Debate reminder: Friday at 7:30 pm

Faith & Science Conversation
81

Assuming you meant “agnostic” . . .

Atheists simply lack a belief in deities. It doesn’t require a belief that no deities exist. A-without + theist-belief in God = without a belief in God. Agnostics are a flavor of atheist who believe that humans are incapable of knowing if there is a God or not, thus they lack a belief in God which makes them atheists.

I think your description of skeptics is way off. I am a skeptic of the claims that people are taken up into alien space ships and experimented on. I really have no yearning to believe in these claims, nor am I holding my breath to find out if it is true.

Also, I don’t feel it is necessary to say that theists are wrong. As I have stated before, I encourage Christians and others to live by their beliefs if that is what they so choose. What I hope for is that perhaps atheists and Christians can understand each other a bit better after discussions like these. I think there is plenty of room for many sets of beliefs in western culture, so we should celebrate that instead of trying to pick a winner.[quote=“still_learning, post:75, topic:36642”]
That being said, there are some laws (like abortion) where it is not a forcing our morals down your throat thing, rather attempting to protect those who don’t have a voice. Which we are commanded to do. HOWEVER, not to the extent of hating and killing over it. The only scripture we find where Jesus even comes remotely close to loving like this is within His own people who where supposedly doing the will of His Father. When He over turned the changing tables and whipped them their butts till they ran out the doors. He did NOT act this way towards the adulterers or tax collectors onor would He towards those of free choice.
[/quote]

In the end, it is a bit like the prohibition on alcohol. The prohibition was causing more problems than legalizing it. Rich girls had easy access to doctors for their “miscarriages”, but minorities and the poor often had to resort to much more desperate measures. This was the main reason why abortions were legalized.

Personally, I wish not one elective abortion occurred. What both sides of the debate can agree on is doing what we can to limit unwanted pregnancies as well as supporting at risk mothers in order to limit the number of abortions as much as we can.[quote=“still_learning, post:75, topic:36642”]
I don’t think there is anything wrong with love of family and friends or contributions to communities or pursuits in life. However, I do believe that all of those things can be taken from you, or let you down.
[/quote]

That’s part of life. Not everything works out in your favor. The goal is to work through it and come out the other side as a better person. Perhaps this idea is too uncomfortable for some and they seek solace in something that can’t let them down. I don’t know.

1 Like
82

That would be a shift in the burden of proof, a logical fallacy.

You claimed that there is this supernatural spiritual realm. It is up to you to provide evidence for it, not mere “BECAUSE I SAY SO!”.[quote=“Relates, post:76, topic:36642”]
The evidence I have given is the evidence of your own experience and senses.
[/quote]

What would those experiences be?[quote=“Relates, post:76, topic:36642”]
On the other hand if you do live in the same world as other people, then you need to explain how and why we have things wrong about the spiritual.
[/quote]

Again, the burden of proof lies with you. You need to provide evidence that you are right.

83

The basic disconnect here is that @Relates is equating “immaterial” with “spiritual.” I think everyone would agree that abstract concepts – such as “love” or “justice” or “democracy” – are “real” and have real impacts on our culture, even though they do not have concrete existence. In Roger’s defense, “everyone knows” such things as concepts are immaterial. However, to assert that everything without material existence is therefore “spiritual” requires proof. Roger makes the jump from immaterial to spiritual as a “leap of faith,” so to speak. The two are not necessarily identical.

3 Likes
84

I think one can claim agnosticism with respect to any kind of supposed knowledge. I hear a lot of atheists claim to be “agnostic atheists” :raising_hand: in the sense of not believing in deities they have heard descriptions of–the atheist part–and not knowing what the ultimate origins of the universe, matter etc. are–the agnostic part. These two quite separate conceptual spheres are often conflated in my opinion. This position contrasts with what is sometimes called the strong atheist position, where there is a positive assertion that no gods exist. It seems relatively uncommon to me, but a lot of people seem to feel that this is generally what atheists think.

2 Likes
85

I would classify those as abstract concepts. Abstractions are properties of languages, so it really isn’t a matter of immaterial or material.

86

There is a rather large spectrum of atheists, but I think it is important to point out that what they all share is a lack of belief in deities. When someone says that they are an atheist one shouldn’t automatically assume that they believe no gods exist (I.e. strong atheism).

