Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Étienne d'Angleterre on July 25, 2016, 09:20:58 AM
-
Reposting part of a conversation between Hope and I on the 1-1 thread, as Gordon quite rightly points out that is not the correct board. So here is an opportunity for Hope to carry on if he wishes.
In summary. I made the statement below:
Another perfect example is right and wrong. Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors.
Hope replied:
Alright then, let's see how 'trivially easy' it is to do this. In the various threads that this has been discussed here, no-one has produced anything like what you promise. The same goes for 3 other similar internet boards I've belonged to since 2000, and for countless f2f debates I've been involved in.
My response.
Are you absolutely sure you meant to say this? Read what I said again carefully and you should be able to come up with an answer yourself within less than 1 minute.
-
Reposting part of a conversation between Hope and I on the 1-1 thread, as Gordon quite rightly points out that is not the correct board. So here is an opportunity for Hope to carry on if he wishes.
In summary. I made the statement below:
Hope replied:
My response.
As I saw the reference to this thread on the Romans 16 thread, I have responded there.
-
As I saw the reference to this thread on the Romans 16 thread, I have responded there.
Wouldn't it be better to respond here so as not to derail the other thread?
I still find it hard to believe that you can't think of a single example.
-
Wouldn't it be better to respond here so as not to derail the other thread?
I still find it hard to believe that you can't think of a single example.
Well, that suggests that the examples I've heard and read have been shown to be erroneous. You clearly believe that you have an example that can't be thus shown. So, give it us.
-
Well, that suggests that the examples I've heard and read have been shown to be erroneous. You clearly believe that you have an example that can't be thus shown. So, give it us.
Sigh..
Here is what I said
"Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors."
All you have to do is walk through a town centre at 2 pm and then again at 2 am to observe this.
In just a few minutes we could write a list of further examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour.
How long do you think that the list would be that show non-naturalist changes (whatever the hell they are) occurring and subsequent changes in behaviour?
-
"Again it is trivially easy to show that behaviours are definitely influenced by material / natural factors."
All you have to do is walk through a town centre at 2 pm and then again at 2 am to observe this.
In just a few minutes we could write a list of further examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour.
How long do you think that the list would be that show non-naturalist changes (whatever the hell they are) occurring and subsequent changes in behaviour?
Oddly enough, Stephen, one only has to produce a single opposing example to show that your case is dead in the water. So, here goes. Love. We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated). However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love. Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love. As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms. Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners. Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.
You can have a list the length of your arm, or the distance from London to Sydney giving "examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour", but that doesn't cut anything for those of us who 1) see no clash between science and faith; 2) see science for the importance it has in our every day lives yet don't regard it as having primacy in how our lives happen.
Therein lies the problem of all such debates. For some, it is effectively science or bust; for others it's science as one tool of several to explain life.
-
Quick question to Hope, why are you conflating 'not currently, and possibly never explained scientifically' with 'non naturalistic'? This seems to indicate a basic misunderstanding.
-
Oddly enough, Stephen, one only has to produce a single opposing example to show that your case is dead in the water.
Errm no. I made a claim and all I have to do is to show two examples to demonstrate my case behaviour(s). Since you haven't argued with the first point I only need to produce one more. Since I have a list as long as my arm this won't be difficult. Do you really need me to carry on?
What you need to do is to produce one example of behaviours driven by non-naturalistic means.
So, here goes. Love. We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated). However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love. Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.
How do you know that the chemical's are the symptom of being in love, or that love is caused by the chemicals? You simply seem to have asserted that. Personally I wouldn't go with either extreme. But each to their own.
Incidentally a cursory look at the literature reveals at least some evidence that it is the chemicals that are playing a role in love, rather than the other way round as you state.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.febslet.2007.03.095/full
In particular read the part on trust; chapter 8
As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms. Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.
Whether or not there is a scientific explanation available does not mean that a non-naturalistic element has been demonstrated.
Identical twins are not identical in many ways. However, no one is claiming love is solely determined by genes, that I am aware. Just because it might not be genetic doesn't show that it is non-naturalistic.
Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.
Just because people have been brought up in the same setting doesn't mean they have gone around glued together 24/7.
So after all this we still see no example. Just an assertion that love is non-naturalistic, no working, no logic, It just is.
I will repeat again.
Whether or not there is a scientific explanation available it does not mean that a non-naturalistic element has been demonstrated.
