C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I bow to the mighty power of your interrogative pronouns!
…and those other interrogatives, as well, of course…
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, Harri, Super Finn-dude!
:shamrock2:
- Status
…and those other interrogatives, as well, of course…
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, Harri, Super Finn-dude!
:shamrock2:
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Harri Laaksonen:
How do you know that God exists?
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is a little test to start with -
Go outside in your backyard and find something man created.
W
Wirraway
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Created?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
While I believe the testimony of others that mystical experiences are real and transformative, I’m not saying that such experiences are evidence that ANY religion is true at all. I do think that religion in general is often too concerned with what Moses said when he came down from the mountain rather than in what he experienced at the top and how to direct others to have such transformative experiences.
But even if I believed that one of the religions of the world is actually true. I note that every religion says that every other religion is false. I note that religions often teach that believers in other religions will be damned.
If picking the right religion really is God’s great multiple choice test of life? Then I would expect to fail and be damned as a matter of probability alone.
best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Many religions have more truths in common than you realize.
It is not a multiple choice question.
The questions stands - how do you go about the search?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,
I take issue with the claim that people who believe in God are more moral than those who don’t. I would like to explore your basis for this claim at some point. I think religion does far more harm than good. I didn’t want to completely let it go, but I’ll hold off because it is irrelevant to this thread since whether or not religion is useful is not evidence that religion is true or false.
best,
leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Fran,There are competing theories in many areas of science. For example, there are several theories of the origin and purpose of dark matter. There are several theories for the purpose and function of sleep. There are several theories for the cause and treatment of depression. There are several theories for the cause and management of global warming. Each theory has evidence. Scientists and others ‘choose’ which theory they believe in (have faith in) based on personal preference for the evidence and the explanation; and, of course, whether they produced the evidence or not
None of these theories need to be believed in a dogmatic way as in faith. Such truths are held provisionally and are subject to revision in the face of new evidence or new arguments. The pencil is mightier than the pen.
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
T
Tellme_my_rites
Guest
Leela, I must humbly admit, I cannot point you to any info on those conclusions. My father has repeatedly told me this about Einstein since I was knee high. I doubt he is going to remember exactly where he received this from. But I’ll be sure to ask him. I always thought he knew what he was talking about. I searched on the web before I submitted this reply to you and found no hint of such speculations or observations. However, I will continue to hope that this oral teaching my father traditionally taught is true.
Thanks & peace, Tellme
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
What is the basis of morality? It is based on either observation and implementation of natural law, or on observance of divine revelation.
Show me a “moral” that is not moral according to the Church and I’ll tell you why it’s not a moral item of morality.
I’m certainly not saying that those who profess the morals of the Church act more morally simply because they have a codified set of morals, but at least they have a standard by which to be measured with the morality they actually exhibit.
So, show me a “moral” that isn’t moral according to the Church, and tell me where that “moral” came from, and I’ll show you your error.
:shamrock2:
L
Leela
Guest
HiCats,
I think reason is the true basis for morality. Believers probably even imagine that God had good reasons for making some things right and others wrong? Why not appeal directly to those reasons and cut out the middle man? What will make us more reasonable and thus more moral is if we develop a taste for evidence in support of our core beliefs instead of accepting things on someone else’s say-so (faith).
I suspect that we have similar ideas about what is moral since, for example, what could be more reasonable than the Golden Rule? Who would take me seriously if I do to others what I say that I don’t want done to me?
The big differences between what we view as moral will be concerned with what I see as imaginary crimes (blasphemy, idolatry, “murder” of blastocysts, homosexuality, etc.) concerned with angering God instead of with human human happiness and suffering.
best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
What have you learned or discovered completely yourself? We are all dependent on accummulated knowledge.
F
Fran65
Guest
In your opinion. Be careful what you wish for.
Unbridled scientific materialism and utilitarianism (they often go together) end up in some nasty places.
H
Harri_Laaksonen
Guest
This thread changes topics quickly. Now the questions concern morals and epistemology. I think a new thread on epistemology would be very interesting because it would challenge all of us to confront the question of “How do we know we know?”
I was asked how I know God exists? I’ll answer it to the best of my ability. It is through revealed truth, using various sources over time. I can not scientifically or mathematically prove God’s existence. The best I can do is come up with a range of probability. After that it is revelation and theology not physical sciences. At the same time no-one using purely scientific arguments can not prove that God does not exist.
As to the topic of morals; they are defined by as much by tradition and culture as they are defined by theology. There are some universals but they are few when compared with the total of what are considered as morals by various cultures.
