Debate reminder: Friday at 7:30 pm

[John_Dalton]

Shermer spoke of it in the debate. I assume some atheist of past used it. Google shows a man Daniel Dennet?

I never heard of it either, but in context I infer the meaning of it to mean it is good for us to believe in something. There are measurable benefits to believe in something. In other words, all the things that people claim to have come from God, are just coming from our own minds, as the mind is powerful.

Thanks, I see. I forgot about him saying that in the debate but I've heard atheists use it before in similar ways (but I wasn't sure you were). Sometimes the inference is that the belief (the belief in the belief and not the belief itself, aye aye aye ) is not necessarily justified--I remember Dawkins using it this way.

I am not saying to actually believe in it. Rather Shermer again admitted that there are benefits to believing in something.

My argument/logic is to say, do you guys not like benefits? If one had better health and a positive attitude that came from belief in a belief, then why not just believe in something, to obtain these benefits?

Example, I know that we are not to stress, God is in control. We can't add an hour of our life by worrying about tomorrow, tomorrow isn't even guaranteed. So why waste time of today and now, worrying about what might not even come. And most things we worry about, never even happen as we worried about. This is a Biblical command/advice given, that benefits us. Though it is more strongly effective if I believe that God is in control. It is also logically beneficial for any man not to stress about life.

I guess one would also have to truly believe to get those benefits, not just fake the belief.

That's the thing. To my way of thinking, you can't choose to believe something. You will either be convinced to a degree that you will believe it or you won't. I'm sure for some such benefits could be a motivation or evidence to believe. If you happen to notice the time when Shermer said that, I'm interested. I'd like to see what he was saying (but not ready to watch the whole debate again )

Like when Shermer speaks of being nice to another, to hopefully get niceness in return. You can't fake nice, that is a psychopath and is cold calculated. It has to be genuine.

I'm not so sure about that. You can certainly choose to make an effort to be nice to people, and do nice things for them, etc.

[still_learning]

If you happen to notice the time when Shermer said that, I'm interested. I'd like to see what he was saying (but not ready to watch the whole debate again )

1:18:43 Yea, Dan Dennet. Because I just saw it recently, I knew about where it was.

But it wasn't exactly in the context here as he used it in another debate.

Then 1:39:17 He begins his explanation about being a psychopath and faking nice

[John_Dalton]

Then 1:39:17 He begins his explanation about being a psychopath and faking nice

This goes back to a question from the audience, "Does it bother you that you can answer how the world works with science, but never why we're here?"

Shermer started talking about the "selfish gene" idea, and how it could lead to "why we're here"-type purpose. Not sure I follow him there FWIW. There was some discussion of the meanings of the words why and how Then they talked about the book "The Selfish Gene" and how aspects of human behavior seem to contradict such ideas. To which Shermer talked about possible benefits of being nice. I think his point here is that the tendency of people to be nice can be explained in a way that is consistent with evolutionary theory. And he pointed to psychopathy as being calculating and not the kind of thing he meant (or what I meant either in my comment in my last post--I'm sure there's room between trying to be nice and psychopathy ). So his view actually seems to be consistent with yours that "You can't fake nice."

[still_learning]

So his view actually seems to be consistent with yours that "You can't fake nice."

Like when Shermer speaks of being nice to another, to hopefully get niceness in return. You can't fake nice, that is a psychopath and is cold calculated. It has to be genuine.

That wasn't necessarily my view, I was attempting to paraphrase him lol.

Using his logic to show how you also probably can't fake a belief, even if it is beneficial, you need to actualy believe it to receive those benefits.

But yes, I agree everything that he said about how natural selection or the selfish gene can result in people being very 'moral' as being 'moral' can actually be quite a logical thing to do, if the gene's goal is continuation of the human species.

This is also why I believe when we see much of the moral code in the Bible, it is almost like God engineered us in such a way that being moral would benefit us. Since I believe God engineered evolution.