-
We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated). However, that is not love,
Says who? This sounds like an argument from authority, so what is your authority for this claim?
... nor is it the cause of love.
So, what is this cause?
Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.
So, again, what is the cause?
As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.
You may have read extensively. but whether you have understood is another matter. So, which scientists have confirmed that 'love' is out-of-scope? You see that in order to say this you'll need to demonstrate that; a) 'love' has a cause that is other than biology by providing details of this cause, and b) show how these 'symptoms' are the direct effect of this cause. So, the details are?
Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners. Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.
You've now lurched into twin studies for some reason, which makes me think you are kite-flying again.
You can have a list the length of your arm, or the distance from London to Sydney giving "examples of where material/natural changes occur in humans (and other animals) that then cause changes in behaviour", but that doesn't cut anything for those of us who 1) see no clash between science and faith; 2) see science for the importance it has in our every day lives yet don't regard it as having primacy in how our lives happen.
That would be just your opinion though.
Therein lies the problem of all such debates. For some, it is effectively science or bust; for others it's science as one tool of several to explain life.
Problem is you've yet to explain just one of these several other 'tools' without falling headfirst into fallacies.
-
Love. We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated). However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love. Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love.
How do you know?
As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms. Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners. Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.
I don't see how any of that makes love, or appreciation of beauty non natural.
-
You might as well say that scientists don't understand how gravity works, so therefore it's not natural. It could be because of God pulling things down to earth, or any other body, but generally, that is discounted, and natural explanations are sought.
-
You might as well say that scientists don't understand how gravity works, so therefore it's not natural. It could be because of God pulling things down to earth, or any other body, but generally, that is discounted, and natural explanations are sought.
s'funny I never saw a science book which say's God is discounted and only one popular science book written by a Dawkins wannabe.
-
I think Newton argued that gravity could not work without God :
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect." (Wiki).
-
Quick question to Hope, why are you conflating 'not currently, and possibly never explained scientifically' with 'non naturalistic'? This seems to indicate a basic misunderstanding.
Am I? The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.
-
Am I? The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.
Where have I done this?
Note you did it in the post in post before the one you replied to me on this.
-
Am I? The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.
Unbelievable!!!!
You do it constantly. As NS points out you just did in your previous post!!!!!
-
Am I? The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.
Your post about love on this thread is a perfect example.
-
Am I? The only people I know who seem to conflate the two - usually in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - are the likes of you.
Now that it has been pointed out to you that you do indeed conflate the two, do you wish to refine your views on how we know that there are non natural phenomena?
-
Now that it has been pointed out to you that you do indeed conflate the two, do you wish to refine your views on how we know that there are non natural phenomena?
Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it - I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.
-
Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it -
But you don't avoid it. You have just given a text book example of it a few posts back.
I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.
Name and examples?
-
But you don't avoid it. You have just given a text book example of it a few posts back.
I think that this comment answers the question you followed it with. Accusing me and others of this kind of thing is a convenient cop-out because you are either unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed/respond to the comments made in a sensible manner.
This is another reason why your suggestion for a 1 to 1 discussion system is so pointless.
However, I'll give a different example, and see whether you are willing/able to respond to this.
As a Christian, I believe that God created everything in the universe. Whether he did this in the fashion illustrated in Genesis 1 & 2, or whether he used evolution as his means is irrelevant to this particular question, but since I am not a Young Earth-er, I would suggest that the latter is perfectly possible. If God created everything it would have been for a purpose - and as a result, everything within that creation has a purpose. On the other hand, those who believe in accidental evolution also seem to believe that there is no purpose in anything. If the latter is the case, why does humanity seem to have had a purposefulness inbuilt into its core being? Why have humans of all races and ages had 'purpose'?
-
Since I intentionally do not conflate the two - I've seen so many people do so that I ensure that I avoid it - I will simply repeat what I said before: that the only people I've actively noticed doing so are those who do so in a negative, 'accusatory' manner - which means that they (think they) don't have to address the point being made.
You were asked for something non naturalistic and you went with love and did so on the basis of not being explained by science. Your post explicitly covers that.
Pointing out that is not conflating the two, it is pointing out what you did.
BTW this is where you do it, when asked for an example of the non naturalistic
'Love. We all know that when Person A falls in love with Person B, various chemicals are released in Person A's brain (even if the feeings aren't reciprocated). However, that is not love, nor is it the cause of love. Rather they are a symptom, as it were, of love. As far as I am aware, amd I've read pretty extensively about this and related issues, there is no scientific explanation for the initial process(es) that create the symptoms.'
