Comments by PaulEmecz

151. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55452 by PaulEmecz on July 11, 2007 at 6:30 am

pewkatchoo

total logic failure... renders all your arguments and positions as absolute nonsense

Thank you for your comments. Is there any chance you could be specific? Surely illogical and nonsensical are not the same thing - which makes your comment illogical.

You lack logic, because you say that my lack of logic means that what I say doesn't make sense. That is a logical error. Where are my logical errors?

Or, are you saying something else? Is it that I have moved from the logically necessary (morality is inconsistent with an atheistic position) to a set of beliefs, such as in redemption, that is not necessary? I acknowledge that this is a belief, not a statement of the way the world must be. It is not illogical to believe in a vengeful God. However, it would be incompatible with my belief in God as a source of morality. My experience of morality, that there is right and wrong, leads me to belief in a redemptive God. I'm not saying it logically follows, that it must be so. That doesn't make what I say 'illogical'. Even if it was 'illogical', that wouldn't be the same as saying that it doesn't make sense.

So, I have shown how your brief response was contrary to logic (illogical). Surely I have given you a much bigger target - which bits are illogical, and which bits are nonsensical?

152. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55436 by PaulEmecz on July 11, 2007 at 5:00 am

Hobbit

What if it wasn't 1 dying soldier but 2 (a Christian and an Atheist). You have only enough morphine for 1 solider. Which do you choose? Do you leave them both to suffer (1 will soon meet God and be filled with a sense of peace, fulfillment and love whilst the other will soon feel nothing). Do you use a gun to euthanise them both and save the morphine for another soldier that may be wounded but will live?

How would a Muslim respond (assuming the non atheist was a muslim instead of a christian)? What about a Jew, a Budhist, a Druid etc.

Your question (how would a Muslim respond) implies that all Muslims behave the same way. That's not the case.

By the way, Buddhists are generally considered atheists...

How would I respond? Well, firstly I don't think the soldiers' religious beliefs are morally relevant to whether to give them pain relief. In this case, a pragmatic approach, in terms of which soldier was suffering the most, would seem appropriate. I don't think you'd behave particularly differently if you were a Druid, an Atheist etc. For example, Paramedics in this country have to make similar decisions, and their priorities, such as to treat pregnant women first and the elderly last, would seem to appeal to any reasonable person.

I am not arguing that atheists and Christians will necessarily behave differently with regard to morals. That wasn't the point.

Matt Groening said he went to a school where they didn't have rules (The Evergreen State College - "no grades, no required classes"). I heard him say that it took at least three months for students to come round to the new way of working. Students were so used to doing things because they were told they had to, so when they were allowed to do what they liked, they stopped attending classes and had fun. Months later, they would start turning up to lessons, not because they were forced to, but because they could see a reason to.

Now, our society is set up so that people are 'forced' to follow the law. What would happen if you said "It is illegal to download copyrighted music, but there will be no punishment of any kind for doing so"?

If you got rid of all punishments, I would, because of my faith, still behave morally. If I no longer had my faith, and there were no punishments, what reason would I have for not downloading illegal music, films, software?

If I was an atheist, I would be inclined to break the rules. It wouldn't BE immoral, because there wouldn't be morality.

153. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55426 by PaulEmecz on July 11, 2007 at 4:26 am

Hobbit

Are those that practice Jihad not following the moral code as set down by god (many argue that Muslims, Jews and Christians all follow the same god)?

Not sure what 'set down by' means. As I said before, I only believe in one God, so Jews, Muslims and Christians, as well as Sikhs, Hindus and many others, can't be referring to a 'different god'. They may have different beliefs about God, for example that there are hundreds of millions of manifestations of God in Hinduism, but I don't believe there are hundreds of deities floating around in a non-physical reality.

As I thought I explained, Jihad contradicts principles such as 'Protect and preserve the innocent' which I believe are moral absolutes that form part of God's moral law. This is not "As written by Moses" but, if you'll allow poetic licence, "As written by God on the hearts of mankind" or "As written into nature".

154. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55421 by PaulEmecz on July 11, 2007 at 4:06 am

Hobbit

My understanding of this quote is that although there are immoral people amongst us, we cannot condemn all humanity as being immoral.

I think my point was that YOU cannot condemn anyone as being immoral. What I was saying was that unless there is an objective standard, there simply aren't immoral people. What there are, in the system you describe, is a whole bunch of people with a variety of behaviours and beliefs, who sometimes disagree and even try to wipe each other out.

kkant

So, here are the questions again, since you didn't answer them the last time: In what sense are you a Christian? Do you think Jesus died for our sins, and believing in him is the only path to salvation? If you are willing to discount those "rough" parts of the Old Testament, are you really willing to credit the New Testament (which reads like any other fairy tale) as truth?

