Ethics and Religion

[SilentScope001]

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

 

That would explain the ritualistic scarfice of frogs we do in biology class.

 

But, this is why I do like the school of skepticism. This philosphical school takes the same arguments you make and basically claim it is impossible to figure out the truth (since our senses could be flawed), so don't bother trying. It is supposed to cause inner peace, as you no longer have to worry on what is the "truth" (because it's stupid to figure it out).

 

It's not very popular with scientists, religious folk, and...well, almost everyone for that matter.

[Carlo El Sanchez]

I am Greek Athodox, but also beleave in Budhism.

[jonathan7]

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books,".

 

Officially all Christians should believe this; it doesn't make you any more or less evil than anyone else. Just because I'm a Christian doesnt make me any better than anyone else. From the Christian perspective I sin the same as everyone else, there is nothing I can do to save myself which is why I need Jesus to die for me on the cross. And in God's eyes all sin is equal so you are no more evil than me. The only difference being I believe in Jesus so he takes the rightful punishment I should recieve, which he did so on the Cross. I'm sure some people will argue that not all Christians should believe the above but if the bible is the true word of God then what is above is directly from the Gospels. Its also why I get very frustrated when Christians are tolerate or loving of those they should seek to look after. So for example I think the Church over the years has stigmatised Gay people, but their Sin is no different to me swearing in the eyes of God and if they don't believe in God why should they follow his laws? Its also why if say you have a gay Christian, we should be very carefdunl in the manner anyone should correct him on any sexual sin he could perhaps be into, as Jesus was very perseptive when he was talking about look at the plank in your own eye before telling your brother about the splinter in his. Thats me 2 cents for now.

[JediMaster12]

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books," as well as a throwback for worshipping ancient Gods. It is not a conclusion I came to lightly. For years, I thought there was something wrong with me because I put a lot of effort into trying to follow the Christian faith, but kept coming up with too many questions.

I question too but mainly it is the Catholic tradition. I don't believ in saying the Hail Mary or things like the Prayer of Saint Francis. I believe that the only way to have your prayer answered is to ask God through his Son. As an anthropologist, I don't consider Wiccans as being a throwback. It is who you are. If you think that is a throwback, let us make Buddhism one too and Shinto since they are old religions. Everything has a history including religion. It doesn't make anything a throwback. I have an acquaintance who is Wiccan. I study Wiccan belief, purely in the academic sense though I get the probing questions. I don't consider my self better than you or anyone. That is blatant ethnocentrism if you think like that.

 

...But I want to harm myself or harm others, to punish myself or to punish others. I think this sort of "harming", punishment, is excluded from your definition (since it prevents 'greater harm'), but still...

"Do as ye will but ye shall harm no one"

When I began my personal study into the mantra, I took it to mean the practicing of spells against a person. My research uncovered that by casting a spell against someone is deemed sorcery. I could be wrong or it is one interpretation of it. The mantra, like anything is a matter of conduct when practicing belief.

 

Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

Yes it is. I see that someone has been paying attention to what I said. I gave the same argument in a general religion thread. I gotta hand it to Geertz with his technical definition. At least it helps when I conduct my research.

 

This philosphical school takes the same arguments you make and basically claim it is impossible to figure out the truth (since our senses could be flawed), so don't bother trying. It is supposed to cause inner peace, as you no longer have to worry on what is the "truth" (because it's stupid to figure it out).

Inner peace through claiming it is impossible to figure out truth? Truth is relative my friend. Truth is how you see things.

[Q]

Truth is relative my friend. Truth is how you see things.

Uh... Are you sure about that?

[Darth InSidious]

Quick point: Catholicism teaches that Satan is evil. It is also taught that he is immensely clever and devious. If (to our eyes), you were seduced by him, but believe yourself to be doing right, does that make you an evil person? No. Misguided, perhaps, but not evil.

 

That said, I know very little about Wicca, although I do find the Satanist Black Mass an insulting mockery, but that's another discussion...

[Samuel Dravis]

Answer: Discordianism (religion disguised as satire disguised as religion), and the Law of Fives.

Your example of the law of fives does indeed fit my 90% requirement. I suppose I should have specified that the phenomenon must be distinguishable from chance to have any use for the purpose I was interested in.

 

...

7. That Prime Mover is God.

 

Problem: We already found the Prime Mover...the Big Bang. But what causes that? Why, if you believe in string theory...strings. So that theory (of God existing since I move) goes pretty awry. And what if there is an inifinte chain of events, each thing moving something else, and it is a chain that will never end?