And again
'Nor, for that matter are there any such explanations as to why two identical twins, for instance, can fall in love with two very different partners.'
And again
'Nor is there any scientific explanation of why people brought up in the same setting can have such divergent ideas about something such as beauty.'
so that's three times in the one post. Can you point to where I have done it as you stated?
-
I think that this comment answers the question you followed it with. Accusing me and others of this kind of thing is a convenient cop-out because you are either unable or unwilling to answer the questions posed/respond to the comments made in a sensible manner.
I have responded, #7, so have Gordon, Wigginhall, Jeremyp, and NS. It is you who have failed to answer the questions raised.
However, I'll give a different example, and see whether you are willing/able to respond to this.
Hang about here, I responded to the previous one about love. This all started with your claim that right and wrong are examples of non naturalistic phenomena. I challenged you to show how this is the case whilst at the same time I also showed that it is easy to pick a behaviour or behaviours and show that they can be influenced by natural/material factors.
You then go on to choose love as another example. You made many assertions in your example but at no point explained how love could be shown to be something non naturalistic, other then by stating that it couldn't be explained by science.
This led to the question of why you conflate no current scientific explanation as positive evidence for non natural phenomena. Not only have you claimed never to have done this, even though it is there for all to see a few posts back, you have accused others of doing so. I am still waiting for a link to a post I or NS has made showing where we take that position.
Therefore, before we proceed with other examples, can you please either rebut the points raised by myself and other regarding love, or withdraw it as an example of non naturalistic phenomena.
-
As a Christian, I believe that God created everything in the universe.
No doubt, but whether your belief is justified is another matter entirely.
Whether he did this in the fashion illustrated in Genesis 1 & 2, or whether he used evolution as his means is irrelevant to this particular question, but since I am not a Young Earth-er, I would suggest that the latter is perfectly possible.
You seem to be saying that since you don't accept one set of creationist nonsense this increases divine intervention on a basis you feel more comfortable with - how does that work?
If God created everything it would have been for a purpose - and as a result, everything within that creation has a purpose.
There's that 'if' - if that is all you have then personal incredulity becomes an issue: you need to justify the 'if' else your 'if' is just more fallacious assertion.
On the other hand, those who believe in accidental evolution also seem to believe that there is no purpose in anything.
'Accidental' - how does that fit the TofE? Your 'purpose' statement is a straw man of course: I shall be visiting Ladbrokes later with a distinct purpose in mind.
If the latter is the case, why does humanity seem to have had a purposefulness inbuilt into its core being? Why have humans of all races and ages had 'purpose'?
Depends on how you define 'purpose': I suspect that the way you use it is just grandiose assertion so as to create some space to squeeze in your need for 'God'. Can't see it myself.
-
And still we wait for responses to replies 21, 22 and 23.
-
And still we wait for responses to replies 21, 22 and 23.
I think you will find these have all been answered many times in other places!
-
In reply 20 Hope said.
As a Christian, I believe that God created everything in the universe.... If God created everything it would have been for a purpose - and as a result, everything within that creation has a purpose.
Can I ask him.
For what purpose does God cause little children to die of cancer?
How can an all powerful God deny responsibility for what occurs in it's creation?
If I had the power to cure cancer but didn't because I thought people should discover their own cure, could I claim that subsequent deaths from cancer were not my fault?
nb That books tells us that Christ (god) can cure illness even bring back the dead.
So why does that little child die.
Anyone would think that failure to save that child is ample evidence for the non existence of God or maybe just evidence that he is a merciless, uncaring shit.
I just CANNOT understand why any intelligent person can persist in a God belief in the face of all we now know.
-
For what purpose does God cause little children to die of cancer?
How can an all powerful God deny responsibility for what occurs in it's creation?
OK, john. Let's answer the second comment first and take an analogy. Peter Heinlein is thought to have created the first watch. Over the intervening centuries, watches have been used in a number of events that have resulted in the death of men, women and children. Are we to understand - as your post suggests - that Herr Heinlein has to bear the responsibility for these, as it is his creation that has been used?
As for your first comment, illness and potential for death is part and parcel of the process of a dynamic natural world. Just think of the global population that we'd have if people didn't die. Why is the death of a child particularly worse than that of an adult? After all, no-one has a purpose in living.