...it would be extremely *immoral* of Him to leave us in the lurch and cause us to suffer eternally in Hell, since he is at fault for miscommunicating with us.

I agree that people ending up in Hell as described above would be wrong. This is why redemption is so important. Yes, I believe Jesus died for our sins. You can understand that at any number of levels, but it represents my belief that God reconciled humans to Him. If I am wrong, as I am sure I will be about God in many ways (I struggle to understand people and the world, how likely am I to get a great deal right about God?), and it wasn't through Jesus but in some other way that humans are redeemed, that won't matter. However, if I am wrong, and there is no redemption, then it does, as you pointed out, change everything about God. Then He isn't good, there is no purpose to life, no objective morality etc.

By the way, most of my Christian friends, and the Christian books I have read, are clear that Jesus died for everyone, not just 'Christians' (there were no Christians when Jesus walked the Earth). When people say that Jesus is the only way to salvation, they are saying that without redemption we are not reconciled to God. It is not the same as saying "Jews will not go to Heaven" - Jesus was a Jew for a start!

So if there's no God, no Totalitarian Dictator in the Sky, you'd be fine letting the dying soldier suffer in pain for no reason at all?

Can I ask you a question. Given the evidence that suggests foetuses feel pain, would you recommend anaesthetics during abortions? There are also many medical professionals who believe that it is possible to experience pain when someone has been kept alive in order to donate organs. Would you give them pain relief? Please explain WHY.

if there was no God, would you behave differently? Would you behave immorally? What exactly would you do?

It doesn't work like that. The world isn't going to suddenly change - what could happen is that I could change my beliefs.

Are you asking how I would behave if I believed there was no God? I hope I would continue to be consistent in my thinking, which would mean a radical change as there would be no basis for objective morality. I would search for a meaning in life, and might conclude that the survival of my genes was the closest thing. My commitment to my wife would be less firm. We made a promise before God, but that would mean nothing. Despite what you may say about contracts, what reason would I have to keep the contract if it no longer suited me? Particularly if I could find someone else who could have more children and continue my genes?

It's not as simple as just saying "What if there was no God?" because you would also be saying, for me, as I think about these things and see what follows on from that, "What if there was no objective right or wrong?" etc. I have to say, I genuinely don't see how I could still be me and say to my kids "Well, I don't like what Hitler did, and you don't have to like it either, but you can't say it was actually WRONG because things like right and wrong just aren't."

This is not nearly the same as implying that I am only good because I will get some reward in heaven. As I said before, the faith I have is that God has reconciled all people to Him, and therefore you don't and can't earn your way into heaven. "Amazing Grace" and all that.

155. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55340 by PaulEmecz on July 10, 2007 at 5:03 pm

-J-

Supposing that, for whatever reasons, you find nothing to inspire confidence in naturalistic science's approach to morality and consciousness. How does 'so there must be a god' provide an answer?

This followed my argument that there must either be many universes, or this one was designed. The question then is, which explanation is simpler. Which of the two explains all of the relevant observations?

Well, there being a multiverse is compatible with the unlikelihood of intelligent life existing in the universe. However, it doesn't explain the existence of cosciousness (discussed at length on this thread) or the experience of moral truth.

Any naturalistic explanation of morality is little more than a description of behaviours and how they come to be. This is not the same as imperatives. Morality is about what we should do, not about what people end up doing because of society, upbringing, genes etc.

So, my choice is to believe a theory that doesn't explain key observations, or believe in God. How might belief in God help?

Kant says this gives us a reason to be moral.
Aquinas believes that we were designed by God. Fulfilling our God-given purpose is what morality is all about. Why is a sharp knife a good knife? Because knives were intended to cut. Why is an honest, fair, courageous and wise person a good person? Because that's what people were intended to be.

156. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55176 by PaulEmecz on July 10, 2007 at 7:40 am

Dr Benway

I know your game. It's the old "you have faith just like me, Mr. Science, therefore my faith is justified."

This is anything but tedious. I really like questioning my own beliefs. It is the only way to strengthen your beliefs. As a Christian, going to church doesn't give me that, although I'm lucky enough to know a couple of intelligent, questioning people, and we talk about things over a pint of beer. That's why I'm here. There are many, many Christians who do not properly scrutinise their beliefs.

