Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[1holycatholic]

Leela:

…]
Dear friend in Christ,
…]
Best,
Leela

Worst quoting ever.

 

[Dameedna]

It’s not an act of faith to reject things that are not supported by evidence.

How many times am I going to have to type that?

Oh you are gonna have to type that lots and lots and lots and lots…

It won’t make a difference though. A lot of individuals cannot differentiate between belief and the concept of truth. They think they are one and the same. If a religious person can equate “athiesm” with faith, then they can claim to be on the same playing field. IE…they can claim you both just believe something and that both beliefs are equal in their worthiness.

It’s a tricky way of validating faith, to an athiest.

 

[Dameedna]

One may choose to do something that is right or wrong, but NOT what is defacto, right or wrong.

Of course. Whatever is the truth about our reality will remain so, regardless of what we want to believe. This is not an unusual concept to the athiest my friend. It is usually the reason they become one, in the first place.

What the athiest recognizes, is that humans are still making decisions about what we think is right or wrong. And those decisions we make, include our chosen religion(or lackthereof). They also recognize that humans have an extrodinary capacity to decieve themselves. They realize this to such a degree, that they do not even trust themselves and their own feelings. They need a way to verify reality regardles of their desires. Why? because they submit to something much bigger than their desires…namely truth.

Human choice cannot define truth. A human choice to support a particular religion, cannot define truth. It is just a human choice.

No, “decide” is incorrect. They know or don’t know, accept or don’t accept, but they most certainly cannot (please note, I did not say, “do not”) decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Regardless of what the truth actually is, unless you are willing to ignore free will, then all you have is a world of people deciding what they believe is right or wrong. No matter what the truth actually is, humans have to make a decision about what they believe is correct. The first step, is to recognize there IS a truth in the first place. Athiest and believers both acknowledge this.

I think most believers seem to be struggling with the difference between truth and belief.

The athiest knows there is a difference. As a result of this acknowledgment and the humbling realization that all humans will lie to themselves the athiest is usually lead toward science and it’s methods. Why? They know, that truth …has absolutely nothing to do with what one believes, feels or trusts. They also submit to a method of verification(scientific method) regardless of what it costs them. Even if it costs them a belief, they will live forever. Truth, to the athiest is more important than an eternal life.

This is something that the majority of church goers will never accept. It is a shame.

cheers

 

[PRmerger]

If a religious person can equate “athiesm” with faith, then they can claim to be on the same playing field. IE…they can claim you both just believe something and that both beliefs are equal in their worthiness.

No, Dame. Religious people are merely trying to show that atheists who sneer at faith are being hypocritical. Their faith in something unproven is just as strong as the faith of religious folks.

No matter how many times I ask an atheist if science can prove that science is the only way to determine what’s True, I never get an answer.

Show me where science shows that science is the only way to determine what’s true. If you can’t show that, then you’re accepting it on faith.

 

[Dameedna]

No, Dame. Religious people are merely trying to show that atheists who sneer at faith are being hypocritical. Their faith in something unproven is just as strong as the faith of religious folks.

The scientist is not sneering at faith. They are saying it is unproven,as you just admited. The scientest, does not put a lot of weight behind that which an individual claims.

That’s because they put a LOT of weight behind truth, not belief.

No matter how many times I ask an atheist if science can prove that science is the only way to determine what’s True, I never get an answer.

You never get an answer because it’s a circular question.

Show me where science shows that science is the only way to determine what’s true. If you can’t show that, then you’re accepting it on faith.

No. The scientifc method is the only way to verify a truth about the nature of the universe which bypasses the human beliefs and calls those previous beleifs into question.

It may or may not be the only road to truth. But it is the only one we can share as a human species decisivley, without resorting to he said she said’s.

Believe what you want. But don’t use the word “proof” to justify it. That word belongs to the world of verifyable, empirical evidence and it is an important word because it defines a submission to truth. Not just a belief in it.

 

[PRmerger]

The scientist is not sneering at faith. They are saying it is unproven,as you just admited. The scientest, does not put a lot of weight behind that which an individual claims.

Right. Some scientists do not sneer at faith.

That’s because they put a LOT of weight behind truth, not belief.

Ok.

You never get an answer because it’s a circular question.

There you go. Another evasion.

No. The scientifc method is the only way to verify a truth about the nature of the universe which bypasses the human beliefs and calls those previous beleifs into question.