Like I believe being a slave to your desires (which some claim to be "freedom") is not freedom at all. A fish that jumps out of the water is not free, its dead, whether they desire that or not. A man that acts immoral is not free because they can act that way, it slowly kills them (is a detriment to them). However a man that lived by their design (as opposed to living by their desire), has true freedom, and will live a good life. But we can't live true freedom (the way we are designed to live) because of sin.
The fact that we are slaves to our desire (sin), we now need Jesus to give us true freedom, and allow us to live our design.

This is why Jesus said in John 10:10 I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

He wants to free us from our desires, so we can know the truth, the truth of how we are designed to live and the truth can set us free, free to live an abundant life on earth, which gives glory to God.

[John_Dalton]

That wasn't necessarily my view, I was attempting to paraphrase him lol.

Got you

[Relates]

This is why Jesus said in John 10:10 I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

He wants to free us from our desires, so we can know the truth, the truth of how we are designed to live and the truth can set us free, free to live an abundant life on earth, which gives glory to God.

Salvation through Jesus Christ frees humans from their sin, that is their self-centered character, so they can fulfill their God centered character.

Darwin and Dawkins teach that all organisms are created selfish and this selfish nature is the basis for natural selection and thus evolution. Darwin called evolution the war of nature (against itself.)

The basis of my book, Darwin's Myth, is that Darwin's view of Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, is incompatible with Christianity and is false. Because this aspect of evolution BioLogos should not support Darwin and Dawkins, but support a corrected understanding of evolution based on ecology, which is not based on selfishness. There is no evidence that struggle and competition leads to progress, although that is what people think.

But there has been a change. The book by E. O. Wilson The Social Conquest of Earth in 2012 blows the selfish gene out of the water, even though many still follow Dawkins. Natural Selection based on competition does not explain the ecology, and no one has offered another valid explanation.

Wilson is not a Christian, but an ecologist who is open to working with Christians to save God's good green earth. Dawkins and the New Atheists are intent upon carrying out their war against science, Christianity, and truth. He denies that life has order and meaning. He says that everything that happens is accidental.

[beaglelady]

I am very disappointed that the length of time it took to respond to my post (15 min) and the lack of responsiveness in your response indicate that you are really not interested in a rational discussion of the evidence, but only in defending your point of view.

What is the maximum response time you consider acceptable? It's not like you had stopped breathing or anything.

[T_aquaticus]

Do you knot think the researcher/scientist that developed a cure could not have worked tirelessly for a cure was not doing so for love?

Love can be a great inspiration for anyone, but it is the scientific work that produces the cure.

Though I assume you were meaning to say that a love in the immediate time cannot miraculously cure, to which I would also say, just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it couldn't happen or hasn't happened.

That could be said about almost anything one wishes to claim. It is these types of arguments that keep con men and snake oil salesmen in business.

There is something to be said for social contact and social support. I wouldn't be surprised at all if patients who have a lot of support from family and friends do better than patients who have no such support. However, it isn't a universal panacea. If it were, we wouldn't have seen such a massive decrease in infant mortality and a large increases in human life expectancy over the last 100 years.

[T_aquaticus]

I like what they said in the debate about being a behavioral atheist, but a entomological agnostic. But also like I said, we are individuals and just like Christians don't agree on the details, nor do all atheist.

When you define a group of people by what they don't believe in you will get a very large spectrum of worldviews and opinions. I will totally agree with that. It's a bit like trying to define what non-golf players believe.

[T_aquaticus]

I am very disappointed that the length of time it took to respond to my post (15 min) and the lack of responsiveness in your response indicate that you are really not interested in a rational discussion of the evidence, but only in defending your point of view.

I am interested in supported arguments, not bare assertions.

What evidence do you have that someone other than YHWH, the One Who IS WHO HE IS, had the opportunity, the ability and means, and the motive to create the universe?

That is a shift in the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy. It is also an attempt at an argument from ignorance.

I don't know how the universe came into being. Now, where is the evidence for your claims that YHWH brought the universe into being? If there is no such evidence, then "I don't know" seems to be the best position to take.

I believe that the spiritual exists because I know that it is objective and real, even though it is not material. You say that spiritual, meaning and purpose, exists, but it is subjective and thus is it exists only in the mind.