This is also true of many, many scientists. What science is to religion, philosophy is to science. You can be a scientist and religious, but you have to listen to science, as it can tell you a lot of things about the way the world is. You can be a scientist and a philosopher, but you have to listen to philosophy as it makes you aware of the assumptions you make when you look at the world.

What's important is that when Socrates professed complete ignorance, he wasn't saying "Let's all give up questioning". He was saying something about how we need to approach our studies. You need to continue to apply the rigours of the scientific mind to religion, but you mustn't forget to value the insights of philosophy when doing science.

EDIT: I sincerely recommend refreshing your screen before posting a response. I can't even find the original post that I was responding to. This isn't just a stream of consciousness thread - it's more like a river!

157. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55170 by PaulEmecz on July 10, 2007 at 7:25 am

Macque

I see that you are clinging on to a belief in a designer simply because you find it difficult to come to terms with an absence of meaning.

Yes.

It's not just cowardice or fear, though. It is a constant experience of meaning, which science cannot explain even by describing consciousness as an 'emergent property'.

Simply finding it hard to believe there is no reason for something happening is a rather poor reason to advocate a designer in the face of the overwhelming contradictory evidence.

I just don't see the evidence. Not at all. I get that some religious people use God to explain the complexity of human life, and that the evidence shows that complexity arises out of simplicity without the need for a designer. That isn't any sort of evidence at all, not AT ALL, against the universe being designed.

Saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in a Christian god, is the same as saying you believe in quantum mechanics but don't believe in quantum mechanics.

So, which do you believe in, a Newtonian universe or a quantum mechanics universe? How can you not see how badly-worded and unhelpful that sort of question is?

Let's say you and I die, and we realise that death is not the end. We then have a much more direct experience of the Almighty, being filled with a sense of peace, fulfillment and love. Would you then say "By the way, are you a Christian or Jewish God?"

There are Christian beliefs about God. Many Christians hold a lot of the same beliefs as each other. There are Jewish beliefs about God, many of them the same as many Christian beliefs. It's not a different God, just like there isn't a Newtonian universe and a quantum mechanics universe.

My friend Dave is a big fan of Iain Banks. I really like Iain M Banks. Dave tried something by Iain M. Banks and didn't get on with it at all. We might each have a different set of beliefs about Banks, but it doesn't make Banks two different people!

Donald,

To clarify, I wouldn't have chosen the term 'arbitrary', but to be fair to Dawkins he did say "or even a pseudo-objective moral code". It is objective in the sense that it is independent of individual human beings. However, your explanation of morality doesn't give a rational person any reason to behave in anything other than a purely self-interested way.

Rationality is your stumbling block. I have the ability to look past my instincts and question my actions. What RATIONAL justification is there for me to consider anyone but myself? If your answer is some form of "It's in your interests to help other people" then you haven't read the question.

158. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55065 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Hobbit

I did say in 126 that I am a Christian. However, it is misleading to say I believe in a Christian God. It's like asking you which universe you believe in - a Newtonian one, or a quantum mechanics universe.

I'm sorry about the slavery issue, but sadly it isn't about what you say. Clearly you personally are against slavery, but if your argument is that morals come from what society does or doesn't approve of, you are saying that when slavery was approved of by society, it was okay. To condemn slavery, you have to have a different view of what makes one thing right and another thing wrong.

I haven't lost faith in humanity - I believe each human being is sacred, created by God and infinitely valuable. If you take God out of the picture, it's very different. You may get a large or small number of people being kind or helping others, but that would be no more the right thing to do than the person acting entirely out of self-interest.

Is Jihad moral, If not why not?

That's like asking 'Is war moral?' I think the Just War criteria are a pretty good general set of principles for deciding on the ethics of any particular war. These criteria do not support going to war 'on principle' - there has to be the intention to improve things. Jihad, as I understand it, allows people to fight unwinnable wars, which goes against these criteria.

Therefore, I don't believe in killing people over morals, but my morals would lead me to kill peopl (such as the Nazis after they invaded Poland).

159. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55016 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

-J-

Why do you find a multiplicity of universes less likely than a reality-transcending, super-intelligent über-being?

I experience morality - I know one thing to be wrong, another right. The multiverse doesn't account for the existence of morality.

I experience.

The multiverse doesn't account for this amazing fact.

160. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55010 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Bizarro

That seems to work.

Do you agree with me?

