Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[Sebastian Toe]

So, to be clear.

If 'scientists' make a statement which supports Sassy's views, then they are correct, accurate and should be believed without question even if there is no reference given to those 'scientists' names or their claims in order that they can be checked.

On the other hand if the same subject has other scientists with opposite views/results and there are references/papers/research available which can be scrutinised or checked, then they must be wrong?

Is that about it?

[Maeght]

SusanDoris and Maeght

I agree, others make the same, and similar mistakes, but they do not do it in demonstrating the pompous arrogance that Sassy does in all her pronouncements!

I know what you mean.

[Shaker]

So, to be clear.

If 'scientists' make a statement which supports Sassy's views, then they are correct, accurate and should be believed without question even if there is no reference given to those 'scientists' names or their claims in order that they can be checked.

On the other hand if the same subject has other scientists with opposite views/results and there are references/papers/research available which can be scrutinised or checked, then they must be wrong?

Is that about it?

Got it in one.

[floo]

So, to be clear.

If 'scientists' make a statement which supports Sassy's views, then they are correct, accurate and should be believed without question even if there is no reference given to those 'scientists' names or their claims in order that they can be checked.

On the other hand if the same subject has other scientists with opposite views/results and there are references/papers/research available which can be scrutinised or checked, then they must be wrong?

Is that about it?

You got it!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Revived so Hope can post his evidence that he is claiming on the "What is scholarly..." thread.

To recap, since I have started posting Hope has alluded to the following as potential examples of non-naturalness:

1) Morality (including speed limits)  - as science doesn't do morality then it is an example of something non-natural.

Just because science is morally neutral, it does not mean that scientific method cannot be used to study human behaviours and the drivers for such behaviours.

Furthermore, you still need to show why the existence of morality demonstrates the existence of God.

2) Experience of the supernatural/God - he has personal experience of God.

I don't think people doubt that some people have an inner experience which they attribute to an encounter with God. What you need to do though is to demonstrate that you have correctly attributed it to an actual objectively true God.

3) Spontaneous healing / answer to prayer.

We are still waiting for the evidence of your claim that a naturalistic explanation can be ruled out in terms of spontaneous healing. How you can tell the difference between something for which there is no scientific explanation and something which can have no scientific explanation remains a mystery.

Likewise, there is no reason in principle that the claim that healing correlates with prayer cannot be answered using the scientific method. Healing being caused by prayer due to some supernatural intervention is out of scope but until some correlation can be shown then there is no phenomenon to investigate.


There might have been others but these are the ones I can recollect reasonably well.

[Hope]

Revived so Hope can post his evidence that he is claiming on the "What is scholarly..." thread.

How many pages of the site do you want this to cover, Stephen?  I'm not quite sure exactly how much evidence has been put in front of the members of the board over the 5 or so years I've been a member, but it would involve an incredibly long post.

[floo]

No verifiable evidence has ever been put up by Christians to support the existence of a god.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

How many pages of the site do you want this to cover, Stephen?  I'm not quite sure exactly how much evidence has been put in front of the members of the board over the 5 or so years I've been a member, but it would involve an incredibly long post.

Only bringing it up in response to your repeated claim.

Actually I think the post containing evidence would be a very short one. One containing supernatural claims would indeed be very long. Claims and evidence are very different things though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Revived so Hope can post his evidence that he is claiming on the "What is scholarly..." thread.

To recap, since I have started posting Hope has alluded to the following as potential examples of non-naturalness:

1) Morality (including speed limits)  - as science doesn't do morality then it is an example of something non-natural.

Just because science is morally neutral, it does not mean that scientific method cannot be used to study human behaviours and the drivers for such behaviours.

Furthermore, you still need to show why the existence of morality demonstrates the existence of God.

2) Experience of the supernatural/God - he has personal experience of God.

If you think that science has something to say about morality, which you accept as non material than might we not also take a human behavioural response in looking at God?

For instance I put a fairly long post on which an antitheist responded to almost too quickly saying it didn't make sense. Now having been a Goddodger of old I know I was prone to skip over things to do with God.

The point is though we can spot the behaviours of people in the presence of religion not just so called "religious people" but "anti religious " people, although going by their posts on here they would rather be the ones wielding the scalpels and the electrodes.

[Hope]

To make any post manageable in length, I'll post references.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman
http://www.josh.org/resurrection/evidence-for-the-resurrection/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus
http://www.str.org/articles/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible#.Vzgssr62HgU
https://carm.org/there-are-no-non-biblical-accounts-resurrection
http://christianity.net.au/questions/other-than-the-bible
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

There are a few to be going on with, whilst I go and get ready for church.

Furthermore, the Jewish religious leaders were so concerned about his claims to be God and to be acting as God that they chose to have him arrested and killed.  That is pretty telling in my mind.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If you think that science has something to say about morality, which you accept as non material than might we not also take a human behavioural response in looking at God?

Actually it is Hope's claim that morality is non material. Since it describes Human behaviours it appears very much material to me. Not in the sense that it is something out there that can be picked up and weighed, but without material beings demonstrating behaviours and then assigning good or bad labels to that behaviour then I don't think there wold be any morality.

Belief in God can certainly motivate certain behaviours. However, how you get from belief in God to God exists is the key question.