3 Likes
87

@still_learning,

Thank you for your comment, and @beaglelady thank you for your response.

Clearly this is not a simple topic, and @T_aquaticus refusal to join is a dialogue makes it impossible.

The fact is that I was trying to make a relatively simple point, which is that the spiritual as defined as love, purpose, and meaning is real. He clearly said that the spiritual is real, but then seems to say that since the spiritual is real, then it must be physical (presumably because he is a materialist.)

Now I know of no evidence that the spiritual is also physical, which was not considered “evidence” to him. If one believes that everything that is real is physical, then how can one accept the fact that something is real and not physical. Of course the same thing is true about God.

The question is not, can humans or science measure the things of God, but is all reality physical. It is not an either or question as atheists like to make it. Many things that are real clearly are physical, while others are spiritual and still others are rational or mental.

You raise the question of knowledge or the rational. Is it physical or something else? Although @beaglelady is right to say that the thoughts of humans are not the things of God, many have used the rational as evidence that humans are created in the Image of God.

Now does the fact that machines are able to read our minds in a limited way mean that ideas are physical. No, not any more than the fact that ideas are stored in a physical pages of a book mean that ideas are physical.

Humans can encode experiences into mental code, which you are right can be decoded by certain machines under certain circumstances, but it is highly unlikely that others can invade our minds and read them without our cooperation. The fact is that knowledge is relational which is the way we encode experience, decode experience, and interpret experience. Knowledge is not physical, even though it uses brains, books, and other media, which are physical.

The spiritual is even more purely relational than the rational, and the physical. It is not basically physical, it is relational.

We need to use whatever knowledge we have to understand the universe and understand God. Of course all knowledge is provisional, even theology, but our faith is not in knowledge but in the Reality behind the knowledge. We must go with the best we have, and if we have a problem with some aspect of it, we need to work on it until it is resolved. We need to reconcile philosophy, which is the basis of the biggest problem here, theology and science in order to free our minds of all these serious conflicts…

88

I would say abstract concepts are made possible by language, but they are not confined to language. “Justice” isn’t merely a property of language …

89

“Justice”’ is an abstract and arbitrary word that is meant to convey an emotion related to a sense of social fairness. You are right that abstractness is not limited to just languages as we can also see abstraction in such things as art and dance. In the end, we are just trying to describe our emotions using a shared and agreed upon language or means of communication.

90

Your refusal to present evidence prevents the discussion from progressing.[quote=“Relates, post:87, topic:36642”]
The fact is that I was trying to make a relatively simple point, which is that the spiritual as defined as love, purpose, and meaning is real.
[/quote]

You need to provide evidence that love, purpose, and meaning are spiritual. You simply can’t define them as spiritual. That is equivalent to saying “BECAUSE I SAY SO!”. [quote=“Relates, post:87, topic:36642”]
Now I know of no evidence that the spiritual is also physical, which was not considered “evidence” to him.
[/quote]

Of course it isn’t evidence. That is an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

If we don’t know what ideas are, then it is incorrect to jump to the conclusion that they are supernatural. “I don’t know” is not a synonym for supernatural.

91

It doesn’t lead to a definite knowledge, John. But once you have experienced conjugal love, or observed the selfless love exhibited by members of the Peace Corp or Doctors without Borders, one sees there is a measure of truth in the belief that humans are Image Bearers. It is my understanding that this was the heartfelt feeling that turned Francis Collins from agnosticism to Christian belief. I have found it a very strong force in my life, but it does not meet a scientist’s criteria for ‘rationality.’
Al Leo

92

I have always thought this was agnosticism. Am I mistaken?
Al Leo

93

[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:54, topic:36642”]
[T. aquaticus] Why can’t they (love, beauty etc.) be measured and studied by science?
[Mervin]
I think the physical manifestations of those things can be, but that the significance or meaning they have to us cannot be. I’m with Roger on this one though I have a lot of differences with the way he states some things about it. But essentially I think a lot of us who are open-minded on this agree that science hasn’t [most likely can’t] address some of the best parts of love or beauty or purpose or meaning. Just like science can tell us all about ink and paper composition and patterns of ink placement on that paper. But none of that touches on the actual significance of the poem written there.