Paul

161. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55008 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Macque

"you do not get your morality from the bible"

– correct

"No right thinking person would deny evolution"

– I don't deny evolution. People need to be careful, though. I don't know many people who know 'the' theory of evolution well, and certainly are not up-to-date in terms of most current evidence. By accepting 'evolution', how much does someone need to believe? Where do new traits come from? Most people I know say evolution means 'random mutations' but they can't say a great deal more if pressed. They would be unlikely to have heard of 'genetic drift', and many talk about evolution in mistaken terms. E.g. "Giraffes have long necks so that they can reach leaves on tall trees." Are they really right-thinking, or just following the crowd?

"what would it take for you to accept an absence of intelligent design?"

– I would believe the most convincing position. At present, an atheistic stance cannot explain why our universe seems improbably well-suited for life. If I heard convincing evidence for a multiverse, it would change my views. I have the philosophical sophistication to appreciate that as well as God, objective morality also falls outside the atheistic position (whether or not individual atheists know this or understand why), and it would be with great reluctance that I would let go of morality, given my constant experience of morality. I would, given the right evidence, also relinquish my belief in free will, the physical world, and the existence of other minds, but it would also be with great reluctance.

"we must strive to eradicate ignorance where we find it"

– which is why I somewhat heavy-handedly insist on pointing out the inevitable consequences in the atheistic position.
Kkant

"We figure out the laws of physics ourselves to the extent that we can, same as with morality"

Wow. You must have a cool microscope! Scientists agree far more about the laws of physics than they do morality. Why is that? For example, is it wrong to cause suffering to an animal for our pleasure? Is meat-eating wrong? Hunting? Scientists don't agree in answer to these questions. Is it really the same with physics and morality?

"Who exactly do you think you are to be able to arbitrarily validate or invalidate large sections of the Bible?"

Abitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. American Heritage Dictionary
I don't decide by chance or whim. I put careful thought into it. Don't you do that? Consider Jesus' instruction to 'turn the other cheek.' Do you just dismiss that because it's in the Bible, like some Christians who just accept it because it's in the Bible, or do you consider it quite carefully, see if it works in practice, before deciding to reject or accept it? I do think there is truth in the New Testament. I also think that some of the writers were sexist and mistaken. Why is that a silly position to take? Ghandi liked many of Jesus' teachings – was that a mistake on his part?

"The existence of God itself is *not* enough to claim that there is morality"

No, it isn't. I should have made that more clear. There can be no morality if this is all there is to life. It would be quite possible for there to be a God who was not the source of morality, but this is a less acceptable explanation of the way things are. I experience the reality of morality. A God that is immoral would not make sense of this experience. Occam's razor requires me to believe that if there were a God, God would be the source of morality.

"You know nothing at all about your God, because as a deist he doesn't communicate with you."

Not true. I am a teacher, and I write reports about students based on the work they produce. My comments aren't always accurate, but I can say a lot about a student based on what he or she has produced. Likewise, if this universe is made by God, then Hawking had a point when he said:

If Man discovers the unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and if it is made understandable to most of us, then we shall find the answer to the question 'Why is it that we and the Universe exist?'. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God

"Would you deny morphine to a dying soldier with no hope, because suffering is "essential"?"

On your world view, why waste morphine on someone who will soon be dead? They won't remember their suffering, so what difference will it make? And yes, that does then apply to all cases of suffering. If we all wind up dead anyway, what difference does it make? Why do anything?
Robert

"we are using exactly the same means to determine what is right and wrong: start by looking at what humans like and don't like"

No, it's not a like thing. I like sex. However, I believe it would be wrong to have sex with someone to whom I had not made a serious commitment. It's not just about what we like.

"you're saying that if a creator didn't supply humans with 'purpose', they would be unable to develop their own"

No. I'm saying that if there was no creator, we could all come up with our own purposes, and there would be no objective standard next to which to judge them. If the purpose of a knife is to cut, a blunt knife is a bad knife. What if your friend produces a Quaggle out of a bag. It is a sock filled with marbles. Another friend produces a Quaggle, which is the arm of a woollen jumper tied at both ends, filled with dead beetles. Which is the best Quaggle? How could you decide? You would need to know what the Quaggle was for. You can't say a dishonest person is a bad person unless you know what a person is for.

"you seem to be implying that grand abstractions like "purpose" can't incrementally emerge from simpler, unconscious animal imperatives"

Absolutely. You can't get 'purpose' out of evolution, as there is no intention. Purpose requires intention.

I have exasperated Donald. The thing is, Donald, that no amount of explaining what does happen in human society, however subtle or intelligent, can amount to the same thing as what SHOULD happen. SHOULD isn't a word you can get at by merely describing what IS. You cannot move from is to ought, it's the naturalistic fallacy.

162. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54816 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 3:21 am

Goldy

Paul, I don't believe in any gods and yet I am moral... because as a member of society, it is expected that I show morality. Am I wrong? And I stress again, there is no god in my life, of that I am more sure about than anything.

Very commendable. The real question is, if there is no God, what about the people who do not do what society expects? Are they wrong? What about a society that expects you to inform if your parents say something against the government? Are you wrong not to inform? What about a society that expects you to be part of a group like Hitler Youth?

I count myself very lucky to live in a society with a decent government (I'm in the UK) and a decent set of laws. The moral law is over and above this, though, and if society expected me to do something immoral, then I hope I would have the strength of character to stand up against society and do the right thing. There are children around the world who have guns pushed into their hands who are expected to rape and murder. In Rwanda, ordinary people were involved in slaughtering those around them. Does 'society' mean 'my tribe', 'my country' or what? Do you really think society can't get it wrong? If society does get it wrong, what is it wrong in relation to?

163. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54806 by PaulEmecz on July 9, 2007 at 2:58 am

Robert,

There have been many attempts to arrive at morality through studying human nature. Natural Law is one, with the Primary precepts 'Protect and preserve the innocent', 'Study the world and teach children', 'Reproduce', 'Live in an organised society', 'Respect God'. The reason 'Respect God' is there is that it supports all of the other principles. Without the belief in God, there is no intention behind the way the world is. Therefore, without God there is no reason to protect and preserve the innocent.

(Clearly you can argue some sort of social contract - you watch my back, I'll watch yours. However, if it's in your oen interests to break the contract, why not?)

There is also virtue theory. Aristotle taught that wisdom, justice, temperance, courage etc. were all good. A happy human is one who has developed these human virtues through education (intellectual virtues) and training (moral virtues). Aquinas added his own 'Christian' virtues. Now, we will always disagree about whether humility is a virtue etc. but wisdom and justice seem to be universally acceptable virtues.

Kant is another person who gives us moral absolutes. He also believes that God is necessary for morality to exist.

So, to be absolutely clear, we can get at morality by observing human nature (as my example about the relic was intended to show). If God wasn't the author of the universe, it would not necessarily be right to follow human nature.

We can also get at morality by a purely rational, non-empirical approach. Again, there would be no imperative there if it wasn't for God. (I have done 'Kant in a nutshell' earlier in this thread, I believe, but do ask if you don't know Kant).

God provides us with 'should'. Without God, you just get ' "should" ' (i.e. people saying 'should' but without any imperative on my behalf to do what people say).

164. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54767 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Robert

You're beginning with the assumption that humans or the natural world are designed artifacts with intended function/purpose, without precedent.

Actually, I concluded that the natural world is designed, based on many different reasons, some stated on this thread. The comment I made was in response to:

Assuming you are not claiming to have received personal revelation, you basically have no information on what the creator you believe in actually wants for humans.

So, the point was that without revelation, we cannot know what the creator wants for humans. My point is that we do not need revelation to work out what the creator wants for humans. This is not a proof that there is a creator, but an answer to a very specific (and mistaken) objection.

165. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54766 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Robert Maynard

Tell you what, go fill in a tax return - we'll resume when you're ready to admit that the negative nature of taxation is a baseline assumption for you and the majority of people. Once we all agree that we dislike taxation, is it really a leap to agree that people that make other people pay tax for public utilities are lousy jerks? Is it really a huge leap to say that the more people whose taxes you collect, the worse a person you are? If I came and MADE you pay tax, you wouldn't like me very much.

166. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54765 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Donald

And as for asserting "your [donald's] version of morality cann't condemn Hitler" ... Ridiculous, as well as wrong.

You may have misunderstood. You (Donald) can clearly condemn Hitler according to your understanding of morality. However, your understanding of morality undermines the strength of the moral condemnation of Hitler. Hitler is a bad example, as he was defeated. Let's consider some future fascist dictator, XX. XX kills anyone who stands up to him. He also kills anyone who is Semitic (a broad sweep indeed), anyone with disabilities, anyone who doesn't relinquish their religious beliefs etc. We ned to discuss XX now, as there will be no-one around to discuss XX critically after his initial reign of terror.

So, let's imagine the future society - a world with less than 2 billion people. Global warming is no longer a threat. Young people can easily get on the property ladder in the UK. People are generally very happy. Then someone thinks "I wonder if what we did, killing all those people, was immoral". Well, luckily, the word 'moral' has a fuzzy meaning, and they are soon happy to accept that morality can mean what society agrees upon. Given that the only people around agree that XX was right, XX was also moral.