Thus it seems that you choose that meaning and purpose for life that you arbitrarily decide is best, not because you have an objective and rational basis outside the mind for these values.

First, all I am asking for is the evidence that supports your claim that there is a real and objective spiritual realm. If you don't have this evidence, that's fine. You will continue to believe that it exists and I will continue to be skeptical of its existence. There's nothing wrong with that.

As to the subjective nature of purpose and meaning, I think you describe it well. I don't claim that there is some objective purpose and meaning that one can derive from the universe itself. Is producing massive black holes the purpose of the universe? Given that there are more supermassive black holes in the universe than there are humans who have ever existed, one could perhaps make that argument. There are more stars in our own galaxy than there are people, so is that the purpose of the universe?

In the end, I choose my purpose and meaning in life by what I find to have purpose and meaning. That would seem to be the very definition of subjective.

[Relates]

In the end, I choose my purpose and meaning in life by what I find to have purpose and meaning. That would seem to be the very definition of subjective.

The definition of subjective is that which has not objective criteria, or where a preference is private and does not effect the welfare of others, for instance preference for food and music. On the other hand when going out to eat with someone who had different tastes then you do, you should keep this in mind when selecting a restaurant.

Purpose and meaning at least for me and I expect most others must have objective bases because they need to take into account the welfare of others. Nazism, Jihadism, Trumpism, and Maoism do provide subjective meaning and purpose but are not acceptable forms of purpose and meaning for objective reasons, which means that meaning and purpose are not subjective, but objective.

[T_aquaticus]

The definition of subjective is that which has not objective criteria, or where a preference is private and does not effect the welfare of others, for instance preference for food and music. On the other hand when going out to eat with someone who had different tastes then you do, you should keep this in mind when selecting a restaurant.

Purpose and meaning at least for me and I expect most others must have objective bases because they need to take into account the welfare of others. Nazism, Jihadism, Trumpism, and Maoism do provide subjective meaning and purpose but are not acceptable forms of purpose and meaning for objective reasons, which means that meaning and purpose are not subjective, but objective.

I'm a bit confused by those two paragraphs because they seem to be arguing against one another. In one instance you are saying that personal preferences in music and food are subjective, but we still need to keep those subjective preferences in mind in order to be courteous and inclusive. In the second paragraph you state that meaning and purpose have to be objective in order for people to be courteous and inclusive. I don't see why meaning and purpose have to be objective in order for us to be courteous and inclusive, as your example of personal preferences in music and food illustrate.

On top of that, one could also argue that if there is an objective meaning and purpose for life it may not take the welfare of others into account.

[Relates]

I don't see why meaning and purpose have to be objective in order for us to be courteous and inclusive, as your example of personal preferences in music and food illustrate.

Personal preferences are not meaning and purpose. Our meaning and purpose should be objective in a way the personal preferences are not. If our (subjective) personal preferences get in the way of our (objective) meaning and purpose, it is our meaning and purpose which must give way.

If our personal preferences, our subjective ego, is dominant, then we don't have objective meaning and purpose in our lives. We are certifiably selfish.

[T_aquaticus]

Personal preferences are not meaning and purpose. Our meaning and purpose should be objective in a way the personal preferences are not. If our (subjective) personal preferences get in the way of our (objective) meaning and purpose, it is our meaning and purpose which must give way.

The problem I see is that some people are basing their claims about an objective purpose and meaning on their personal preference of which religion is right.

If our personal preferences, our subjective ego, is dominant, then we don't have objective meaning and purpose in our lives. We are certifiably selfish.

If the objective meaning and purpose of life is to get as much as you can no matter how it affects others, then that is the objective meaning. Like I said before, you are assuming that if there is an objective meaning and purpose to life that it will involve being courteous and inclusive.

Also, personal preferences can include a world where people are kind and generous towards one another, where empathy is favored over selfishness. You seem to assume that people will not help their fellow humans if left to their own devices. In multiple recent disasters people have reflexively ran to the aid of others. Even in controlled experiments, psychologists have found that humans consistently rush to each other's aid when there is a major threat or disaster, such as a burning building. On the flip side, people will ignore this altruistic instinct if they are ordered to harm others by a person in authority, which is a bit scary.