If I had the power to cure cancer but didn't because I thought people should discover their own cure, could I claim that subsequent deaths from cancer were not my fault?
Right, until 20 or 30 years ago, cancers were often associated with smoking cigarettes; it is now been associated with obesity; are either of these, things that humanity have to do/be?
That books tells us that Christ (god) can cure illness even bring back the dead.
Do you have any evidence that cures from illness are purely down to medical science?
So why does that little child die.
If a human parent follows a life-style that causes their off-spring to suffer from some illness or untreatable condition (as medical science indicates can happen) where does the responsibility lie?
Anyone would think that failure to save that child is ample evidence for the non existence of God or maybe just evidence that he is a merciless, uncaring shit.
Anyone who takes this highly unscientific understanding seriously would appear, to me, to be pretty careless. Oddly enough, your 'ample evidence for the non existence of God' is equally balanced by the 'ample evidence for the existence of God', especially when people recover from 'untreatable' conditions which have been deemed terminal by mediacl science.
I just CANNOT understand why any intelligent person can persist in a God belief in the face of all we now know.
john, what would that 'all we now know' be? That medical science doesn't have all the answers, that human nature in the 21st century is very little different to human nature 2/3/5/10,000 years ago? That humans today can be as cruel to other humans as they were X000 years ago - or conversely, as caring towards other humans as they were X000 years ago. That 21st century CE Western society condones slavery as much as 17th century CE, 1st century CE, 1st century BCE, 10th century BCE, etc societies, and that potentially there is a much now as at any time in the past?
If one compares 21st century 'developed world' society with 21st century 'developing world' society, whilst this, that and the other aspect of the former is almost certainly better than their equivalent in the latter, there are as many aspects where the reverse is the case.
-
OK, john. Let's answer the second comment first and take an analogy. Peter Heinlein is thought to have created the first watch. Over the intervening centuries, watches have been used in a number of events that have resulted in the death of men, women and children. Are we to understand - as your post suggests - that Herr Heinlein has to bear the responsibility for these, as it is his creation that has been used?
For your analogy to work, Peter Heinlein would have to have created all watches, not just the first one. Don't forget you claimed God created everything, not just the first one of everything.
So let's say the Heinlein watch had a design feature that caused it to explode occasionally, severing the wearer's hand at the wrist. Would you not admit Herr Heinlein bore a measure of responsibility for the injuries?
As for your first comment, illness and potential for death is part and parcel of the process of a dynamic natural world.
Yes it is but you claim God created the natural World. That would mean he designed in illness and death. It's his fault.
-
As for your first comment, illness and potential for death is part and parcel of the process of a dynamic natural world.
Is it not God that is architect and creator of the natural world ?
Just think of the global population that we'd have if people didn't die.
Does that mean that Heaven suffers terribly from over population ?
why does humanity seem to have had a purposefulness inbuilt into its core being? Why have humans of all races and ages had 'purpose'?
Do newts have purpose ? How about the Zika virus ? Or is this thinking just anthropocentrism on steroids ? It's all about us eh ?
-
Hope
You really do not think through this rubbish you spout do you?
With ultimate power goes total and absolute responsibility, if your God created everything and has a plan then everything that happens is its responsibility.
You cannot have it both ways.
The death of that innocent new born baby is Gods fault even if it's mother did smoke a fag whilst having a swift half once. What preposterous excuses you put forward!
What kind of thing would cause suffering and death to a new born baby to punish it's parents. How very Christian of you.
Jesus/God has the power to cure as the book and you claim.
Then why did he only cure one leper, raise one man from the dead?
If he has the power to cure one why not all? A surgeon who has power surpassing all others to cure but who refuses to use his skills on anyone but his bestest friends is not a good guy.
I do not believe for a second that there is a god let alone one with the power to cure the sick - but you do. You keep claiming so ad nauseam here. Not only is there no evidence anywhere to suggest this were so but even if there was and that healing power was only extended to gods bestest mates instead of all humanity then your god is a pretty cruel and selfish bastard you must admit, there is no other explanation.
With absolute power goes absolute responsibility.
If he has the power to cure some but chooses not to extend it to all, he is a shit not worthy of praise.
-
The excuses some make for the Biblical god are gobsmacking. I suppose it is easier than facing up to the fact that if it exists and was responsible for creation and human nature then everything that has gone wrong in the world is down to it. An omnipotent god would have known exactly what suffering it would cause, but as I have said many times maybe that is how it gets its kicks.