There are some problems with this argument that bear thought. First, and probably most obvious, is like you say - what caused the First Cause? Just asking the question is nonsensical if you take for granted that things MUST follow from a cause. Even if you consider that only EFFECTS must have causes, why do we single out one particular "First Cause" as if it were different from any other, i.e., not an effect? Also, even if you were able to show that there was indeed particular "First Cause," you wouldn't be able to say it was (xxxx religion)'s God with any certainty except if you argue from a definition, which is clearly circular reasoning. If you consider the "First Cause" to be outside of time, then the premise that 'all effects must have a cause' is a strange sort of position to take - there'd be no distinguishable relation between the cause and effect. Of course, none of this shows whether a God does indeed exist or not; however, it does mean that holding such a belief is not necessary to acting rationally.

 

Another proof...from Descartes (the inventor of the "evil demon" argument, the predecssor of the infamous "Brain In Vat" experiment):

 

That above proof also uses philopshy, but Descartes felt that it was quite easy to see that God exist thanks to that proof, and to deny it would be like denying a triangle has 180 degrees.

A couple of problems with such proofs is that they aren't really. They depend on suppositions that don't follow from human capability. For instance, consider the argument of Anselm, in which he says he can conceive of a God as a being greater than nothing can be imagined. This presupposes that God concept is capable of being conceived by humans, and also that Anselm did so. Is it possible to truly conceive infinity, and how do you know you have done so? This knowledge is core to the integrity of the argument, but it hasn't been proven a priori; thus, the argument is not really an argument, but an opinion. There are also other objections, such as Kant's rejection of existence as a property.

 

So...What is science?

 

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

 

...

 

In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

 

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

By your definition, yes. Many would not use that definition, however, thinking that there is no way to determine the sort of transcendant truth that religion tries to ascribe properties to. To me, a more useful definition is the one that ET Warrior posted above. Using this definition, scientific findings would not subject to belief as religious ones are. They are simply a model of what our senses tell us, whether that information is truthful or not.

[The Architect]

Wow! You folks are like…brain surgeons! This topic is out of my knowledge league…but not by much mind you. That’s why I’ll stay out of this discussion from now on, because most likely I’ll get owned by one of youse, like I pretty much already have by Samuel Dravis , however I still believe that life originated via supernatural means from some type of higher being/s.

 

I’ll just say one thing though. Scepticism can be a good thing. I’m a bit sceptical in general myself, but it’s never a good thing to be too sceptical, because you’ll drive your brain nuts!

[Achilles]

Question:

 

A definition of religion can be 'a set of beliefs based around an unprovable central belief or beliefs.' - If anyone objects to this, feel free to say so

I suppose that's one possible definition. If we are attempting to operationally define the term, I would prefer to use the definition found in Webster's. If you find some fault with it, I'm sure that we can discuss it:

 

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

I'm assuming that your intent is to paraphrase 4? 1 (a & b) won't work for obvious reasons. 2 also won't work because it specifies religion. It also specifies "personal" belief, whereas belief based on science is for everyone. 3 doesn't apply because science is skeptical by nature. 4 doesn't apply (here or in your paraphrased definition) because science does not utilize faith (although I'm sure someone will be along shortly to insist that it does, if the argument hasn't been raised already).

 

So...What is science?

 

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

 

Again, if we are operationally defining the term, I would say that the following is more accurate (once again, taken from Webster's):

 

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

 

The key words that I would like to point out here are "as obtained and tested through scientific method"

 

In order for something to be considered valid in the eyes of science, it must be testable, reproducible, falsifiable, etc, etc (hence why science concerns itself with only natural explanations). Since God (YHWH, etc) is/are decidedly supernatural (i.e. not falsifiable), He/She/It/They falls outside the realm of scientific study. This is possibly tangential, however I suspect that this will come up later.

 

But can we?

 

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In this situation, the universe is created in one instant by a deity or deities who will henceforth be known as The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos. The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos creates something very similar to Earth, but instantly. And then The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos leaves the universe to its own problems and solutions, never to return.

 

Now in this universe, on this not-quite-Earth, which we shall call Tellurius, there is a single island-colony of humans. There is one main difference between them and humans in our universe - these humans are all blind from birth. They have no concept of sight, as they have never had it, never perceived using it, they don't know of its existence.

 

They build their society on a similar model to ours, fighting their wars, learning their knowledge, and building their understanding of the universe. But. They can't see.

 

And so, how do they learn things only learnt by sight? They can't. Or, they learn in a more inefficient manner.

 

There are a lot of assumptions made in this last couple of statements that would appear to be based on fallacy. Since they can fight their wars and learn their knowledge and build their understanding of the universe, we can only assume that this imaginary species has evolved some other means of advancing themselves.

 

It also assumes that whatever these means may or may not be, they are patently "inferior" to sight (which may or not be true).

 

And somewhere along the line, a fundamental mistake is made. So fundamental that it is completely ignored as being impossible to be wrong.

 

So how do they know that their perception of the universe is flawed if they have no concept of what they are missing?

 

What is this fundamental mistake and what impact does it have on their species? Again, we're assuming an awful lot here. I'm thinking that science shows us that blind species are just as well adapted to their environments as sight-bearing species are to their's.