Very well put, Mervin. When a scientist takes the position that the physical (mater & energy) is ALL there is to this Universe, then what they measure is, by default, all there is to that aspect of Reality. For example, Sam Harris is a recognized expert in the use of NMR to measure the blood flow to certain parts of the brain, which should be a good indication of that part’s activity. If I were placed in an NMR device and given a photo of my beloved wife, I suppose my brain’s emotional center would light up noticeably. Would that be a measure of my love for her? I think not. It would be a manifestation of how much hormone my body produced and how much oxytocin had affected the neural circuity in my brain, but my love for her exists on entirely different plane.

I, too, would award @Relates some points on this part of the ‘debate’.
Al Leo

94

Agnostics are atheists since they lack a positive belief in gods.

95

Can’t right now, or do you rule out the possibility that science can measure these things?

How did you determine that your love for here exists on an entirely different plane?

96

But are they REAL? I believe they are part and parcel of what Teilhard defined as the Noosphere, and how they are respected and nurtured are every bit as important to humanity’s future as are advances in the Biosphere.
Al Leo

97

There is certainly evidence for a physical nature for brain activity and emotions. I have yet to see evidence for anything else.

98

Yeah – the point of my little parable on this earlier flew completely by you earlier on this, @T_aquaticus, apparently untouched by any understanding.

Essentially you have ruled out any possibility of acknowledging evidence for these things because you have already decided in advance that the only evidence you will accept will be the empirical, reproducible kind that satisfies scientists. Just like a “purple world” person denying any and all orange things that his interlocutors parade before him. It all gets dismissed as irrelevant because only purple evidence is allowed. So he can then triumphantly claim: “see! only purple things exist.”

You keep trying to imagine that we are beholden to the same game of needing to demonstrate “how we really know” something. And yes, that is a great question to ask. Many of us ask it quite frequently. But unlike you, I don’t think it is the only question of significance, and I will proceed with life on plenty of faith assertions that may never pass the “how can I be sure” test on your terms. And what you never seem to latch onto is that I’m fine with that. Others here too I suspect. gotta run to class now.

99

Then how do you differentiate evidence from something that is made up or imagined?

100

By not ruling out other kinds of evidences such as wider community testimonies and witness and yes – comparing those with our own personal experiences and reflections. But you (I predict here) have already ruled out all of that as out-of-bounds since it too can fall afoul the charge of “groupthink” or collective confirmation bias and such --and sometimes we have accepted false things in those ways too. It does still carry subjectivity and some risk. But many of us Christians are okay with that. We do better collectively than as lone rangers. For example, like you, we want to actively embrace the non-scientific notion (a 100% faith conviction) that human life is precious and to be given dignity and rights --and we (on faith alone) are willing to live knowing that this is objectively true enough for us to think that others ought to live by this too whether or not they or their culture agrees with it. By this we (and you) objectively, and yet 100% non-scientifically condemn things like slavery in all the places it is still found, Naziism, racism, etc. And we do not withold our condemnation of such things on the strength of any skeptical “but how do you really know” question that wants to see some science first. Science has as yet not offered anything on these things, and yet I suspect you have plowed ahead (on 100% faith) to condemn many of these same things too, and to defend that their ethical character is not just a matter of personal taste from one culture to the next. At least I hope you have. Should some future civilization rise up and those in power decide that slavery is just fine, I guess you would have to just shrug and say, “I’m going to wait until science can show me if that is okay or not.” But Christians should always have the ready foundation and, even if 99% of Christendom has strayed, they would have some rascally prophet in their midst who would shove aside all the “let’s wait for science nonsense” and declare to his/her own people “No No! you fools! Let me show you from your own sacred scriptures that you claim to believe in why you had better be quaking with fear unless you stop exploiting people created and loved by God!”

I know you well enough by now to know exactly how you follow this: so how do you know which prophet person to follow? The answer: by their fruits, and by how what they say comports with how Jesus lived, taught, and even gave himself for others. Nutty “prophets” have come and gone a plenty to be sure. Nobody disputes that. More than likely I’m probably part of the errant 99% fully deserving much prophetic ire – but the better spirit in me wants to be attentive to God’s messengers, and so more attuned to God. If the Spirit in my heart [that fully includes brain and intellect] stirs me that such a prophet speaks truth, then I rest in that faith and am not afraid to admit to others that I do.

[with wording additions and grammatical cleanup already commenced, as always …]

2 Likes