Bonky

Actions that improve or sustain human flourishing. Two people can take a knife and cut another person. One is trying to murder and one is removing a tumor. It's not like we can't figure out which action is "good" and which one is "bad". If you think there is some golden objective "standard" that is on you. I'm saying we can certainly navigate towards "human flourishing" and also navigate away from that based on our actions. Just like we know the difference between poison and food. Is this the legal system that allowed for slaves or the one after? It seems odd that you're pointing to a very logical decision and stating "sometimes we do crazy things". It's not crazy to want to flourish and be free to live in harmony with the rest of your species. If that's crazy to you then we live in two different worlds.

If by morality we are talking about the well being or treatment of humans then we can make informed truth claims about whether an action is moral or immoral. We are not only social creatures but we're rather intelligent [in comparison to other creatures on Earth] I think it's only natural that we would develop a system of justice and moral fabric. We even see in other creatures that they seem to show empathy and concern for their peers. If you had a choice of living on two islands, one filled with murderers and thieves that celebrate mayhem and one that is inhabited by people that value safety, health and freedom which one would you want to live in? As you list the reasons why you'd rather live in the latter island those reasons are brought to you by...logic.

Ok but that's where I get lost, what is the utility in declaring an objective morality if it can't be clearly understood? If you mean outside the human experience [my right to say you were wrong] I would tend to agree with you. Evidently it turns out I don't need to do that.

Ok so it sounds like intentions play a role. Even then in this scenario we can find 2 people who disagree over whether deadly force was needed given a particular set of facts. Contact my bank. Would I view your actions as wrong? Yes.

So that I can better understand what you mean by "objective morality". Can you end a human life and NOT commit an immoral act? I understand the definition "objective morality" but I have a hard time seeing how this is actually useful in real life scenarios.

I have to smile because I used this example based on the question "How can you falsify Christianity". I was given that response and inside my head I'm thinking "How could we possibly know it was really Christ, it's not like we have his dental records". We can measure things though to find out that there is order, whether religion or religious people were involved we would end up discovering the same things. Ricky Gervais was on a late night show and he said [paraphrasing] "If we were to start over, religions would evolve and probably not look like what we have today, science would show us the same exact things we detect today." I'm not focusing on the first part but the latter. I can't remember the details of that pollen issue but I have to ask, how does pollen have anything to do with whether we're related to other primates? I agree. I have trust that biologists, paleontologists etc know what they're doing, but not undying trust. There are some creationist authors, professors, organizations that openly state they would not accept anything that jeopardizes scripture. I know there are scientists or professors out there that betray the spirit of scientific discovery, but I don't think we'd be where we are today if generally speaking scientists were afraid to change their mind with new data.

Common ancestry could be false and so could Christianity, I don't see how the fall of one would prop up the other. If we would find out for sure that Christianity is false [find the body of Christ] would that strengthen evolution? I don't see how. I would agree that if common ancestry is not true then something else must have been at play in the past to get us where we are now. This is just a thought of mine, I think one reason for this may be that scriptures haven't given us any insight to the natural world that a secular scientist couldn't achieve. I think we also see so many examples of how scripture is put ahead of anything else no matter the discovery. In religion that is viewed as a virtue, in science that is viewed as a weakness. I've seen Christians often comment about how science "changes it's views". I'd rather side with people who can admit they were wrong than side with people who can't imagine being wrong. To be clear, I'm more referring to young earth creationist Christians that seem to be much more staunch in their views, this wouldn't apply to Christians who are not as certain about such matters. Nice to chat with you again.

Well usually it's implied that the design was "intelligent". I don't know if we were designed or not for sure but if we were designed...it doesn't appear that the end result needed to be "good". LOL!! Yeah it works ok but there are plenty of deaths to go along with all the tubbies out there.

Child birth caused many deaths historically until modern medicine, would you say that's a "great" design? We eat and drink from the same pipe we use to breathe, would you say that's optimal?

I truly appreciate your input Ted, but the thread seemed to be talking about "works" and "sin", ie are humans generally "good" beings. I didn't read the whole thread however so that may be part of the issue.