 

Their perception of their universe is predicated upon whatever ability they have to observe their universe. Without sight, it seems unlikely that they could develop tools, make much use of bipedal locomotion, etc. I'm sure someone with a degree in evolutionary biology could do a much better job of painting a picture of this hypothetical species, but I suspect that the point is moot.

 

Let me put it another way: We perceive the world through five senses, it is generally agreed. Others may or may not exist -that I'm not going to delve into here.

 

But is the world as we perceive it the world as it really is? What if our perceptions are coloured, or flawed, because of something we are incapable, and have no concept of exists as a further method of perception?

 

It's possible. But these methods of perceiving our world would fall outside the realm of science (which would seem to contradict the argument that science is a religion)

 

Until any observations could be made using these "other senses" that are capable of holding up to the scientific method, they would have to remain in the "non-science" category.

 

In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

 

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

 

Science is not a religion for the reasons posted above.

[Allronix]

http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML

 

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,

Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .

We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,

And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.

Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;

Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.

The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

 

 

From "The Word of God" by Cat Faber

[JediMaster12]

Uh... Are you sure about that?

Of course. Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true. This topic of religion is a good example. Truth isn't always what it appears.

 

I suppose that's one possible definition. If we are attempting to operationally define the term, I would prefer to use the definition found in Webster's.

Websters is a good definition but in terms for use in study, I prefer the definition that Geertz came up with that Darth Insidious and I have stated before. You could say that it is a means to quantify it or something like that.

 

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

This one holds more along the lines of what I was thinking of and what Geertz was attempting. If I find it again I can post it again what Geertz said. He expands it to include symbolism as weel.

[Boba Rhett]

Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true.

 

 

 

Making up your own definitions for existing words doesn't magically make them applicable, usually is frowned upon, and also does not lend merit to ones outlook on the matter at hand.

[Achilles]

Of course. Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true. This topic of religion is a good example. Truth isn't always what it appears.

I think you're going to find that relativism will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of in some cases.

 

If "truth" is what you perceive, than what is "true" will differ from person to person. Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

 

That the earth travels around the sun is a fact.

That God created the earth is 6 days is an opinion.

 

One of these things is observable, repeatable, testable, etc and should be considered "true" by any rational person. The other is a matter of faith, which means that the believer believes it in spite of little, no, or contradictory evidence.

 

As you can see, there is truth and then there is relativism. The trick is not to confuse the two.

 

Websters is a good definition but in terms for use in study, I prefer the definition that Geertz came up with that Darth Insidious and I have stated before. You could say that it is a means to quantify it or something like that.

Regardless, I think that one of the definitions offered by Webster's was pretty close to the definition offered by Darth Insidious. In both cases, the term "religion" cannot be applied to science for reasons that I have already posted. Webster's definition cannot apply because it invokes faith. DI's definition does not work because it can not be uniformly applied with regards to science.

 

This one holds more along the lines of what I was thinking of and what Geertz was attempting. If I find it again I can post it again what Geertz said. He expands it to include symbolism as weel.

You can take the time to find it if you'd like, but I think I already showed that it cannot be used to equate science to religion (which was the gist of the post that I was responding to), so I'm not sure what that will accomplish.

 

Again, if we're operationally defining the terms, it might save everyone a lot of time to simply use a commonly held existing definition rather than try to cook up one of our own. Just my 2 cents.

[SilentScope001]

I think you're going to find that relativism will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of in some cases.

 

If "truth" is what you perceive, than what is "true" will differ from person to person. Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

 

That the earth travels around the sun is a fact.

That God created the earth is 6 days is an opinion.

 

One of these things is observable, repeatable, testable, etc and should be considered "true" by any rational person. The other is a matter of faith, which means that the believer believes it in spite of little, no, or contradictory evidence.

 

As you can see, there is truth and then there is relativism. The trick is not to confuse the two.

 

And this is why I dislike science.

 

Science claims that it can find the truth. Well, then. Prove it.

 

Prove to me that the world revolves around the Sun.

 

Okay, you got some stats, observations and such. Prove to me that those stats, observations, senses, and everything is true.

 

You gave me a standard by which you evaluate if something is true or not to prove that this is true. Prove to me that standard is true.

 

You're telling me to shut up because it's "self-evident"? Well then, according to a preacher, the world is created within 6 days and that is "self-evident". Why should I trust you, when your words have equal validity to that preacher's words? It doesn't.

 

I of course believe that the world revolves around the Sun. Just like I believe I am typing here. But I'm willing to accept the possiblity that my beliefs are wrong. Can you?