You may say "But I, Donald, don't agree with XX." Who cares what you think, as you will be killed off by XX.

For me, XX will still have been wrong even if he kills off anyone who disagrees with him. For you, he stops being wrong in any sense when the last dissenter is killed.

I agree that some people would stretch morality this far, and I don't dispute that they do. I am just saying that when people do use morality this way, it is not a statement of what people SHOULD do, it describes merely the expectations and behaviour of some people in society.

Would you agree that XX, having successfully actually killed anyone who disagrees with the morality of what he has done, would then be acting morally?

167. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54762 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 10:10 pm

steve99

What Paul Davies is exploring is entirely based on science fact... I think that those of us who aren't internationally respected physicists aren't in any position to criticise the work of those who are.

Steve, you entirely misunderstood what I meant when I said:

Clearly, what Paul Davies is exploring shows how far away from FACT any of science is.

This wasn't in any way at all a criticism of Paul Davies. It was merely a comment that from what little I know of quantum mechanics, the nature of reality is very different from the way it used to be (and clearly still is by many) perceived.

In school, I was brought up on universals, like Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation. Well, my teachers should have known at that point that the word 'universal' hardly applied, and that general relativity better described the situation at certain 'extremes'. Even when I did A level Physics, we never had a discussion about the 'speed of gravity'.

I am largely ignorant of quantum mechanics, and am worried about over-simplifying it in my ignorance, but from what I know of simple experiments, the world of quanta seems to behave differently when observed. I read a John Gribbin book about it many years ago, which included quotes like 'Nothing is real' from Lennon's Strawberry Fields.

My point is that the simplistic view of science, where scientists look at the world, form theories, find evidence to support these theories etc. is not right. At best, as Popper tells us, scientists can attempt to falsify theories, but scientific theories cannot be proven, they are not verifiable, and using terms like 'scientific fact' can be unhelpful.

168. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54688 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm

steve99

The multiverse option is clearly better than mere chance. It doesn't give me morality, which makes the designer option more in line with my experience of there being right and wrong, but I do realise that my experience of there being right and wrong could be explained in other ways, so I can't rule out the multiverse!

Clearly, what Paul Davies is exploring shows how far away from FACT any of science is. I'm ignorant of this, but aware that reality is not as straightforward as theists or atheists often claim.

169. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54679 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Donald

'Should' and 'ought' are the language of advice or instruction. There is no link to supernatural absolutes required.

This is like saying that someone brought up in a Christian family, particularly in a Christian society, SHOULD read the Bible and pray etc. etc. I don't think Dr Dawkins would agree with this understanding of morality. While this explains why people use the word 'should' it doesn't answer the question "Should I do the things that the people around me say I should?"

Also, as I said in 141., your version of morality can't condemn Hitler (or, at the very least, couldn't condemn someone even more successful at genocide than Hitler was).

I don't think your explanation of morality is sufficient. It isn't morality, and it doesn't provide us with a 'should'.

170. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54675 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm

_J_

Perhaps you don't find this kind of 'This seems a lot more likely than this, so we'll stick with it until new evidence changes our minds' attitude very convincing.

Actually, I do. I believe whatever seems most likely to be the case, acknowledging that this is not the same as knowing things as FACT (a horrificly misused term, used recently on another thread by a 'scientist' who was totally unaware of the assumptions underlying his claims).

I think it is far more likely, and more satisfying an explanation, to say God is the author of the universe and its laws, including the moral law, than to give any other coherent explanation. What I often hear is people saying "Science this, science that, and God commited genocide with the flood - give me a break!"

My view is that, based on all the best science I can get my hands on, intelligent life should not exist in this universe. It is such an extremely unlikely occurence that I am disinclined to believe that it does exist. Yet it clearly does, so I then have to think "Well, it could be one of three things:

1. Very unlikely random chance
2. There are millions of universes, most of which do not have intelligent life
3. The universe, with all of its structure and laws, was designed this way"

In other words, to believe that these laws, which very precisely allowed the evolution of intelligent life, which would not have if the slightest tiny detail were changed, were just the result of hugely improbable chance, would be to accept the very unlikely in the face of a far better explanation.

171. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54663 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 11:48 am

steve99

Well, actually, I think we have pretty much done that [proven that God does not exist] in a ways that should make sense to reasonable people.

I'm reasonable. I heard about crop circles, and my friend Dave said "Aliens did that." He believes that a universe this big is bound to have led to intelligent life elsewhere - sometimes less evolved, but also in other places more evolved than us. Those more evolved than us are likely to seek us out, Dave reasons.

