Answers to prayers?

[Gordon]

I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

Sounds like divine favouritism to me: it surprises me that anyone these days would take such passages seriously.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Let's say you are God. You were faced with this situation. What would you have done?

Why not punish the parents and save the child?

Spud.  Any chance of an answer?

[Hope]

Hope the following was a part of the response you've had from Gordon, post 248 on this thread:

"All you are saying here is that people are different: again, so what! You can certainly believe what you like, Christian or otherwise,  but you don't get to choose your own facts, so if you have some facts that are beyond the realms of science then do tell us more, and if they really are beyond science tell us how you identified them in the first place".

ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong.  There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global.  If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist?  That its just a mirage?
As for choosing my own facts, it would seem (to me) to be others dismissing the facts they don't like.

When it comes to the root of your strange beliefs it's at this and exactly similar points, your arguments fall flat on their face; this is always the point where you're unable to give any form of a sensible answer so you duck out and appear elsewhere a few days later.

Of course they fall flat on their face (in your view); you don't like them so you choose to dismiss them without providing any good reason for doing so.   

I don't suppose there's any chance of an answer to the underlined part of this post? It could become a new branch of science, had you thought of that Hope?

As I and others have previously pointed out, since science doesn't deal with the issue I've highlighted, it won't be able to be a new branch of that subject.

[Hope]

Sounds like divine favouritism to me: it surprises me that anyone these days would take such passages seriously.

So, is a parent's statement that if a child does as they are told/are asked they will get certain rewards, favouritism?  Remember the passage from 2 Chronicles 7:14

... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Is that favouritism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

As you're here with more daftness - science is a branch of logic, and logic does at least to some degree "do" right and wrong, albeit that it's not a field with absolutes or definitives. Why on earth you'd think that your alternative - religious faith - has anything useful to say on the matter is anyone's guess, but possibly if ever you manage to propose a method to test your claims we'll find out.

In the meantime though, you may recall that I rebutted various of your errors in reasoning in posts 36-39 inclusive, and that in your Reply 226 to Stephen you asked which of my posts you'd ignored. Predictably, I see that you've ignored them again even though in Reply 227 I took the time to provide the answer you asked for.

As you seem to be determined not to learn from your mistakes, what exactly do you hope to achieve by returning here only to repeat them?   
 

[Nearly Sane]

Hope,

As you're here with more daftness - science is a branch of logic, and logic does at least to some degree "do" right and wrong, albeit that it's not a field with absolutes or definitives. Why on earth you'd think that your alternative - religious faith - has anything useful to say on the matter is anyone's guess, but possibly if ever you manage to propose a method to test your claims we'll find out.

In the meantime though, you may recall that I rebutted various of your errors in reasoning in posts 36-39 inclusive, and that in your Reply 226 to Stephen you asked which of my posts you'd ignored. Predictably, I see that you've ignored them again even though in Reply 227 I took the time to provide the answer you asked for.

As you seem to be determined not to learn from your mistakes, what exactly do you hope to achieve by returning here only to repeat them?

Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct

[Leonard James]

Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct

Morality is nothing more than a human concept and does not exist outside the human mind.

[Nearly Sane]

Morality is nothing more than a human concept and does not exist outside the human mind.

Yes, I agree.

[Gordon]

ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong.

'Heavily' is possibly over-egging the pudding since value judgments aren't just conceptual: one can use both experience and reasoning to come to value judgments although these judgments are essentially subjective in nature: opinion if you will, but informed opinion.

There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global.  If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist?  That its just a mirage?

You are over-reaching again with yet another straw man: who here has suggested than science can't consider matters of conduct, such as the factual precursors or consequences of personal or group conduct?
 

As for choosing my own facts, it would seem (to me) to be others dismissing the facts they don't like.

What facts? You've yet to offer any.

Of course they fall flat on their face (in your view); you don't like them so you choose to dismiss them without providing any good reason for doing so.   

Again, what facts?

As I and others have previously pointed out, since science doesn't deal with the issue I've highlighted, it won't be able to be a new branch of that subject.

