Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bois-Reymond also said :"Though there appears to be something in the phenomena of living beings which cannot be explained by ordinary mechanical, physical or chemical laws, much may be so explained, and we may without fear push these explanations as far as we can, so long as we keep to the solid ground of observation and experiment."

In other words he would not let you dismiss scientific inquiry with a wave of your hand.

.

PP did not say the scientific method is useless. PP said there are some aspects of the human experience which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

In what sense? Which are those? Because simply saying doesn't make it so.

.

The helpful rationalist in the video gave the answer: definitive judgments about right and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bois-Reymond also said :"Though there appears to be something in the phenomena of living beings which cannot be explained by ordinary mechanical, physical or chemical laws, much may be so explained, and we may without fear push these explanations as far as we can, so long as we keep to the solid ground of observation and experiment."

In other words he would not let you dismiss scientific inquiry with a wave of your hand.

.

PP did not say the scientific method is useless. PP said there are some aspects of the human experience which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

In what sense? Which are those? Because simply saying doesn't make it so.

.

The helpful rationalist in the video gave the answer: definitive judgments about right and wrong.

Um.. Not sure if you've noticed, but religion is as useless in providing such answers as well. Possibly even less useful. The scientific method doesn't tell you what the yummiest flavor of ice cream is, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bois-Reymond also said :"Though there appears to be something in the phenomena of living beings which cannot be explained by ordinary mechanical, physical or chemical laws, much may be so explained, and we may without fear push these explanations as far as we can, so long as we keep to the solid ground of observation and experiment."

In other words he would not let you dismiss scientific inquiry with a wave of your hand.

.

PP did not say the scientific method is useless. PP said there are some aspects of the human experience which cannot be subjected to the scientific method.

In what sense? Which are those? Because simply saying doesn't make it so.

.

The helpful rationalist in the video gave the answer: definitive judgments about right and wrong.

Right but those were not the concerns listed by Bois- reymond. Morality is a separate subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I said I believed in god, but asserted that he was giving everyone cancer, instead of peace and miracles, because I knew that to be the truth, how different is my hypothesis than the Christian one? Certainly, if his impulse control is so bad that he killed off all but one family with a flood, then he could give people cancer out of spite.

But God is defined as "good", so that makes no sense. Of coure, then we have to ask, "Who defines God?" Also, we have to ask, if we define "good" as "What God does", the circularity makes the concept of "good" pretty much meaningless.

I think it's just as likely that "god" is not good as good, and that any positive things that he allows in the universe are just as likely to be because "His ways are strange". Maybe "free will" allows him to maximize the amount of evil in the world.

But, genocide is not on my list of "good". Is there a different, feel-good explanation for the flood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I said I believed in god, but asserted that he was giving everyone cancer, instead of peace and miracles, because I knew that to be the truth, how different is my hypothesis than the Christian one? Certainly, if his impulse control is so bad that he killed off all but one family with a flood, then he could give people cancer out of spite.

But God is defined as "good", so that makes no sense. Of coure, then we have to ask, "Who defines God?" Also, we have to ask, if we define "good" as "What God does", the circularity makes the concept of "good" pretty much meaningless.

I think it's just as likely that "god" is not good as good, and that any positive things that he allows in the universe are just as likely to be because "His ways are strange". Maybe "free will" allows him to maximize the amount of evil in the world.

But, genocide is not on my list of "good". Is there a different, feel-good explanation for the flood?

Compicated answer? He's mysterious. Simple answer? Evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um.. Not sure if you've noticed, but religion is as useless in providing such answers as well. Possibly even less useful. The scientific method doesn't tell you what the yummiest flavor of ice cream is, either.

So no one can know what is right and wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um.. Not sure if you've noticed, but religion is as useless in providing such answers as well. Possibly even less useful. The scientific method doesn't tell you what the yummiest flavor of ice cream is, either.

So no one can know what is right and wrong?

I didn't say that. Only that the same issues that arise with a rationalist approach arise with a religious approach. You don't privilege your position by putting an "Approved by God" sticker on it. For example, the Christian Bible is incoherent as to be useless as a tool of moral instruction. So you end up with a bunch of self-appointed experts who are here to "explain" it to you. And, of course, all without any logical foundation.

I prefer a rationalist ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um.. Not sure if you've noticed, but religion is as useless in providing such answers as well. Possibly even less useful. The scientific method doesn't tell you what the yummiest flavor of ice cream is, either.

So no one can know what is right and wrong?

I didn't say that. Only that the same issues that arise with a rationalist approach arise with a religious approach. You don't privilege your position by putting an "Approved by God" sticker on it. For example, the Christian Bible is incoherent as to be useless as a tool of moral instruction. So you end up with a bunch of self-appointed experts who are here to "explain" it to you. And, of course, all without any logical foundation.

I prefer a rationalist ethics.

OP here. I would very much appreciate if you had the time to outline "rationalist ethics," since I was about to write about the problem of morality for rationalists. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

[Anonymous]

I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought religion was a labeling and reflection of the right vs wrong in all of us.

So is the field of rationalist ethics. What's the reason for privileging "religion" over reason, given that we've alread established that religion gives no special insight into what is right or wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not man is strictly material or both material and immaterial defines the meaning of his existence. If he is only material, his end point is death. If he is material and immaterial, his end point is not the death of his material self. If he is only material, he has no intrinsic and inalienable worth. If anything, he is worth more the more useful he is to other creatures undergoing similar physical processes, but he has no value unto himself.

So if any DCUMers believe in human rights, there is every reason to care whether or not there is a Creator, and whether or not man is solely a material being.

A person does not cease to matter because they die. That's ridiculous. Lincoln is dead, did he not make an important impact on human rights? What about everyone else? Even if it is not someone famous, a person matters to someone. My existence is not meaningless because I'm mortal. I don't need god to think I'm special to make my life important.

Well, it depends on who you talk to. Members of the KKK would strongly disagree with Lincoln's personal opinion about human rights. How do you know who is right?

Some people matter to no one. Do they still have human rights?

This is an either/or problem. Either human beings have intrinsic worth, or they do not. If they do not, we may choose to grant them worth, but then their worth may be taken away by someone else.

I think you're running into the wishful "thinking problem" again. "Do people have human rights? If so, God." That's not an argument.

I am not trying to make an argument. I am simply observing that human beings do not have intrinsic value in a materialist universe.

Nor do they have one in a universe where we assume the God hypothesis is correct.