In other words, you are using your own personal and subjective preferences for how the world should be as a guide for judging what is and isn't moral. This seems to be a theme through many of your posts, where your beliefs are touted as the objective truth simply because you prefer them to be true.

At times, I wonder if this opposition to subjective and relative morality is due to thefact that they have been attacked so vociferously or viciously by some groups, as if subjective and relative moralities have no value. Perhaps this another point at which our worldviews differ. I do see value in subjective and relative morality. In fact, I tend to look unfavorably towards groups who claim to have the one and true Morality that all the world should follow, and that their claims can't be questioned or ignored. The advantage of starting with the position that your morality, purpose, and meaning of life is subjective and relative is that you can argue for it, and others can argue against it. I feel that it is the process of arguing and refining our ideas of purpose and meaning that improves them.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

The problem I see is that some people are basing their claims about an objective purpose and meaning on their personal preference of which religion is right.

I think this is unfair to those of us [like Roger] who want to pursue truth and be attentive to it wherever it is found --i.e. in God's creation and in sacred scriptures. We aren't looking for (or trying to land on) personal preferences. If we were we would all already be there, and there would be no point to any of this discourse, much less science, or any other academic pursuit. To help make this point, I'll adapt your last paragraph to illustrate what I mean. My interdictions will be in [brackets]. Imagine that you (channeling the recently humorous spirit of the Indiana legislature) had said:

At times, I wonder if this opposition to [the actual value of pi] is due to the fact that they have been attacked so vociferously or viciously by some groups, as if subjective and relative [appraisals of what pi should be] have no value. Perhaps this another point at which our worldviews differ. I do see value in subjective and relative [preferences for pi]. In fact, I tend to look unfavorably towards groups who claim to have the one and true [value of pi] that all the world should follow, and that their claims can't be questioned or ignored. The advantage of starting with the position that your [preference for the value of pi] is subjective and relative is that you can argue for it, and others can argue against it. I feel that it is the process of arguing and refining our ideas of [what pi should be] that improves [our idea of it].

[T_aquaticus]

I think this is unfair to those of us [like Roger] who want to pursue truth and be attentive to it wherever it is found --i.e. in God's creation and in sacred scriptures. We aren't looking for (or trying to land on) personal preferences.

My point is that while you may look at the Bible, others are looking at the Koran, the Vedas, and other sacred scriptures of other religions. Multiple groups are all claiming to have an objective and absolute moral code and purpose for life, and in many cases they contradict each other.

I, by no means, am trying to denigrate your pursuit for finding truth, meaning, and purpose. I hope that you don't see my criticisms or observations as mean spirited or hateful. I know it is hard to separate criticism from personal attacks, and it is something I often deal with when facing criticism. Maybe you do have it right and I am completely wrong. That is certainly a possibility. In the mean time, I find value in at least voicing how we see the world so we can understand each other a bit better. Thankfully, the people in this forum have been kind enough to allow me to voice my opinions as a guest in these forums, and I hope that I don't abuse the hospitality that I have been shown.

If we were we would all already be there, and there would be no point to any of this discourse, much less science, or any other academic pursuit. To help make this point, I'll adapt your last paragraph to illustrate what I mean. My interdictions will be in [brackets]. Imagine that you (channeling the recently humorous spirit of the Indiana legislature) had said:

This is why I lean towards the conclusion that we are all voicing subjective views when it comes to morality, meaning, and purpose. If these things were as objective as the value of pi then it would be as easy as drawing a circle and measuring the ratio between the radius and circumference, or deriving the ratio through mathematical means as people like Archimedes did in ancient times (while also possibly discovering Calculus in the process). We could also plug pi in to many different equations that describe physical motion and then see which ratio predicts the correct outcome.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

In the mean time, I find value in at least voicing how we see the world so we can understand each other a bit better. Thankfully, the people in this forum have been kind enough to allow me to voice my opinions as a guest in these forums, and I hope that I don't abuse the hospitality that I have been shown.

And I too appreciate your presence here and hope that we all can continue our discussions with respect and civility, and no -- I don't see any of your questions or comments as mean-spirited. I too am just interested in pursuing truth (like so many others who look in many different places). We all hope to derive profit from our sources, meaning we strive to find something beyond a mere affirmation of personal preference, but something that is valuable more widely in how it speaks to our culture. So I too offer my responses in the spirit of pursuing truth and clarity. So I hope you too don't feel put off by my responses.

[Relates]

In other words, you are using your own personal and subjective preferences for how the world should be as a guide for judging what is and isn't moral. This seems to be a theme through many of your posts, where your beliefs are touted as the objective truth simply because you prefer them to be true.

@T_aquaticus,

I find it strange that you say that choosing love over hate, harmony over war, and justice over injustice are subjective personal preferences, when they are not.

The issue is that you accept only one kind of truth, empirical scientific truth and none other, so there is no way to determine spiritual truth. You do not accept logical rational truth. You do not accept experiential, so you do not know what is spiritual truth is.

Lying is wrong and if you have experience the evil that lies produce you would know that they are wrong. Jesus said that Satan is the Father of lies, which means that those who tell lies are doing evil. That is experiential truth.

Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. A good tree produces good fruit. This is experiential truth, which means we learn from what we experience, both right and wrong. This is something that you have rejected as unprovable, even though it is real.

The Bible, here Paul, has given us a list of the Fruit of the Spirit: "Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Generosity, Faithfulness, and Self Control." These are the results of a life lived for Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. These are not absolute values, they are relational values, but "against these there is no law." They are right and true wherever.

Today the news is of the aftermath of a horrible mass shooting in Las Vagas. Right now people do not know why this happened, but certainly we can say that it is wrong, and not only is a subjective personal way.

[T_aquaticus]

The issue is that you accept only one kind of truth, empirical scientific truth and none other, so there is no way to determine spiritual truth. You do not accept logical rational truth. You do not accept experiential, so you do not know what is spiritual truth is.

The first thing you would need to do is demonstrate that there is spiritual truth. You can hardly blame someone for not accepting spiritual truth when you can't demonstrate that it exists.
Also, I find it strange that you would accuse me of not accepting logical rational truth when you base your arguments on so many logical fallacies, as documented in previous posts.

Lying is wrong and if you have experience the evil that lies produce you would know that they are wrong. Jesus said that Satan is the Father of lies, which means that those who tell lies are doing evil. That is experiential truth.

I have experienced lying, and the emotional damage that it does to others. I have been lied to, and I have experienced the emotional pain it produces in me. I accept this experiences for what they are, subjective experiences. I have also stated that subjective experiences can have value. Where we seem to be part ways is in the idea that our subjective experiences are reliable sources for describing objective reality. I would also like to point out that things written in a book are not experiential.

Today the news is of the aftermath of a horrible mass shooting in Las Vagas. Right now people do not know why this happened, but certainly we can say that it is wrong, and not only is a subjective personal way.

I don't see why it would need to be more than subjective. If we all agree that we don't want to live in a world where these types of things happen then surely that is enough for us to band together and change the world more to our liking. I don't see how making claims about objective truths changes anything.

[John_Dalton]

I find it strange that you say that choosing love over hate, harmony over war, and justice over injustice are subjective personal preferences, when they are not.

Lying is wrong and if you have experience the evil that lies produce you would know that they are wrong.

The Bible, here Paul, has given us a list of the Fruit of the Spirit: "Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Generosity, Faithfulness, and Self Control."

It's not hard to make a list of good things that people can do, things that tend to lead to greater happiness, and less pain and suffering, and bad things that lead to the opposite. I don't see any good reason to think that such a listing is a sign that an objective, ordained morality exists. The evidence isn't explicit either for the objective morality or the ordainer. One can subscribe to the values as part of a set of religious beliefs, which is fine, but it seems equally possible to choose other paths to morality.

Right now people do not know why this happened, but certainly we can say that it is wrong, and not only is a subjective personal way.

In some cases moral assessments are easier than others. I can say it's wrong too, certainly without going into any kind of contortions or anything. It's really just common sense.