Again, atheists are claiming that. But does the scientific method PROVE that it’s the only way to verify the truth about the nature of the universe?

 

[Dameedna]

There you go. Another evasion.
/'quote]

I wasn’t evading anything, but perhaps I do not understand what you are asking. Please try again with some clarity, as I’m struggling with what you mean.

Again, atheists are claiming that. But does the scientific method PROVE that it’s the only way to verify the truth about the nature of the universe?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You never get an answer because it’s a circular question.

how is that a circular question? the scientific method either arrives at the truth of a physical matter or it doesnt.

i think your trying to dismiss the idea that science isnt the only route to finding truth.

what about philosophy, logic, and plain reasoning?

logic alone proves the need for a created universe, Aquinas.

further i have seen you personally claim scientific theory as fact. i.e. the creation of random particles from nothing. first you misstated the theory and then you claimed it as fact.

people practice ‘discovery channel’ science and take pop science theory as proven fact. ive even seen educated people who should know better do so.

im not impressed.

No. The scientifc method is the only way to verify a truth about the nature of the universe which bypasses the human beliefs and calls those previous beleifs into question

.

concerning physical, quantifiable phenomenon, where all pertinent factors can be dealt with. sure.

thats hardly the state of modern cosmology.

It may or may not be the only road to truth. But it is the only one we can share as a human species decisivley, without resorting to he said she said’s

.

logic, the basis of mathematics, is a pretty good way to find the ‘truth’ to, in fact it is the underpinning of all ‘science’

Believe what you want. But don’t use the word “proof” to justify it. That word belongs to the world of verifyable, empirical evidence and it is an important word because it defines a submission to truth. Not just a belief in it.

nice quote, but you refuse to acknoweledge any of that ‘verifiable, empirical’ evidence when it doesn’t support your beliefs. you believe there is no G-d, yet Aquinan proofs dont seem good enough for you, though they leave no room for doubt about the existense of G-d.

which goes to the point that atheism is a ‘faith’ in much the same manner as any other.

an atheist simply has faith in different things.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not trying to disprove your theories about God. Science is not trying to remove your faith. But by it’s very nature and by religious beliefs,** it errodes your faith** due to it’s dedication to truth that is not based on what some-one has told you.

Before I go any further addressing your other comments, I must respond to this. Science does NOT in any way, shape or form erode my faith.
Indeed, science affirms my faith.

It was the Church who gave us the Scientific Method, by the way.

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t evading anything, but perhaps I do not understand what you are asking. Please try again with some clarity, as I’m struggling with what you mean.

Please just answer this question: does the scientific method PROVE that it’s the only way to verify the truth about the nature of the universe?

You gave an explanation of why science is good. There’s nothing in your explanation that I disagree with, but you still didn’t answer the question…does the scientific method PROVE that it’s the only way to verify the truth about the nature of the universe? Yes, or no?

If yes, show me where and how it does this.

You said, “The only way we can verify truth about the natural world is through science.” If this is true, science should be able to prove that. Show me where it does this.

 

[PRmerger]

You can believe we come from one man and woman, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in the negative.

If science provided evidence that we did indeed come from one man and one woman, would that change your view? Would you then consider that Christianity could be true?

 

[Dameedna]

Before I go any further addressing your other comments, I must respond to this. Science does NOT in any way, shape or form erode my faith.

Anytime an individual uses the word proof, or PROVE or empirical in the incorrect way, I see that their faith has been eroded. They rely on evidence…meaning…they no longer rely on God for their faith.

It was the Church who gave us the Scientific Method, by the way.

No, it was a human being. It was never a church. Humans are still doing it…without religious faith

That claim to fame is well gone my friend There is a reason why science, philosophy and religion split.

 

[Dameedna]

If science provided evidence that we did indeed come from one man and one woman, would that change your view? Would you then consider that Christianity could be true?

Well, theorically yes, my views would change.

But nature has already shown something different so it’s kind of a moot point.

 

[Dameedna]

Please just answer this question: does the scientific method PROVE that it’s the only way to verify the truth about the nature of the universe?

The scientific method is simply a tool used to prove observations about the universe. It isn’t an entity unto itself. It’s man made.

The only way to verify a universe with any clarity for humans is to actually observe it using the only tools we have, our capacity for observation and interpreting what we see using reason and logic.

It is like you are saying “Can you “prove” humans are observing the universe”. I can’t do that.

But, this computer tells me while I write on it that those conceptual observing humans got something right.