God creates, now we have to figure out how.
Harri
I was asked how I know God exists? I’ll answer it to the best of my ability. It is through revealed truth, using various sources over time. I can not scientifically or mathematically prove God’s existence. The best I can do is come up with a range of probability. After that it is revelation and theology not physical sciences. At the same time no-one using purely scientific arguments can not prove that God does not exist.
As to the topic of morals; they are defined by as much by tradition and culture as they are defined by theology. There are some universals but they are few when compared with the total of what are considered as morals by various cultures.
God creates, now we have to figure out how.
Harri
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,
In fact, when I’m in the mood to get all metaphysical, I muse that there is nothing more real than values as there is nothing more empirical. Anyone who cares to doubt that claim can verify the low quality of sitting on a hot stove for herself. That which has no value is not experienced. A causes B cashes out exactly the same as B values precondition A. If experience is the only reality we can ever know, then reality is nothing but value, and love quite literally makes the word go 'round.
So I do think that science studies values, what else is there to study? I just don’t think we need to postulate a God to know that values and morals are real.
Best,
Leela
I disagree. Science must deal with values. In fact, this fact is part of what I join you in critizing about reductionist philosphical materialism. If he really believes that only matter and energy are really real, the flatlander would have to rule out his own values from existence including such scientific values as honestly reporting results and valuing simpler explanations over more complex ones and valuing explanations that cover a borad range of experience over ones that only cover a narrow range of experience. That is why I call this flatlander a strawman. No one really thinks that values aren’t real.
In fact, when I’m in the mood to get all metaphysical, I muse that there is nothing more real than values as there is nothing more empirical. Anyone who cares to doubt that claim can verify the low quality of sitting on a hot stove for herself. That which has no value is not experienced. A causes B cashes out exactly the same as B values precondition A. If experience is the only reality we can ever know, then reality is nothing but value, and love quite literally makes the word go 'round.
So I do think that science studies values, what else is there to study? I just don’t think we need to postulate a God to know that values and morals are real.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Buffalo,
I think that what is really true about us right now, must be discoverable right now.
Best,
Leela
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You’re quite right! Believers accept the morality they do for very good reasons.
And it’s rather obvious that God would have “good reasons” for making some things right and some things wrong, doesn’t it, considering what “God” means?
Well, you, as an atheist, are proposing not that we cut out the “middle man” but rather that we cut out the “originator”.
No. What will make us more moral (in action) is to develop a taste for truly understanding why revealed morality is the most wise way to act, and until we more fully understand why it is most wise we act as God (qua God) has suggested we do so.
Once again, show me (us) an item of (your?) morality which is immoral according to the Church, and I’ll explain why it’s immoral, and you can explain why it’s not immoral, and we can see precisely why it is that “competing non-God-based reasoning” results in chaos.
Those sins aren’t sins BECAUSE they anger God, but because they are very bad for us in that they proliferate evil, both of their own kind and making other sins easier to do.
Blasphemy is only a (mortal) sin for believers, as non-believers are not culpable for it as they OBVIOUSLY don’t know what “God” means as if they did they’d not do it.
Idolatry is simply blasphemy done with ritual.
Abortion (your “murder of blastocysts”) is the act of either one who doesn’t understand what “person” means, most likely because they don’t know what “God” means, or one who is simply a “murderer of persons”.
Homosexual ACTS are done only by those who don’t understand what “chastity” means, which, once again, gets back around to the root problem of not knowing what “God” means.
Same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is merely an all too human impulse.
The Church knows more about what human suffering means, and what it is for, than ANY other entity in the universe (yes, I’ll get THAT bold about it
), and no one has even a tiny modicum of ground in that matter to speak from.Morality is not about human so-called happiness, by which atheists actually mean “wanted impulse fulfillment”, at the expense of correct human interaction within society and within the individual, but about the actual happiness just specified.
Atheistic “morality” is all about elitist-controlled libertinism. It is all about testing the bounds of allowable human interaction which don’t violate the “sensibilities” of some elite group with the power to “temporally punish” (to coercionally govern).
There is nothing about atheistic “morality” which is not relativistic. Just as nothing but relativism is an acceptable “philosophy” to the atheist.
( And yes, I DO understand that “relativism” isn’t a “bad word” to atheists!
):shamrock2:
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Fran,
I don’t subscribe to philosophical materialism (and I don’t believe that science is based on materialism). Everyone here seems to think that either someone believes in God or they believe in some other dogma.
I could be said to subscribe to empricism and pragmatism, but I don’t think I have any dogmatic beliefs.
Best,
Leela
- Status