 

Here is a more formal explaination of what I am arguing here. This is from the school of sketpicism once more, this time from the Founder of Skepticism, Sextus Empiricus:

 

1. If we prefer one knd of observation either we do so with judgment and proof or without judgment and proof.

2. If we prefer it without judgment and proof, then our preference is aribtrary and not to be trusted.

3. If we prefer it with judgment, then we do it either with proof or without proof

4. If without proof, then the judmgent is again arbitrary and not to be trusted.

5. If we do it proof, we can ask what standard is applied to the proof.

6. Either the standard is justified or is it isn't.

7. If it isn't jusitifed then it is arbitrary.

8. If it justified then we can ask what standard is applied to the justification. (etc., etc.)

 

Either the process goes on forever, and so the preference is not. Or it re-uses the same standard of proof, in which case it is circular. Or at some point, the "dogmatisit" refuses to offer further justification or proof, in which case she is unreasonable.

 

Circular arguments can be valid (if the peremises are true the conclusion must be true, since one of the premises is the conclusion), but they are never legitimately persuasive. The audience won't accept the premise. (That premise is what you were trying to persuade them to accept)

[Samuel Dravis]

And this is why I dislike science.

 

Science claims that it can find the truth. Well, then. Prove it.

 

Prove to me that the world revolves around the Sun.

 

Okay, you got some stats, observations and such. Prove to me that those stats, observations, senses, and everything is true.

 

You gave me a standard by which you evaluate if something is true or not to prove that this is true. Prove to me that standard is true.

 

You're telling me to shut up because it's "self-evident"? Well then, according to a preacher, the world is created within 6 days and that is "self-evident". Why should I trust you, when your words have equal validity to that preacher's words? It doesn't.

 

I of course believe that the world revolves around the Sun. Just like I believe I am typing here. But I'm willing to accept the possiblity that my beliefs are wrong. Can you?

 

Here is a more formal explaination of what I am arguing here. This is from the school of sketpicism once more, this time from the Founder of Skepticism, Sextus Empiricus:

I've already addressed this exact issue on page 1. I don't trust things I observe to be absolute truths. Science does not claim it can find absolute truths. The only thing science does is find models that seem to fit what we percieve, and nothing more. By accepting this I MUST believe that my ideas about how the world works are possibly incomplete. I would NEVER try to prove to you that my model is the absolute truth, because it can't be done. I can, however, show you that my model may work better than yours on some things, and I can prove it to you in that context.

 

I agree that your preacher's words have the same value of usefulness in determining "absolute" truth. However, one is far more useful in predicting how I will see things in the future. Science does work in that regard, so I trust it more than something I have no way of verifing the effectiveness of. It's part of the reason I asked about anyone finding something that is true (appears to be anyway) 90% that was predicted by some religion - it's because it would allow me to verify its claims and judge its usefulness as a model compared to others that are already working. Like I said, however, there is no such thing that I am aware of. Religion's claims are usually of the impossible to verify variety, perhaps because that very property is valuable to it.

 

I'm curious what more people think of the deterministic christianity view I posted earlier on page one. Since it appears that there are a few of you here, I would enjoy discussing the merits of its impact on the value of ethics. After all, this wasn't about God, per se... just the idea's impact on ethics.

[SilentScope001]

I've already addressed this exact issue on page 1. I don't trust things I observe to be absolute truths. Science does not claim it can find absolute truths. The only thing science does is find models that seem to fit what we percieve, and nothing more. By accepting this I MUST believe that my ideas about how the world works are possibly incomplete. I would NEVER try to prove to you that my model is the absolute truth, because it can't be done. I can, however, show you that my model may work better than yours on some things, and I can prove it to you in that context.

 

It is more arguing against Achilles' position andn not yours.

 

That may be true that science offers a framework, which is why I believe in it. I treat it respectfully, and I obey it quite well. Still, I would like to remind people that there is always the possiblity science may be wrong. There is no proof science is wrong, but then again, there is no proof that science is right. I just accept it as true anyway, based on faith.

 

I agree that your preacher's words have the same value of usefulness in determining "absolute" truth. However, one is far more useful in predicting how I will see things in the future.

 

So that's where that 90% rule comes in. Well, then again, that preacher may end up speaking about the Rule of Five, and then try to come up with some way of arguing that it's not really "by random chance" that everything is related to 5, but it's all part of some divine plan by Eris or something to that effect.

 

I guess I can understand why I believe in Science then, due to that 90% rule.

 

I'm curious what more people think of the deterministic christianity view I posted earlier on page one. Since it appears that there are a few of you here, I would enjoy discussing the merits of its impact on the value of ethics.

 

If it is true, then ethics really does have no meaning. Some scientists are aruging that the human race is in fact deterministic, determined by natural events and such, and that we are contorlled by our subconsisus. During a disuccion in philosphy about this, people argue if this would justify evil...which leads to the question on what is evil if we are all contorlled to believe in certain things?

 

These very same scientists try to reaffirm free will by stating that we are able to veto our urges that the subconsisus tells us...but there is no proof of that, so I don't trust that.