Nobody is claiming that science 'does' morality, but you do assert facts that you've yet to demonstrate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Science does not do morality. On that Hope is correct

Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.

we've been there and done this. If you accept an axiom other pieces follow. If you don't accept the axiom then it's just faffing. Offer me a real method to distinguish morality from guessing or assumption and that would be intetesdting but any link outside of that to science is pointless

[Hope]

NS,

Yes, but he implies that as science cannot then the path is clear for his approach or religious faith to do so. This is clearly nonsense: religion offers no method to distinguish its moral claims from just guessing, and a branch of logic that's different from science - ie, applied ethics - does "do" morality.

bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality.  I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'.  In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.

As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints.  My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions.  For me, there is no divide between science and faith.  They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life.  It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.

[jeremyp]

It seems that the parents must have somehow been taught an immense heresy, ie that you can pray for someone to be healed without actually doing anything, expecting God to perform a miracle. So whoever has misled them in that way will hopefully be prevented from doing so again.

Why did he have to murder the child though?

I made the comment this morning in the light of Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

By murdering children? Your god appears to be completely full of shit.

[floo]

How anyone can look favourably on that very sick creation of god beats me!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

we've been there and done this. If you accept an axiom other pieces follow. If you don't accept the axiom then it's just faffing. Offer me a real method to distinguish morality from guessing or assumption and that would be intetesdting but any link outside of that to science is pointless

Sort of. Yes, all is axioms - the "ought from an is" issue you often reference - but the fact is that, broadly speaking, societies from Papua New guinea to Penguin Island do tend to coalesce around some basic moral positions: co-operation, solidarity, altruism etc. And the attendant behaviours seem to have evolutionary advantages, and so have become embedded.

There's no "ought" here but there are observable and testable phenomena, and tentatively at least I'd suggest that it's possible to say something like, "this thing we develop and practice called morality seems to correlate at least to behaviours that offers the best genomic outcomes", which takes us at least some of the way away from guessing or assumption.

The alternative is applied moral relativism - any morality is a valid as any other - which in epistemic terms you might think to be the case, but in practical application terms societies that practiced it would be unworkable - the rule of law for example would be impossible.     

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions.  For me, there is no divide between science and faith.  They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life.  It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.

Not sure what faith does then. Is it the thing that allows you to hold contradictory positions, without it apparently bothering you?

[Udayana]

NS,

Sort of. Yes, all is axioms - the "ought from an is" issue you often reference - but the fact is that, broadly speaking, societies from Papua New guinea to Penguin Island do tend to coalesce around some basic moral position: co-operation, solidarity, altruism etc. And the attendant behaviours seem to have evolutionary advantages, and so have become embedded.

There's no "ought" here but there are observable and testable phenomena, and tentatively at least I'd suggest that it's possible to say something like, "this thing we develop and practice called morality seems to correlate at least to behaviours that offers the best genomic outcomes", which takes us at least some of the way away from guessing or assumption.

The alternative is moral relativism - any morality is a valid as any other - which in epistemic terms you might think to be the case, but in practical application terms societies that practiced it would be unworkable - the rule of law for example would be impossible.     

You could replace "morality" by "religion" in most of that, bhs. They've gone hand in hand in most societies, and even pulled in primitive science to provide consistent world views.

[Alan Burns]

bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality.  I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'.  In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.

As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints.  My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions.  For me, there is no divide between science and faith.  They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life.  It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.

Well said, Hope.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.

The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.

[Gordon]

Well said, Hope.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.

The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.

I think, Alan, based on this post and the post of Hope's you are responding to, that both of you are hopelessly lost in your personal incredulity: for you guys everything you know or experience derives from your God, everything you encounter that you don't fully understand creates convenient little gaps for you to claim your God acts - and then there is this 'more to reality' claim into which you can retreat when pressed.

There is no contrast here - it is all 'just God', which in terms of developing a meaningful understanding of anything is the intellectual equivalent of being dropped head first into a vat of blancmange from which there is no escape.

[ippy]

In reply to your post 277 on this thread Hope.

My comment was directed toward your well known inability to substantiate any of your statements/assertions ref: beyond the realms of science and how you actually can know with any certainty that these ideas that you specify are actually beyond the realms of science?

Whether I like these ideas of yours or not, if you could find some way of substantiating your rather strange ideas they would no longer be strange.