I'm really not wanting to make this political but I can't ignore the obvious response that keeps bouncing around in my mind. It seems to me that the Bible stresses how horrible sin is and those that follow the Bible nod in agreement. I just don't see this play out in real life. The last election season bore this out very plainly. I didn't see many evangelicals saying "Oh gosh I can't stand Trump but I just can't bring myself to vote for Hillary". I saw "YES!! This guys is awesome!! We're going to make America great again!". We all know Trump is not exactly a model citizen when it comes to behavior. The things that he's said and done are pretty low brow. I listened to a podcast where Sam Harris was interviewing Scott Adams [Dilbert author] who is a Trump supporter. Over the course of this discussion it was very clear that essentially Scott feels that "Yes, Trump has some serious warts, but he's going to be very handy getting some things done that his supporters want". I have a friend who's been a Pastor for about 20 years, a very very dedicated Christian and he is not shy about supporting Trump. So I think the Bible portrays this idea that even little sins, like being rude, is enough to burn all of humanity forever. I think in reality, we know that there's a big difference between being a little rude and genocide. I wanted to add this to be clear. I don't think anything horrible of Scott Adams or anyone who voted for Trump. I just find it odd that someone can claim to care so much about sin but toss all that aside when they find someone who is powerful and useful.

No you're not. You're not engaging in discussion, you're looking for bickering arguments. Find it somewhere else, I tried.

I believe in black holes and neutrinos and yet I don't know the first thing about the calculations or the data behind the discoveries. I trust the experts, not with unending unbreakable confidence. That would be religion. I'm personally convinced that evolutionary biology provides rational answers for the development of biological life. Is it unshakable? No. That would be religion. Am I a biologist? No. Can I defend evolution at a high level...NO. From what reading I have done on the subject, it makes sense to me. Are there questions and uncertainties? Yes. The fact that historically there have been different philosophies on how to make scientific progress. Ever heard of Karl Popper? There isn't even one exact standard for the "scientific method"!! You put science in a tiny box, and I think I know why. You boned it up again. Reading comprehension, look into it. My quote: Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."--- I don't say ANYTHING about the scientists being right about evolution!!!!! I state that I find it hard to believe that they are that stupid in their field of expertise, that they are ignoring or ignorant of the fact that there is gaping holes in their theory and they just don't face it. Now read that 5 times slowly. I can give you examples, I never said I have no reasons for what I believe. I said I can only defend it so much, I'm not an expert. Once again you struggle to read and comprehend what someone is saying. I don't have this issue with anyone here on the entire board. Your statements assumed that my position is that there can't be an intelligent creator behind the scenes. I don't feel that way, there very well may be. Therefore you were trying to argue a position i don't hold. Checkmate.

Questions better asked to a biologist who studies evolution. This is why I agreed with Agrosy that I am not a stalwart defender of evolution because I'm not properly educated in it. I also think that you have a very narrow view of scientific investigation. Not everything we learned came from a beaker with chemicals and a microscope in a lab. If you want a discussion with me I would be delighted. You're going to have to start listening to what I'm saying and stop looking for "gotcha" moments. I didn't even come close to the fallacy you're asserting. I never said "Evolution is true because X number of Biologist says so". I was merely stating to Agrosy that I doubt that trained biologists are ignoring or ignorant of these gaping holes that Agrosy is asserting are there. I also spend about a half hour researching some of the things that Agrosy was saying so that I could "engage" him in this discussion. I didn't just post flippant counter posts. Well we can look that term up and find out. The term was brought up by Agrosy btw, not me. Another example where you don't seem to be listening to me and really being invested in a conversation. You actually committed a fallacy here which is very ironic [strawman]. I don't argue against some being tinkering with life or some being who tinkered with biology on earth. You seem to think that if someone supports evolution they, by definition, are a hard atheist. I also am puzzled as to how dna can arrive into being. If you were paying attention, Agrosy and I weren't debating whether some powerful agent/being was involved. We were merely addressing whether evolution happened at all. So if you want to discuss things with me, I'm ok with that. I'm going to need you to amp down the rhetoric and slow down enough to read what I'm saying and try to process it.