 

Of course, if there is such thing as a Chrisitsan deterministic God, then we can just say that God made Human race for his own reasons, maybe only to exholt his pleasures and such...or maybe for something more sinister. It goes to show that there is some hidden answers that we have yet to discover.

[Jae Onasi]

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.

 

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil".

 

This is a very challenging thing to understand, and I don't know that we can fully understand it, what with being imperfect and finite and all.

 

Just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice in the matter. I can give my kids the option of obeying or not obeying, and in any given situation I'm going to have a good idea which route they're going to take since I know them very well because of our family relationship. If they obey, I can exercise one of my actions accordingly, and if they disobey, I exercise other options. If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions. If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

 

Someone used an analogy one time of an orchestra. Say you're a viola player, and you mess up on a piece of music, maybe even intentionally. God has the ability to alter the entire piece of music to work around your mistake (and everyone else's) to still keep the music beautiful. Is it better to play it the way He designed? Sure, but that doesn't mean He's limited in what He can do or even anticipate in any given situation.

[Achilles]

And this is why I dislike science.<snip>

 

Samuel Dravis' response to this message is probably similar enough to my own that I don't feel a need to repeat it.

 

I will only take a moment to point out that nowhere have I told you to "shut up". In fact this is the first time that I have addressed you in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth in the future. Thanks in advance.

 

That may be true that science offers a framework, which is why I believe in it. I treat it respectfully, and I obey it quite well. Still, I would like to remind people that there is always the possiblity science may be wrong. There is no proof science is wrong, but then again, there is no proof that science is right.

 

Before I respond, I'd like to point out that the first two sentences here appear to be a contradiction to the quote above. Could you please clarify your stance on science?

 

There is always a possibility that a scientific theory is wrong. That is why the scientific method seeks to show if a hypothesis is falsifiable. For instance, if someone were to offer an alternative theory that explains the movement of the sun and could prove it via the scientfic method, then we would have to reject our earlier model and accept the new one...until something better (which could be tested) comes along.

 

You can argue with some of the theories all you want (in fact it's encouraged), however you can't argue the process.

 

I just accept it as true anyway, based on faith.

The scientific method does not require faith. This is why the label of "religion" does not apply.

 

If it is true, then ethics really does have no meaning. Some scientists are aruging that the human race is in fact deterministic, determined by natural events and such, and that we are contorlled by our subconsisus. During a disuccion in philosphy about this, people argue if this would justify evil...which leads to the question on what is evil if we are all contorlled to believe in certain things?

 

These very same scientists try to reaffirm free will by stating that we are able to veto our urges that the subconsisus tells us...but there is no proof of that, so I don't trust that.

 

You do know that "science" is a field of study, not an organization of people, correct? Also, are you aware that some scientists study some things and that other scientists study others?

 

Some scientist might be arguing for determinism, but the ones that are posing a counter-argument for free will are most likely different human beings.

 

Since we're on the subject, could you please post a link that details these studies further? It seems to me that this subject is more philosophy than science, so I would be very much interested in knowing more about what science has to offer the subject of free will.

 

Straying even closer to the topic, I think that it is possible to find moral absolutes, however one would most likely have to reject religion in order to find them. The main critisim of Kant's categorical imperative (a tool which can be used to judge morality/ethics) is that it conflicts with the deterministic model. If one were to scrap this model and all its implications, a remarkably similar (but non-dogmatic) ethical framework would still exist (apparently we don't need a story about stone tablets for "Thou shalt not kill" to make sense).

 

To summarize this point: religion is not the de facto source of ethics. Most arguments for ethical behavior can be "proven" outside of religion. This means that religion is not necessary for ethics or ethical behavior.

[JediMaster12]

Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

Exactly. We do make the assumption that there is a difference. More often we base this on "commom ascent" or a common opinion something like that. What I am trying to say is that take the law for example: most things that we have deemed illegal is because on a general consensus and abiding with our morality, they are wrong. How the laws are written are up for interpretation which is what gets us into trouble.

 

Again, if we're operationally defining the terms, it might save everyone a lot of time to simply use a commonly held existing definition rather than try to cook up one of our own.

Geertz's definition is widely accepted among anthropologists and is used as a basis to identify the religious aspects of a particular culture. This is difficult to do since many societies don't have the separation of church and state like the US or other places. The Aztec religon heavily intertwines with the socio-political side of things down to the fact that they could lose a battle if they displease their god. Anthropology is a social science and like many other things in this world, it is inexact. It is up to interpretation.

 

There is always a possibility that a scientific theory is wrong. That is why the scientific method seeks to show if a hypothesis is falsifiable.

Another way of saying that science disproves rather than proves. Thanks Achilles

 

If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions.

Nice point to emphasize and I totally agree. Our moral compass can point us in the right direction but it doesn't make us go there. In the end, we have to make the choice and hope that it comes out for the best.

[SilentScope001]

I will only take a moment to point out that nowhere have I told you to "shut up". In fact this is the first time that I have addressed you in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth in the future. Thanks in advance.

 

I was not putting words in your mouth, but rather making an argument of someone else defending science and what he would say.

 

Before I respond, I'd like to point out that the first two sentences here appear to be a contradiction to the quote above. Could you please clarify your stance on science?

 

Science claims that its method is correct. That by using the method, you are able to figure out stuff. You say it yourself:

 

You can argue with some of the theories all you want (in fact it's encouraged), however you can't argue the process.

 

No, I think you should argue with the process. If the process is flawed, then all theories that come out of it is flawed, and we should know that. If we can't trust our observations, then we should not trust what results from the observations, the theories of Science.

 

And this is why I dislike science. For all its vaunted discussion about being skepticial, and always trying to disprove, it never ever thought of trying to disprove or question the Scientific Method. By adhering to this Method, it has became just as dogmatic as lots of other religious groups out there, which is a major disappointment.

 

The scientific method does not require faith. This is why the label of "religion" does not apply.

 

Do you trust that the scientific method is correct? Do you trust that your observations are accurate? Do you believe in it? Yes? Then to me, it requires faith. It is, to me, a religion.

 

You do know that "science" is a field of study, not an organization of people, correct? Also, are you aware that some scientists study some things and that other scientists study others?

 

Of course, two groups of scientists can argue with each other, just like two different squabbling religious sects can argue with each other. So what? That doesn't mean anything.

 

Since we're on the subject, could you please post a link that details these studies further? It seems to me that this subject is more philosophy than science, so I would be very much interested in knowing more about what science has to offer the subject of free will.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1325394000&en=7d7a58876163384d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

Straying even closer to the topic, I think that it is possible to find moral absolutes, however one would most likely have to reject religion in order to find them. The main critisim of Kant's categorical imperative (a tool which can be used to judge morality/ethics) is that it conflicts with the deterministic model. If one were to scrap this model and all its implications, a remarkably similar (but non-dogmatic) ethical framework would still exist (apparently we don't need a story about stone tablets for "Thou shalt not kill" to make sense).

 

Uh. Mr. Kant's denotlogical beliefs are just as unproven and in some cases, just as unreasonable as the stone tablets of "Thou shalt not kill".

 

Here is Kant's law...

 

The way you determine if an act is permissible is: can this be a universal law? “Can everyone adopt the law: Everyone can lie, Everyone ought to lie?” Can society function? Kant thinks no, so it is not okay to lie at all. This is the self-defeating test.

 

Expect, uh...Society can function if everyone lies. How come? Well haven't you seen the Sith Academcy in K1, with the Sith plotting and betraying? I think lying and cheating and stealing can allow for a society to function...and even, in some cases, prosper. And, oh, yeah, in K2, "I always lie" is not a paradox as well.

 

It also begs the question of why Society must function? Why can't we live alone? Why do we need others?

 

Another part of Kant's beliefs:

 

Moral Standard 2: An action is right if and only if it treats a person as an end instead of only as a means.

 

And why must we treat humanity as an ends? Why can't we use the human race to do something greater? Why must we treat it as something...special? And you know that would be bad for society if people actually accept it? So much for an army, the drafting, the civil service, the tax collection, the experimenations, so much for, well everything.

 

Nope, to me, Kant's beliefs are irrational. Just as irrational as the holy books. At least the holy books give you a reason to obey, Kant gives me none.

 

To summarize this point: religion is not the de facto source of ethics. Most arguments for ethical behavior can be "proven" outside of religion. This means that religion is not necessary for ethics or ethical behavior.

 

And they can be "disproven" outside of religion as well. There are tons of ethical theories out there, each theory hating each other, and each theory having no logical basis or reason. Marqius de Sade said murder is okay because it helps out nature, and it provides compost materials. Obivously, nature is much more important than mankind, so why ban murder for what nature intended for man? This is just an example however.

 

The fact is, ethics, oustide of religion, becomes nothing more than a debate field where we just try to argue to each other what is right and what is wrong. I

 

I myself like Act Utilitrainism which says good acts are those that make people "happy". Of course, it begs the question of why must people be happy, but it also is so vague that anything can be justified for the sake of "making people happy". Murder, framing of innocent people, tyranny, censorship...you name it, it "makes people happy".

 

Which is why I like it. Because it allows for me to understand why everyone does whatever they want to do. It acts as a useful framework to allow me to know why people do what they want to do...

 

Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

 

Actually, facts can become a matter of opinon too. I hate Holocaust deniers, and think of them as idiots, but Holocaust deniers are claiming the Holocaust is not fact. You cannot prove to them that the Holocaust exist. So now what? How in the world can you persuade them? You can't. They will assume that you are holding an opinon that the Holocaust exist, and they are holding the fact that the Holocaust did not exist.

 

There is no difference therefore between facts and opinons, since different people can very well have different views over certain "facts". Since the "facts" are contested, and people begin splitting into two camps, each claiming that they are right, then I consider them to be holding different opinons.

 

If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

 

The difference however is the fact that you did not make your kids what they are today. God made the human, in all his glory and all his imprefectness. And since he made that man, he could very well know everything about that man. And he could change it, if he wanted to. God could have just thrown everything into a random Mankind generator, and decide not to mess with it. Or God could have tinkered with all aspects of mankind, making it how he meant to be.

 

In other words, only God knows if he gives us free will or the illusion of free will.

[Samuel Dravis]

So that's where that 90% rule comes in. Well, then again, that preacher may end up speaking about the Rule of Five, and then try to come up with some way of arguing that it's not really "by random chance" that everything is related to 5, but it's all part of some divine plan by Eris or something to that effect.

That preacher could try to say that, but unless he connected it to something verifiable there'd be no reason to believe him. He'd just be saying something about what he thinks, but giving no real reason to justify why he thinks it. His model lacks useful predictive power.

 

Of course, if there is such thing as a Chrisitsan deterministic God, then we can just say that God made Human race for his own reasons, maybe only to exholt his pleasures and such...or maybe for something more sinister. It goes to show that there is some hidden answers that we have yet to discover.

I'd hesitate to describe that kind of God as evil or sinister. He just is, doing what he wants. Nothing particularly sinister about that since there isn't anyone else to care about.

 

This is a very challenging thing to understand, and I don't know that we can fully understand it, what with being imperfect and finite and all.

 

Just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice in the matter. I can give my kids the option of obeying or not obeying, and in any given situation I'm going to have a good idea which route they're going to take since I know them very well because of our family relationship. If they obey, I can exercise one of my actions accordingly, and if they disobey, I exercise other options. If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions. If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

 

Someone used an analogy one time of an orchestra. Say you're a viola player, and you mess up on a piece of music, maybe even intentionally. God has the ability to alter the entire piece of music to work around your mistake (and everyone else's) to still keep the music beautiful. Is it better to play it the way He designed? Sure, but that doesn't mean He's limited in what He can do or even anticipate in any given situation.

You see, Jae, my problem with that is that it doesn't seem to be the same situation with God as in your examples. In the orchestra one, you asked if it was better to play it as God designed. What is the difference between what God designed and you played? IS there any difference? He knew what you would play before you were created, before humanity was created, before the universe was created. How is what you played not his ultimate design?

 

In your first example, you have a "good idea" of what your children will do. God doesn't. He knows exactly what they will do. Moreover, he chose that they would do it, and that you would punish them for making a "bad" decision.

 

I'll restate what I said on page one for reference:

 

1)God knows everything, what has been and what will be.

2)God created everything.

 

I assume these because they are common in mainstream Christianity. Now, if God creates anything (2), he automatically knows exactly what the creation of that thing entails (1). Due to the fact that humanity is a limited creation, humans cannot do things that are not in their nature. Necessarily, God created those limitations by creating limited beings (2).

 

From this, we can discover a few things: since God created us, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Since he knew this, and still created us in the way we are, with the limitations we have, he MUST have decided that this was what he wanted. Since he decided exactly what people would do at any point in their lives, I don't see how free will follows, nor how God can be considered having any affiliation with "good" or "evil."

 

 

BTW Jae, you didn't quote me.

 

No, I think you should argue with the process. If the process is flawed, then all theories that come out of it is flawed, and we should know that. If we can't trust our observations, then we should not trust what results from the observations, the theories of Science.

 

And this is why I dislike science. For all its vaunted discussion about being skepticial, and always trying to disprove, it never ever thought of trying to disprove or question the Scientific Method. By adhering to this Method, it has became just as dogmatic as lots of other religious groups out there, which is a major disappointment.

I would be quite interested in any other method that approaches the accuracy of the scientific method for the purposes that the method is used for. Do you have one?

 

Nope, to me, Kant's beliefs are irrational. Just as irrational as the holy books. At least the holy books give you a reason to obey, Kant gives me none.

How do they give you a reason to obey?

 

The fact is, ethics, oustide of religion, becomes nothing more than a debate field where we just try to argue to each other what is right and what is wrong.

Depends on if you're trying to get transcendant truth or not. If you're just trying to find out whether something is good or bad within a framework, it can be done. Religion is a framework among a great many others and is not necessarily a useful one.

 

Which is why I like it. Because it allows for me to understand why everyone does whatever they want to do. It acts as a useful framework to allow me to know why people do what they want to do...

You've already shown yourself that it doesn't do a thing for true understanding.

 

Actually, facts can become a matter of opinon too. I hate Holocaust deniers, and think of them as idiots, but Holocaust deniers are claiming the Holocaust is not fact. You cannot prove to them that the Holocaust exist. So now what? How in the world can you persuade them? You can't. They will assume that you are holding an opinon that the Holocaust exist, and they are holding the fact that the Holocaust did not exist.

The difference being that many people's opinions are more likely to be true than just a few. For example, you could make them go to a concentration camp and see it for themselves. You could do quite a few things that, while they don't PROVE the Holocaust, they do make it quite a bit more likely than not. It's strange how you would be bothered about not being able to "prove" it when clearly it can't be done...

[SilentScope001]

From this, we can discover a few things: since God created us, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Since he knew this, and still created us in the way we are, with the limitations we have, he MUST have decided that this was what he wanted. Since he decided exactly what people would do at any point in their lives, I don't see how free will follows, nor how God can be considered having any affiliation with "good" or "evil."

 

Easy. The Random Intelligent Creation Engine.

 

You are God and you create something that randomly chooses everything. Why? Because you're God, and you like randomness for some reason. You decide to make sure that it is TRULY random. You press the button and then it creates templates for billions and billions of Humans.

 

"The Random Intelligent Creation Engine", this true randomness, is in fact how free will is deterimined. We freely choose what we do because of the RICE, and how it randomly chooses for us what we do. God may not like what the RICE comes out with (just like one may not like rolling 1s all the times), but God places it in anyway, because he made RICE to randomly create certain people.

 

So God has no contorl over us, and allows for our free will, represented by total randomness inside of the RICE, to take over.

 

 

I think. I could be wrong.

 

I would be quite interested in any other method that approaches the accuracy of the scientific method for the purposes that the method is used for. Do you have one?

 

Well, to me, the burden of proof is not on me to come up with a Method, but rather on you to prove to me that the Method is correct.

 

How do they give you a reason to obey?

 

"Obey or go to Hell."

 

Depends on if you're trying to get transcendant truth or not. If you're just trying to find out whether something is good or bad within a framework, it can be done.

 

Again, if the framework is wrong, then all conclusions from the framework is flawed. If you trust the framework, maybe, but as one can see in the Abortion topic, it might be hard to figure out if Abortion is good or bad.

 

You've already shown yourself that it doesn't do a thing for true understanding.

 

True, but it allows me to determine why they believe what they are doing is right and thereby justify it. Allows me to come up with some sort of a belief as to why dictators would justify what they have done.

 

The difference being that many people's opinions are more likely to be true than just a few.

 

So, before the 1400's, would you accept the belief that the Earth is in fact standing still in the center of the universe? Most people believed that, even the scholars agreed it was the most reasonable.

[Samuel Dravis]

Easy. The Random Intelligent Creation Engine.

 

You are God and you create something that randomly chooses everything. Why? Because you're God, and you like randomness for some reason. You decide to make sure that it is TRULY random. You press the button and then it creates templates for billions and billions of Humans.

How does God not know what happens inside of this engine?

 

"The Random Intelligent Creation Engine", this true randomness, is in fact how free will is deterimined. We freely choose what we do because of the RICE, and how it randomly chooses for us what we do. God may not like what the RICE comes out with (just like one may not like rolling 1s all the times), but God places it in anyway, because he made RICE to randomly create certain people.

How does this random selection provide free will anyway? Even if it's random you're still ONLY going to be able to do whatever was selected by that generator.

[SilentScope001]

How does God not know what happens inside of this engine?

 

God doesn't want to know. It would upset the purpose of making the RICE in the first place.

 

How does this random selection provide free will anyway? Even if it's random you're still ONLY going to be able to do whatever was selected by that generator.

 

The fact is that God would not know really, and could not intervene in the situation, since it is outside of his contorl what the RICE choosen. To me, that random selection would provide the semblance of Free Will anyway, or at least something apporaching it. It's much less doctrinally dangerous than having a God that contorls everything. God is not in contorl, only the randomness, and there is no way to rig the randomness to make it what it is.

 

But if God didn't make the RICE, then it really doesn't matter what I said, did it?

[Samuel Dravis]

God doesn't want to know. It would upset the purpose of making the RICE in the first place.

Knowing everything is one of the attributes of God, remember? It's hard to figure how he could know everything yet clearly not know it - a logical contradiction.

 

The fact is that God would not know really, and could not intervene in the situation, since it is outside of his contorl what the RICE choosen. To me, that random selection would provide the semblance of Free Will anyway, or at least something apporaching it. It's much less doctrinally dangerous than having a God that contorls everything. God is not in contorl, only the randomness, and there is no way to rig the randomness to make it what it is.

So we're talking about "semblances" of free will now. Why would he even bother with the moral laws he's supposed to have given to humanity? Why would God punish those that will make decisions based on the "semblance" of free will that this generator is supposed to give? A god that did this is certainly no God of justice, love or much else... which is probably just as bad as the chooser one.

 

But if God didn't make the RICE, then it really doesn't matter what I said, did it?

Don't worry, you didn't say it.