Psychology used to be a BA degree is now a BSC and has rather a lot to say about morality and is also extremely adapt at pointing out the many short falls/fallacies of religious beliefs when dealing with the mental state of most people and as such it presents one of the best entry points of science into the assessments of moral judgements, all without calling out to thin air for answers.

ippy



 

[ippy]

Well said, Hope.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.

The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.

Another good example of the godidit syndrome, well done yet again, Alan.

ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

bhs (and NS), I think the issue is that I don't regard human wisdom - be that in the form of science, or logic or reason - to be the sole arbiter of reality.  I have had sufficient expoerience to see that, alone, they don't 'cut the mustard'.  In a way, this has to do with my belief that all human attributes are intentional and not things that have arrived by the quirk of nature called evolution.

I don't know what you mean by this, but if you're implying that morality isn't an emergent property of our evolved selves then you have all your work ahead of you to make an argument for it 

As such, the debate is somewhat moot since, as I've said on so many occasions before, we are coming to the table from such different viewpoints.

Yes. Mine is that logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. You on the other hand seem content to rest your conclusions on false premises.   

My viewpoint doesn't dismiss science, logic or reason - after all, they are attributes and skills that God has given to humanity to enable them to look at the real world and use the brains we have to investigate, theorise and make conclusions.

And right on cue you deploy the reification fallacy. Again. The "after all" etc is just your personal faith belief, not a demonstrated fact.

For me, there is no divide between science and faith.  They are complementary processes that deal in different aspects of human life.  It is the likes of you who seem to want to 'divide and rule' as it were.

Fat wrong. They are no more "complementary" than, say, science and astrology are complementary. Science is just indifferent to religious faith (as it is to astrology) because faith offers nothing with which the methods of science can engage. The problem though for faith when it wants to establish truths of its own is that it has no methods of its own to distinguish its claims from just guessing.

Often too the claims of faith not only are not complementary to science but they flatly contradict them when the religious use their faith to make assertions of fact - young earth creationists, or those who ascribe surprising medical outcomes to the effect of prayer as examples. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

You could replace "morality" by "religion" in most of that, bhs. They've gone hand in hand in most societies, and even pulled in primitive science to provide consistent world views.

Not really. There's a bewildering variety of religious beliefs around the world, with very little obvious commonality between them - at least until for example missionaries spread/enforce their opinions. What is common though is our species' tendency to look for patterns and explanations - better a conspiracy theory than no theory at all - and gods from Thor to Hope's "God" have fulfilled that role for millennia, at least until better explanations have arrived.

It would be interesting to hear Hope's response for example to one of his logically hopeless "Mrs Jenkins was ill/the doctors had given up/we prayed/Mrs Jenkins got better/therefore God" daftnesses if tomorrow a new mechanism for the cure was discovered (if, say, it turned out that eating grapes fixed that particular illness). Would he give up on his god much as the Thor-ists did when thunder was explained, or would he look for the next currently unexplained phenomenon for evidence for his God?   

[Nearly Sane]

Well said, Hope.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, all the debates on this forum can only be derived from reactions to events driven by scientific laws over which there is no control, and our conscious awareness merely spectates over these events which are pre determined by scientific laws.

The laws of science are certainly a part of reality which have been discovered by human endeavours, but there is substantial evidence which shows that there is much more to reality, particularly when you consider what drives and perceives our human thought processes.

You'll have a methodology for determining what you mean by 'evidence' here? I hope you do because if not your statement becomes not even wrong. Hope has been asked many times for one and hasn't ever provided one, so if you help him out that would be good.


Further, reality is a bold claim from either theist or atheist.

[Alan Burns]

I think, Alan, based on this post and the post of Hope's you are responding to, that both of you are hopelessly lost in your personal incredulity: for you guys everything you know or experience derives from your God, everything you encounter that you don't fully understand creates convenient little gaps for you to claim your God acts - and then there is this 'more to reality' claim into which you can retreat when pressed.

There is no contrast here - it is all 'just God', which in terms of developing a meaningful understanding of anything is the intellectual equivalent of being dropped head first into a vat of blancmange from which there is no escape.

Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.

You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.  The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events.  So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.

The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.