I’m sorry but this seems a really quite a silly question.

 

[davidv]

The scientific method is simply a tool used to prove observations about the universe. It isn’t an entity unto itself. It’s man made.

The only way to verify a universe with any clarity for humans is to actually observe it using the only tools we have, our capacity for observation and interpreting what we see using reason and logic.

It is like you are saying “Can you “prove” humans are observing the universe”. I can’t do that.

But, this computer tells me while I write on it that those conceptual observing humans got something right.

I’m sorry but this seems a really quite a silly question.

ISTM that what is said in highlighted section is like saying that best way to drive a screw is with a hammer, because a hammer is what you happen to have available. This ignors that fact that there is another tool that will the job far better.

 

[PRmerger]

Anytime an individual uses the word proof, or PROVE or empirical in the incorrect way, I see that their faith has been eroded. They rely on evidence…meaning…they no longer rely on God for their faith.

I can see you have no idea what Catholic teaching is on faith. And science. And reason. It was addressed quite eloquently by St. Thomas Aquinas. (Of course, if you’re not Catholic, I would not expect you to know this–which is why it’s fabulous that you’re seeking Truth on a Catholic Answers forum.)

Here’s a great more contemporary explanation by Pope John Paul II.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

No, it was a human being. It was never a church.

LOL!!! Ok. It was human beings. *Catholic *human beings. :extrahappy:

There is a reason why science, philosophy and religion split.

Er…Dame? It’s because they answer different questions.

Religion is not going to provide the answers as to how to cure cancer. Medicine is not going to provide the answer to the meaning of life. Philosophy is not going to answer the question on the nature of God.

 

[PRmerger]

The scientific method is simply a tool used to prove observations about the universe. It isn’t an entity unto itself. It’s man made.

Yup. :yup:

The only way to verify a universe with any clarity for humans is to actually observe it using the only tools we have, our capacity for observation and interpreting what we see using reason and logic.

Well, then, since you haven’t shown that science proves this, you must accept it on FAITH. That is, you have FAITH that science is the only thing we should use.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a reason why science, philosophy and religion split.

:idea: BTW, when where science, philosphy and religion ever united?:

 

[MegaTherion]

Well, I can see, Mega, that you’re a man who takes things literally …]The point being made was that there are those who have the authority to send men and women out to kill …]

No, it’s not a matter of taking things literally. Your analogy is flawed. We are discussing the morality of commanding genocide, not whether someone has the authority to command it.

The analogy addresses the wrong subject entirely.

Taken by itself, its horrifying! (if, indeed, this is what God commanded). But, thankfully, I have the entire revelation of God at my disposal, and I can see where this revelation has transformed the Israelite’s understanding of the One True God, and how the fulfillment of this Gospel lies in the person of Jesus Christ.

Ok. So you believe commanding these genocides was a part of god’s plan? Or you believe that the Israelites had an incomplete understanding of your god?

Either way, it’s puzzling that the Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes didn’t just unambiguously tell the Israelites “genocide is wrong, slavery is wrong, killing babies is wrong.”

You see, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – but it can be if there’s an absence of evidence that we would expect to find. (If I claim that I have a dog, you would expect to find all sorts of things in my house – dog food, toys, leash, shed hair, etc; if you don’t find these things in my house, my claim suddenly looks doubtful)

If you claim that there is a Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes that established Absolute Standards of Morality, we would expect to see signs that this being made clear to us that things like genocide, slavery, cruel & unusual punishments, etc. are wrong.

It would seem quite the opposite – it would seem that his “chosen people” did not adhere to the kind of morality that we would expect of a race in contact with the Transcendent Source of Absolute Morality.

It’s not evidence of the absence of your god, but it calls your claim into doubt.

It would interesting to hear how he “primitive” reason offered by Socrates’, Augustine’s, Aquinas’ was so unsophisticated.

I never claimed that individuals could not be very rational in their time period. I was speaking of society in general, in a very broad sense.

In that sense, much of society is still quite irrational today. As groups, we have gotten somewhat better over time. Enough of this derail.

Come on, now, Mega! You must concede that your knowledge of posters on the forum is severely limited if you refuse to accept information that can only be known through revelation.

Of course my knowledge of posters on this forum is limited. My knowledge of nearly everything in existence is limited.

People “reveal” things to me all the time, but I don’t believe everything that is revealed to me. The reason for this is that I care about what is true, and I need a way to determine true claims from false claims.

