead resorting to your childish black and white mudslinging, though I'd guess no one is surprised. The questions in my last post stand, ignore them as you like in your fairytale world divorced from history, philosophy, and reality.

 

[DavisBJ]

What -- pointing out the obvious?

For me to think God is evil would require that I think that God in fact exists. And a lot of my family and friends who are Christians belie your claim that I think believers are evil. But you knew that anyway, didn’t you? Just couldn’t let the opportunity for a jab get by you, eh?

 

[badp]

No, I am only saying that no one has found another methodology that is more immune from human biases than science.

That is a blatant misstatement. Science itself is founded on a human bias for induction.

A brief glimpse at history will show heavy bias perpetrated by scientists using the scientific method doing so for personal gain. While science provides a means to reduce these biases, it is not immune to them. Any lock can be defeated.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

For me to think God is evil would require that I think that God in fact exists.

Not necessarily. I think Kali (a Hindu goddess/demon) is evil, but I don't think she actually exists. That being said, I don't think I'd be apt to trust anyone who happened to worship such a being as that, fictional or not.

And a lot of my family and friends who are Christians belie your claim that I think believers are evil. But you knew that anyway, didn’t you?

I didn't know that. So you just think they worship an evil, imaginary God, huh?

 

[Town Heretic]

Per, like TH and Nicholsmom, I too have been sizing up whether you are really kind and moral.

Rather, I held up a mirror in hopes he might reflect a bit. You could use a little of that, comes to it.

Notice how deep and substantive TH and Nicholsmom’s claims against you are?

What claims?

(But I do wonder what their reaction would have been if you had let it be known that had at some point emulated so many Biblical actions of God’s followers and actually lied or had a mistress or pillaged or been a drunkard or …

You're surprised that people act like people? That men are willfully imperfect? Then you don't understand the purpose of the cross...among other things, like history, philosophy, sociology...

So, without getting into the peculiarly context free, third rate theological rant, it appears that DBJ's idea of kind, polite, and moral amounts to judging others while holding a relativist's part think and NOT raping, killing, or indulging in other violent activities.

With a bar like that it's no wonder you'd think this highly of yourself. lain: