I got to about the 10 minute mark before stopping. He’s made a subtle but important shift of wording I think. I seldom hear atheists say “you’d have to prove it to me.” What I do hear is “there isn’t sufficient evidence for me to believe that.” I didn’t really understand what he was saying about it being possible to prove things or not, but it’s obviously possible to hold beliefs without having absolute proof and I doubt anyone would deny that. I think you’d have a heck of a time even living your daily life if you tried to apply a standard of absolute proof to all your actions Conversely it’s also possible–in actuality the only reasonable position–to withhold belief when sufficient evidence is lacking (I hope I don’t need to point out perceptions on what is sufficient may and clearly do differ at times ). So he kind of lost me there. Maybe I’ll try to watch the rest later.
These are the kind of deep, foundation questions I meant when I said that logic will not easily be applied. I agree that logic can’t be applied to prove or disprove the existence of gods in general. I think that logic could be applied to questions about specific religious beliefs however, to give one example, if the God of the Bible exists or not. As for Free Will, from what I’ve seen some pretty smart people disagree about it. Much like the problem of hard solipsism, I don’t worry about it much–I walk around every day constantly deciding to do or not do certain things and then actually doing them or not, so I don’t really get it
In order to keep my response consistent with the title of the thread, I return us once again to the basic question: What about the millions of Christians who are devout church-goers and they think a 6 day creation is a foolish discussion?
Do they inevitably become immoral? Do they inevitably conclude there is no Christ?
As for the exact wording of this thread - - it is also foolish. It’s “click bait” for those who want to argue about Morality… not Evolution.
I find no strong connection between Christians that are pro-Evolution and Christians who think morality does not come from God. And except for the Atheists who might be supportive of BioLogos, BioLogos supporters don’t seem to agree with the title of this thread at all:
I see you are still using the science of Logic to try to acquire the knowledge of God… or to acquire the view that Atheism is logical.
In the pursuit of God (Theism vs. Atheism), I find the non-logical assessment of meaning (as in the Meaning of Life) to be reasonable and acceptable use of induction and intuition.
Theism is not an exercise in the science of Logic or in the Logic of science. Atheists continue to attempt to make it so . . . because that is really all they have: word games about “logic”, “proof” and “evidence”.
There is a God-shaped realm within the human mind… whether it is an artifact of Evolution alone, or an artifact of God-guided Evolution is irrelevant to the matter if one is already a Theist.
Agreed. He probably was addressing a now outdated perception of where most thoughtful atheists would put themselves, though I don’t doubt that some (as do most of us) may flippantly speak in terms of proof in our less formal moments. He does go on to apply this even to the more realistic levels of evidence, though too and it still suffers the same shortcomings as “proofism”.
This he (and I too) strongly disagree with. I can’t remember whether it was after 10 minutes in or not where he addressed this very thing, but he emphatically states (without empirical evidence of course --because that is kind of the point --isn’t it?) that it is definitely incorrect that anybody could/should always withhold belief for everything which lacks sufficient evidence. To believe this statement would in fact be self-contradicting in this very regard. Human rights is the main counter-example he hammers on to show this. Nearly all of us here now (from atheists through many of the major religions) would all insist that we believe in human dignity (right to life and pursuit of happiness if you will), and yet there is not a shred of empirical evidence to provide any objective basis for this whatsoever. He celebrates humanism wherever it is found (even among secularists) and says that humanism finds a fitting setting and foundation in all the world’s major religions, except secularism which provides the least (or none at all?) foundation for it. Secularism is also the most impoverished (Keller says) of the major religions in providing its adherents with resources to handle suffering. So he does attack the positions of the self-identified non-religious in this video. But he does not at all deny the abuses (the post-hoc justifications for inflicting suffering on others) that has bedeviled the adherents of all religions (including Christianity and Secularism). So he is being realistic too about the strength of human pride and what it does with everything, including religion. But I appreciated his ecumenical spirit in celebrating the [scientifically unsupported] commitment to human rights wherever it is found whether in the secular or religious sectors of society. I think the rest of the video could be well-worth your time, though I think I fairly represented his main points above. He has more specific asides, challenges, and turns-of-phrase that I found provocative, anyway. What did you think about his comment on Nietsche?
Added edits interspersed above – improvements on wording.
I take it these are rhetorical questions, George? Because they are easily answered: no and no.
So you want us to be arguing about evolution on this thread? Has Evolution been neglected lately in the Biologos forum? I think that morality [and its proposed basis] remains an interesting, and quite practical follow-up topic. But if @DarkX_Studios wants to step in and redirect us, he can --he was the author of the O.P. after all.
No, of course not. But it is very much like asking if a man has stopped beating his wife.
I don’t know anyone who thinks Morality is “connected” to Evolution (or, in other words, derived from Evolution) except those who are not devoted Christians and/or Atheists.
Good. So isn’t a great follow-up to that to ask: So what then (if anything) is morality connected to? And the question presumes that the listener has already accepted that morality exists in some sort of (quasi-objective?) sense and that this a good thing. It is a question of immense practical importance in today’s pluralistic political climates – wouldn’t you agree?
Absolutely. Before I became a Mason and even more so after I became a Freemason, I conclude and maintain that Morality comes from the great moral source: God.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
114
They are not evidence when using reason, either.
Of course, you are free to believe through faith in the absence of evidence. However, once you make the claim that you are following evidence then it seems that you have brought things like reason and science into the mix.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:104, topic:35781”]
Deciding if there is God is not Science.
[/quote]
If you are saying that a belief in God can’t be evidenced, then why say you have evidence?
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
115
I don’t doubt that a lack of a good argument is adequate for some.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:107, topic:35781”]
Religion and Faith are more about being happy in one’s own skin than about logic or probability.
This drives some Atheists nuts. So be it. Let them be so. It’s a free country.
[/quote]
It doesn’t drive me nuts at all. I think I understand that theists believe through faith and emotion, and they are free to do so. I support their right to believe whatever they may believe, just as long as they allow others to do the same.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
116
There is no “science of logic”. There is just logic. If you want to claim that a belief in God is illogical, lacks evidence, and is not backed with reason then I would generally agree. It seems that it is theists who consistently seek a foundation in logic, reason, and science for their beliefs.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:108, topic:35781”]
Atheists continue to attempt to make it so . . . because that is really all they have: word games about “logic”, “proof” and “evidence”.
[/quote]
You mean I can’t find a books written by Christians for Christians that try to argue that God is the source of morality using logic, reason, and evidence? I am pretty sure I could find those books.
Otherwise, it seems that we agree. The claim that God is the source of morality is not backed by evidence, logic, or reason. For atheists this is a problem. For theists like yourself, it would appear this is not a problem. C’est la vie.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
117
I would agree for the most part. We can all start at the same place, that humans are capable of empathy and reason which we use to derive our moral codes. This seems to be in agreement with Christian theology:
"Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Even the Bible says that humans are capable of judging morality for ourselves. How we came to acquire the ability to use logic and reason to judge morality is independent of the fact that we can.
Again, I have to think you are simply trying to impose your logic onto my life.
How would you expect to deny “the value of the Meaning of Existence” as part of a binding logic on the many Theists you know?
What do you consider “Best Practice” for how to integrate the “Meaning of Existence” into a logical construct ? Or even if you would permit this in any “logic system”?
I’m most eager to hear your verdict on what I do with my personal views on God, Morality and an eternity of an afterlife!
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
119
I don’t see how that is. I said you are free to believe in illogical and unevidenced things. I support your right to do so.
Also, it isn’t “my logic”. It is just logic. This is where you start from evidence to arrive at a conclusion.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:118, topic:35781”]
What do you consider “Best Practice” for how to integrate the “Meaning of Existence” into a logical construct ? Or even if you would permit this in any “logic system”?
[/quote]
Why do you even care if your beliefs are logical?
I can only determine what you don’t do, which is demonstrate how your beliefs logically flow from evidence.
When I say that it is “reasonable”, and you graciously offer:
“you are free to believe illogical and unevidenced things” … this is not agreement, endorsement or even acknowledgement .
My position is your practice of logic and evidentiary analysis is not appropriate when it comes to the divine. But I will certainly state that your position is a “reasoned one” advanced by Atheists all over the world, but not likely to be a “reasonable one”.
I can’t believe that could be true. My statement was really a tautology. If the evidence for something is insufficient, why should it reasonably be believed? I think the problem is in the word empirical:
It depends on what you’re trying to demonstrate IMO. It seems logical to me to hold beliefs in proportion to available evidence. If one were asserting that there is some objective, absolute property called “human dignity” that would be one thing. I would not say that however. For me, this is essentially a very simple proposition. In short, I want to be treated with dignity. I want the people I care about to be treated with dignity. I prefer to live in a society where people are treated with dignity. So, I want all people to be treated with dignity. I believe this world will be a better place, for me and everyone, if all people are treated with dignity. I don’t see that I need any more justification than that for this belief. I understand that this may be unsatisfying for some, and that they might prefer a different conception of reality or believe that the human situation points to it, but they’ll have to assume the burden of providing evidence for the more demanding belief, I think.
I don’t see why you would want to call secularism a religion–it’s literally a rejection of religion. It’s not above criticism by any means, but that I don’t get. I’m going to Wiki here “Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.” I’d have to ask you where you disagree with that I guess. As for suffering, it seems to me that people have many ways to assuage it. If you’ve got a good way to do so, I don’t begrudge anyone who wishes to avail themselves of it. In general, I won’t say that these kind of things are bad things. I’m not sure how they fit into this conversation however. They may be evidence that religion has a positive role in society, but not necessarily more than that.
Cheers. I will watch the rest of it–it seems some interesting points were made indeed!
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
122
I don’t see the word “reasonable” anywhere in the post I responded to, so I am not sure what you are trying to relate.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:120, topic:35781”]
My position is your practice of logic and evidentiary analysis is not appropriate when it comes to the divine.
[/quote]
That only begs the question as to why you hold that position, and how you arrived there.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:120, topic:35781”]
But I will certainly state that your position is a “reasoned one” advanced by Atheists all over the world, but not likely to be a “reasonable one”.
[/quote]
Conversely it’s also possible–in actuality the only reasonable position–to withhold belief when sufficient evidence is lacking (I hope I don’t need to point out perceptions on what is sufficient may and clearly do differ at times