Practically, I have no problem accepting mundane claims that don’t affect me much. However, I do not accept without evidence extraordinary claims or claims that affect me very much.

For example: if a forum member told me that he owns a car, I would probably take his word for it. Why? Because this is a fairly mundane claim, and it wouldn’t affect me one way or another if he were lying or mistaken.

However, if a forum member told me that he owns a flying car and that he wanted me to jump out of my window so that he could fly under me and catch me in mid-fall, I would not take his word for it. Why not? Because this is an extraordinary claim, and if he is lying or mistaken, it could have negative consequences.

So what would I do? I would want to see some extraordinary evidence of his “revelation” before I act on it.

Similarly, I don’t take religious “revelations” (from any religion) seriously unless I see compelling evidence for it.

Speaking of which:

you have FAITH that science is the only thing we should use.

No. “Faith” is accepting claims without evidence. I have plenty of evidence that science works and that it is (so far) the only reliable method of learning things about the world around us that has unquestionably produced results.

We are having a discussion about things that exist, are we not? Whether there is a god, whether there are “Asolute Transcendent Morals”?

Things that exist (in the sense of the reality that we all share) are things that exist for everybody. Images in my imagination “exist” in a subjective sense, but that’s not the sense of existence we’re speaking of.

I mean, your claim is that your god is real for everybody, right? Not just you?

Things that exist for everybody manifest in some way and can be independently verified regardless of belief. My imagination exists, but only for me. I would never claim that things in my imagination are real for anybody other than me – nobody but me can verify my imagination.

However, my table is real for everybody, not just me. Anybody can come in here and confirm that the table is real. It doesn’t matter if they “believe” in my table or not…they’ll be able to confirm it.

Anyway, I realize that this is likely falling on deaf ears and that you’ll continue to think that “science relies on faith” regardless of whatever rational argument I make. But hopefully I’ve made my position a little clearer to you.

Relying on faith and blindly believing in “revelations” (without independent confirmation) cannot lead us to truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. So you believe commanding these genocides was a part of god’s plan? Or you believe that the Israelites had an incomplete understanding of your god?

No. I believe that these Scripture verses were not meant to be taken literally. As I explained in Post #62 "Presumably, they would symbolize things like the need to be totally separate from pagan culture, of how radically incompatible the pagan lifestyle is with faith in God. On this theory the books of the Pentateuch would have reached their final form some time after the events they describe, and these stories about wiping out the Canaanites (which the Israelites did not actually fulfill; there were still Canaanites living later) were included to teach the later readers how they must reject paganism, and that the original audience was meant to understand the nature of these stories as cautionary tales from which they were to draw a moral lesson (i.e., don’t be pagan; stick with God).

If this is the case then God never did command the extermination of the Canaanites and we, because we are not familiar with the way literature was written at this time, tend to take as literal something that was never meant to be literal." (courtesy of Jimmy Akin, Catholic Apologist)

Indeed, the early Church Fathers seem to agree that the Old Testament histories must be interpreted with the spiritual lesson in mind.

Either way, it’s puzzling that the Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes didn’t just unambiguously tell the Israelites “genocide is wrong, slavery is wrong, killing babies is wrong.”

That’s the story of the revelation of God. From the Old Testament through to the New Testament, to the Magisterium today. God is absolutely clear about those things today.

Why didn’t He tell this unambiguously to the Israelites then? I don’t know. Maybe the message would have fallen on deaf ears.

After all, the Gospel message that Church is preaching today seems to fall on deaf ears so much of the time. As if! God speaks, no one listens now. Maybe no one listened then.

Of course my knowledge of posters on this forum is limited. My knowledge of nearly everything in existence is limited.

Yes, yes, YES! :extrahappy:

So extrapolate that to Truth. If you only use one methodology, you’re exposing yourself to a poverty of information.

As Pope John Paul II said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”. If you only use 1 wing, you’re not going to get very far.

Anyway, I realize that this is likely falling on deaf ears

No, not at all. I enjoy reading everything you post and give consideration to all your points. I thank you for explaining your views politely and thoughtfully and you have indeed enlightened my thinking.

No. “Faith” is accepting claims without evidence. I have plenty of evidence that science works and that it is (so far) the only reliable method of learning things about the world around us that has unquestionably produced results.

I have no argument with you that science works. It’s where you claim it’s the “only” method. As your science has yet to provide evidence for this, it seems that this is something you’re accepting on faith.