[Hope]

Only bringing it up in response to your repeated claim.

Yet where are the contradictory evidences?

Actually I think the post containing evidence would be a very short one. One containing supernatural claims would indeed be very long. Claims and evidence are very different things though.

I'd suggest the opposite, Stephen.

[floo]

To make any post manageable in length, I'll post references.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman
http://www.josh.org/resurrection/evidence-for-the-resurrection/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus
http://www.str.org/articles/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible#.Vzgssr62HgU
https://carm.org/there-are-no-non-biblical-accounts-resurrection
http://christianity.net.au/questions/other-than-the-bible
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

Furthermore, the Jewish religious leaders were so concerned about his claims to be God and to be acting as God that they chose to have him arrested and killed.  That is pretty telling in my mind.

In your mind, maybe, not in mine. Jesus was just a pain in the butt that is all as far as the Jewish hierarchy was concerned, they didn't actually believe him to be a god, imo.

[Shaker]

Actually it is Hope's claim that morality is non material. Since it describes Human behaviours it appears very much material to me. Not in the sense that it is something out there that can be picked up and weighed, but without material beings demonstrating behaviours and then assigning good or bad labels to that behaviour then I don't think there wold be any morality.

Exactly. Like mathematics, say, or a legal system it may not be a concrete physical thing but is utterly dependent upon concrete physical things - humans - for its existence. No humans, no morality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly. Like mathematics, say, or a legal system it may not be a concrete physical thing but is utterly dependent upon concrete physical things - humans - for its existence. No humans, no morality.

But I think you'll have to recognise that science doesn't do morality, so your statement no humans,no morality is not scientific.

Back to the drawing board.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually it is Hope's claim that morality is non material. Since it describes Human behaviours it appears very much material to me. Not in the sense that it is something out there that can be picked up and weighed, but without material beings demonstrating behaviours and then assigning good or bad labels to that behaviour then I don't think there wold be any morality.

Belief in God can certainly motivate certain behaviours. However, how you get from belief in God to God exists is the key question.

But I believe there is another set of questions here........namely the motivations of anti-theists which can and should be investigated since the plea is that it is a rational response.

For example, is the repulsion from God neuro scientifically equivalent to the fear of spiders.

Antitheists must also don the electrodes.......having a celebrity antitheist doing the tests won't do.

[Shaker]

But I think you'll have to recognise that science doesn't do morality, so your statement no humans,no morality is not scientific.

Back to the drawing board.

Not really - that science doesn't 'do' morality is an opinion, but then there's the contrary opinion espoused by, for example, Sam Harris.

[Rhiannon]

The understanding that survival of the most cooperative trumps survival of the fittest suggests that science does do morality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

How many pages of the site do you want this to cover, Stephen?  I'm not quite sure exactly how much evidence has been put in front of the members of the board over the 5 or so years I've been a member, but it would involve an incredibly long post.

Depends on whether you continue to play fast and loose with the term "evidence". If you stick with your pattern of just guessing, wishful thinking, confirmation bias etc then the answer is "lots". If however you want the term to have some meaning that distinguishes it from these characteristics, then none whatsoever.

To put it another way, so far it's been a very short post: just a picture of some tumble weed.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

To make any post manageable in length, I'll post references.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman
http://www.josh.org/resurrection/evidence-for-the-resurrection/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus
http://www.str.org/articles/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible#.Vzgssr62HgU
https://carm.org/there-are-no-non-biblical-accounts-resurrection
http://christianity.net.au/questions/other-than-the-bible
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

There are a few to be going on with, whilst I go and get ready for church.

Which in the case of the resurrection, are claims. I accept that they are claims. What you need to do is to demonstrate those claims are true somehow. You would need to rule out the possibility of lies, mistakes, confirmation bias, later additions to the story. These are all know human behaviours, how have you discounted them?

Furthermore, the Jewish religious leaders were so concerned about his claims to be God and to be acting as God that they chose to have him arrested and killed.  That is pretty telling in my mind.

It would indicate that they thought he was not God wouldn't it?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread contains a discussion about the Moon landings so I'm going to split of these posts and from them create a thread about matters lunar in the 'Science' Board later today. I'll lock this meantime and unlock after I've split these posts.

Could I ask enthusiasts on the issue of Moon landings to avoid launching into further posts until the new thread is in place.

Update:

I've split off the 'Moon' posts and will look at these forming a new thread: some further surgery will be required first, so please be patient!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - that science doesn't 'do' morality is an opinion, but then there's the contrary opinion espoused by, for example, Sam Harris.

What are Sam Harris premises and what are his aims? To be tha antitheist version of Moses?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - that science doesn't 'do' morality is an opinion, but then there's the contrary opinion espoused by, for example, Sam Harris.

Really, how does it propose what is right behaviour and wrong behaviour from just behaviour?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Please note the the posts in this thread that dealt with the Moon landings have split off into a new thread in 'Science':

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12076.msg613867#new

[Shaker]

Really, how does it propose what is right behaviour and wrong behaviour from just behaviour?

I really couldn't tell you, and that's because The Moral Landscape, the book in which he fleshes out these ideas, is the only major work of his that I haven't yet read.