Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Oh no, not that ghastly old fool Lewis 

Plato and Aristotle would have told you, a couple of thousand years before there was a formal discipline of psychology, that all people always inherently do what they think of as "good" (to them) because it literally cannot be otherwise. Nietzsche made much the same point the century before last. Ideas of right and wrong, good and bad are local, temporary and culturally-determined. It took the couple of thousand years I just mentioned for us to realise that we are apes pushed and pulled by all sorts of instincts, drives and forces both conscious and unconscious - not a single spook required to explain any of it.

[torridon]

I would tend to agree with this statement, but there is more to reality than science alone.

That makes no sense.  Science is not a thing, it is a process by which we discover the nature of things.

[floo]

That makes no sense.  Science is not a thing, it is a process by which we discover the nature of things.

Exactly.

[Alan Burns]

... we are apes pushed and pulled by all sorts of instincts, drives and forces both conscious and unconscious - not a single spook required to explain any of it.

But do any other apes, or other animals for that matter, show evidence of the sense of right and wrong that humans have?  Or do they just react according to instinct and experience without any concept of categorising their actions?

[torridon]

Have you ever been tempted to do something which you know to be wrong?
Have you ever wondered what the source of this temptation is?
You may deduce that it is just some form of self gratification, but I question who or what is being gratified - and this truly terrifies me.

All humans experience multiple inner conflicts; tensions between instinct and agency, between left hemisphere and right hemisphere, between self centred and group centered, I could go on. Inventing some invisible monster to explain such tensions is just a spurious mechanism to avoid thinking things through.

[Alan Burns]

That makes no sense.  Science is not a thing, it is a process by which we discover the nature of things.

But by definition it is limited to what can be perceived by physical human senses, or humanly constructed devices.  We have no way of knowing just how much of true reality science can discover - it may be just a small fraction.

[torridon]

But do any other apes, or other animals for that matter, show evidence of the sense of right and wrong that humans have?  Or do they just react according to instinct and experience without any concept of categorising their actions?

Yes, primatalogists observe that discipline is enforced in chimpanzee groups by the dominant male who will punish errant youngsters that step out of line for instance. It might not have the same depth of development as in human societies, but concepts of crime and punishment do operate in other primates in rudimentary form.

[Shaker]

But do any other apes, or other animals for that matter, show evidence of the sense of right and wrong that humans have?

Why would it be the same sense of right and wrong as humans? You really have to get over this blinkered anthropocentrism of yours Alan, though that's going to be just about impossible as long as you maintain the belief system you do.

Since you ask, the answer to your question is yes, other animals do indeed show a moral sense - of the ability to know a right from a wrong. For obvious reasons you can see this most clearly in the other great apes who are our closest genetic relatives - try reading some primatology; Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal especially.

This should surprise no one, and doesn't stand in need of explanation. What would really need explaining is if it didn't exist.

[Shaker]

But by definition it is limited to what can be perceived by physical human senses, or humanly constructed devices.  We have no way of knowing just how much of true reality science can discover - it may be just a small fraction.

Maybe. But without a methodology, you literally cannot even determine what proportion you think you're referring to.

[torridon]

But by definition it is limited to what can be perceived by physical human senses, or humanly constructed devices.  We have no way of knowing just how much of true reality science can discover - it may be just a small fraction.

That might be true; in which case we have to live with the fact that there are things we can never know

[Shaker]

That might be true; in which case we have to live with the fact that there are things we can never know

But then, how would we know that?

[floo]

That might be true; in which case we have to live with the fact that there are things we can never know

Like what?

[Leonard James]

Interesting you mention that time when you were 15 and about WWII, LJ. I must have been about 7 when I had a conversation with my father about how God could be on both sides in the War. He couldn't understand it but, as he was 100% sure that God was, it was a case of God moves in mysterious ways. At that time I did not consider pursuing the subject, since, if my father said, I had no reason to doubt him.  At least he did not think any of the biblical stories were true, but knew them to be stories to help learn good/bad, right/wrong, etc.

That's about the long and the short of it, Susan! The Bible is nothing more than that ... a book of fables to advise us on how to live, rather like Aesop's.

If "God" is used to signify the cause of the universe and life, then fine, I have no argument. It is when people start to claim further knowledge of "God" that fiction produced by the human imagination creeps in.

[Leonard James]

The devil has many ways to convince you that God does not exist, even after you have once known Him.

The "Devil", Alan, is just another romantic human fiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take a different position: there are literally uncountable things not yet explained (Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns), but without a method like the scientific method to discover and explain them, how would you ever know of them?

surely an unknown unknown reduces to an unknown and if we know we don't know these then they reduce down to known unknowns.....sounds like you are straw clutching Shakey.

As for the method you are talking about science and gussying that up into philosophical naturalism.

[Leonard James]

If there is anything about reality that is beyond our comprehension, it is of no importance whatever to us, since we can, by definition, never become aware of it.

[Shaker]

If there is anything about reality that is beyond our comprehension, it is of no importance whatever to us, since we can, by definition, never become aware of it.

Precisely.

[~TW~]

LJ dreams in dreamland,yesterday I told wigs he was nearly right,so time to bait you left wing liberal lackies plus atheist secular humanists or whatever you might call your self scripture has one word for you evil people.

 So where are we in Gods timetable and what happens next,in general I would use this scripture

  9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, I think that sums it up.So it is not what happens next,but what is happening now,the shakers and ippys of this world are in for a tough time but You do not have to search for God,he has you clearly in his sights which is bad news for all of you.If you would like more detals just ask.

     ~TW~   

[Shaker]

~TW~ is playing with the pixies again

[Leonard James]

~TW~ is playing with the pixies again

I hope they teach him how to express himself in English.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And to you. I think you might want to look at the article I just plated link to in the Science section. Should be grist to your mill on the 'end of empiricism in science'

Thanks.

Massimo Pigliucci is a science writer who is concerned with this. He wrote a response to Sean Carroll's piece for THE EDGE suggesting that falsification be retired from science.

[~TW~]

I hope they teach him how to express himself in English.

 LJ I prefer mystery just hang on in there and dont spend all your pension at once,put some away for a rainy day,as a big storm is on the way. 

 ~TW~ back later and I will pray for you all you are gonna need prayer.

[Leonard James]

LJ I prefer mystery just hang on in there and dont spend all your pension at once,put some away for a rainy day,as a big storm is on the way. 

 ~TW~ back later and I will pray for you all you are gonna need prayer.

What a dreary, spiteful dreamworld you do live in TW. 

[ippy]

Everytime you do this Ippy you are really holding up naturalism and saying ''this is the truth''.......But naturalism is a philosophy which needs arguing.

There are some seemingly fixed laws governing the emergence of intelligent life.
2 options.....Who or what fixed them ......or do we just accept that they are without further questioning( Akin to religious humility)........what's it to be be Ippy?

No I didn't say this is the truth, read it again Vlad.

Please explain why you think something fixed things, your the one coming out with something you've dreamed up or accepted something others have dreamed up, you tell me why there is any sensible reason for there's anything that sets laws, as you call them?

ippy

[floo]

LJ I prefer mystery just hang on in there and dont spend all your pension at once,put some away for a rainy day,as a big storm is on the way. 

 ~TW~ back later and I will pray for you all you are gonna need prayer.

I would pray for yourself. With your ghastly attitude you might end up in the hell with us  wicked unbelievers, if Jesus tells you to get lost as he never knew you!