I think the discussion goes quite a bit deeper than what we're going to be able to sort out here. Just doing some quick research I'm finding documents/articles etc that refer to creatures such as the ones in the clade Cynodonts and also [for example] Therapsids. I also have not noticed that these fossils are just showing up in Turkey or Egypt. In fact, I don't recall seeing either of those areas as common places to find such fossils. I have no skin in the game personally, evolution can stand or fall and it won't impact me much at all. I have my own questions and things I don't understand. I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research. I'm also going to guess in advance that any example that is brought up as a possible transitional animal will be rejected [no matter what it is] and I'll hear, "that's just another creature God made". I'll also add, it wasn't the fossils that convinced me of evolution it was the genetic evidence.

What exactly do you feel is missing from the "fossil trail"? You make it sound like there is nothing but a complete void in the fossil record and we're left with nothing. Not sure that's really accurate or fair to be honest. I actually agree with your advice early on in your statements above, but I feel the inverse is needed as well. Criticizing biological evolution with disproportionate levels of criticism and education. I doubt you're a biologist that studies evolution.

When you say the Bible makes scientific claims, I think it needs to be a bit more specific than the examples you tend to provide. I don't see this as remotely scientific. So "scientifically" the verse is wrong, the Earth DOES "hang" from something....gravity. Also, feel free to check the commentary from Matthew Henry, John Gill etc on these verses and you'll see that the interpretation from them is something quite different than what you're offering.

And the Earth is supported by one or more of these?

A standard of right and wrong with regard to what?

I don't need that, I'd rather refer to reality. It would be morality proper/right to lie to a Nazi to protect Jews rather than turn them in correct?

I wanted to respond to this a while back and didn't get around to it. So I thought I'd take the time now [I'm on vacation ;)]. What is impossible about objective morality? When we discuss morality what are we talking about?

No. That doesn't make sense. Just because we can imagine a concept [infinity/eternity etc] that doesn't imply any scientific value. We only have the concept of "infinity" because it's the inverse of what we're used to...the finite. We can speculate that there is a creator being behind the curtain, but we can't imply that because we have the concept of geometrical lines that have no beginning or end.

I find the experiment to be flawed I guess. I mean if someone deeply loves their girlfriend/wife then I would expect that they would take the burden and keep them and take care of them. If the relationship was rocky or not much deeper than skin deep then I could see the man moving on perhaps. Let's say he chose the latter, it's not like this woman just sits in a wheelchair and eventually dies. She would...or should have family and/or government assistance. There are plenty of people that live in wheelchairs and they're not suffering. Interesting this is in America we have this waging war on healthcare and whether it's a right or not. If you were to poll those who thought healthcare isn't a right and are upset their taxes are going to pay for "other people's problem", which party do you think they would fall under? I'd bet money it's the same party that focuses on "family values" and a strong belief in God. I don't mean to politicize the issue but the moral example talks about a health issue so I thought it was an interesting side point.

The part where you assert it's "impossible". Coming from an advanced ape on a small rock in a little solar system. Are you familiar with the term hubris? I'm not asserting that you are wrong now, I'm saying we have examples in the past where we have said "Only god can explain X!!" and then later found out that isn't necessarily so. I'm warning against potentially falling into the same trap. Isaac Newton even made this mistake when he couldn't figure out celestial mechanics. His conclusion? Divine intervention aka "God did it". LaPlace came along and provided the solution using calculus. When asked why he [LaPlace] didn't suggest God's involvement LaPlace responded "I have no need for that hypothesis". An epic moment in history demonstrating the potential danger of throwing our hands up and resorting to the supernatural to account for natural phenomena.

I'm factually incorrect when I agree that life is complex? Right and notice that little part where they say "Often expressed mathematically". I don't deny that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem, but many times in the past humanity looked to the sky for gods to explain this and that only to find out later they were wrong. We should have learned by now that an argument from ignorance is never going to be a great way to go. We find organic molecules in space, I don't think it's impossible that life can arise naturally. How does Genesis 3 explain why childbirth is dangerous?