Well, the scientists came in, and they found conclusive evidence that it wasn't aliens, it was students. Dave said to me "I was gutted. Now I've stopped believing in aliens, because I'm a reasonable person..."

I have to say, I gave Dave a bit of a slap, and pointed out that scientists had done nothing to disprove the existence of aliens. "Dave, all they have done is to undermine one of the reasons you believe in aliens - who else would make crop circles? This doesn't answer your many other sensible points. You can continue to believe in intelligent, non-terrestial life without fear of being called unreasonable."

In fact, it is hard to imagine how scientists could get to the point of saying, with anything like certainty, that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the universe. And given that scientists usually limit themselves to the contents of this universe (though not always!) it's hard to see how they could ever make that assertion about the existence of intelligence outside this universe.

172. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54657 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 11:27 am

seals

Maybe morality isn't a belief, but an instinct?

if you think something is wrong, it isn't necessary to refer to a book to confirm your thoughts on the matter (at least, certainly not a holy book).

I'm certainly not advocating getting morality out of a book. However, this idea about morality as an instinct is interesting. Why should we follow our instincts? Many people are unfaithful because of an instinctive attraction to someone else. If morality is an instinct, it is an awareness of something else (or it is a mistake). Either this something else, a moral standard or principle or value, exists, or it does not. If it doesn't, then there is no reason why we SHOULD follow our instinct. If this value, principle or standard does exist, it is not the sort of thing that science can comment on (it isn't observable or measurable) and this is where I think that a non-scientific approach can be more useful.

Robert Maynard

all we need to get started is consider what this system is meant to achieve.

That's entirely circular! Let's have a system that brings about pleasure, and the absence of pain. Now, we know pleasure is good. Why? Because if there is pleasure, then that must make a positive contribution to the greatest good. We also know that suffering is bad. Why? Because that's what we made up at the beginning.

What you end up with is a system that cannot condemn Hitler for genocide.

Hang on - couldn't we say "Let's agree that we all want a system without genocide. Now, according to 'morality', genocide is wrong. Why? Well, we agreed it would be. Hitler didn't agree, of course, but he was wrong. Why was he wrong? Well..."

I agree, clearly, that it is possible for humans to develop a set of agreed rules, and that these may be called morals. However, this is not the same as saying that a person SHOULD follow the rules. It is therefore a pointless endeavour, and a mistaken approach. It doesn't get you to should except through circularity.

Assuming you are not claiming to have received personal revelation, you basically have no information on what the creator you believe in actually wants for humans.

Yes. It's a real dilemma. I have another one. We have found an ancient relic from a forgotten society. Given that we have no 'revelation' as to what its creator actually wanted it for, we've decided not to examine it in any way, and have left it on the shelf gathering dust. I mean, how would examining something possibly be able to help us to understand what its creator actually wanted it for???

Dr Benway,

Thank you for suggesting we reach SHOULD by agreement. So, was Hitler wrong to commit genocide? Shall we take a vote? Obviously, if he had succeeded in killing off anyone who disagreed with him, I guess the vote would have been different. So, can we agree that the first principle is "You should not commit genocide, unless you can be confident that you will successfully wipe out the entire race, in which case you'll get very few complaints if you do."

You can't call such an agreement morality, as it is quite possible for people to agree to something immoral!

Thanks for the links, Logicel.

173. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54590 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 1:39 am

seals

If god makes morality real for humanists, who don't believe in god, then even from the point of view of the believer, there should similarly be no problem about morality with atheism?

In the same way as there is no problem about God with atheism. Atheist beliefs don't affect the existence of God or morality. However, atheists have a lot to say about religious beliefs, so it would be nice if they acknowledged that the same applies to moral beliefs.

Dr Benway

In our effort to articulate a shared understanding of morality, we're leaving God out of the discussion.

My point is that if God is necessary for there to be morality, the picture you get of morality by leaving God out may be inaccurate.

Please make it clear, doc, how you can have any discussion about morality (as in what we SHOULD do, rather than all these discussions about human behaviour in different societies) from an atheistic standpoint? How do you reach SHOULD?

174. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54528 by PaulEmecz on July 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Incidentally, Corylus, you mentioned:

If you want an example of how this should be done, might I direct you to the thread regarding Alistar McGrath. People on there are talking civily to a highly intelligent and extremely polite believer.

You obviously didn't mean:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1381,Wont-anyone-stand-up-for-God,Daily-Mail
Which thread did you mean?

175. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54526 by PaulEmecz on July 7, 2007 at 4:20 pm

In response to criticisms that I'm dodging questions, I have carefully re-read all comments above, and will now respond to any significant points not already covered:

Dr Benway (4.) said:

"Until God appears before us to speak for Himself…"

We don't have direct experience of God. Then again, we don't have direct experience of the physical world. We interpret our experiences to form a pretty good set of descriptions of the physical world that allows us to make predictions, form theories etc. Why can't we interpret our experiences (for example, of making decisions) to theorise that we have free will? Why can't we interpret a very common experience, that one thing is wrong and another right (and that the right thing often falls contrary to our own or even others' best interests), to theorise that there is morality? God doesn't need to stand before us and speak for us to believe that there actually are such things as universal human rights.

The great teapot asked (14.):

"Are you a deist who does not believe in a personal god."

I take it that you mean 'Do I believe that God is a person?' I'm tempted to answer, as a Christian, that the party line is that God is three persons in one. I'm worried that that would cloud the issue and antagonise you. Dr Dawkins seems to treat Deists as though they are atheists in TGD. He at least does not try to show in any way that Deists are 'deluded'. I don't understand why. I don't see why a Deist wouldn't be open to God being a person. I think the question, the thing that defines a deist as not being a theist, is whether God interferes with human life and physical laws. Personally, I think God is the author of the structure of the universe. It is his world, based on his laws, and that explains not only why this universe, after less than 15 billion years, has brought about intelligent life, but also the existence of morality. I believe it is objectively the case that truth, justice and wisdom are good. I see no reason why God could not interact with creation, but that doesn't undermine science. I would like (love, almost demand) to see a more rigorous scientific investigation of religious experience. We are a very long way off from being able to account for all religious experiences in merely physical terms. I will look closely at evidence as it arises, and base my beliefs on the very best evidence, but it is hardly conclusive.

I also think we don't understand consciousness in scientific terms yet. It would therefore be no surprise to me if our consciousness tapped into something non-physical when we concern ourselves with moral issues. Our conscience may well be more than just our ability to reason, but an awareness of a non-physical moral reality. Again, I believe our experience of vast numbers of situations in which there are right and wrong morally makes it very unlikely that morality doesn't actually exist.

Enlightenme.. said (17.):

"Using the non-existence of objective morality to cling onto the a-humanist idea of a law-giver is one of the poorer reasons for supernaturalism."

This is an interesting one. I don't agree that objective morality doesn't exist. Many responders seem to dance around this one, but you cannot move from descriptions of what people do, at any level, to what they should do. If morality referred to what people do, then clearly an atheist could say morality is objective. If morality deals with what you should or should not do, that sort of objective morality is incompatible with an atheistic viewpoint (more about that in response to later quotes).

kurzweilfreak said(20.):

Me turning on a lightbulb would say just about as much on morality as would a god who only turned on the universe and then disappeared.

I think if you designed the structure of a universe which included the possibility of electricity, and you made the universe 'just so', very precisely, so that intelligent life could evolve to the point of discovering electricity and making a light bulb, then the act of turning it on is not so simple. There's an awful lot about the structure of the universe that science cannot explain, cannot say WHY it is so. Science, only if it is truly good science, cannot answer many of the why questions, particularly about the structure of the universe.

Gordon Brown (congratulations on the new job) said (24.):

"morality, if it's anything at all, is much more than a set of categorical imperatives."

"If it's anything at all" is exactly the issue. As said above, if you do anything more than merely describe the way the world IS, you are in danger of having jumped from IS to OUGHT (the naturalistic fallacy). If you stick purely with IS, you don't have OUGHT, so it isn't morality.

He also said

"Time for a refresher course in TGD! Read Chapter 4, particularly pp. 134-151"

The least satisfactory chapter in that book by a long way. Dr Dawkins, do you believe that we ought to love one another, or that we ought not to rape people? Please don't answer in the hypothetical ("If you want your genes to survive, then you ought…"). That is only an ought if you first accept a principle that says "It is good for my genes to survive". Why would we accept such a principle? That would be to misread the theory of evolution entirely. You can say "My genes have survived because I (or my ancestors) have behaved altruistically", but you cannot say "I should behave altruistically so that my genes survive".

Donald then went on to explain (in 35.) how evolution can produce animals or people who 'behave morally'. No amount of this sort of explanation can lead to saying we should do x or should not do x. It merely amounts to describing that some people do not do x, and not doing x has led to the survival of their genes. These things may be moral (such as altruism), but they could equally be immoral. It is possible that rape could lead to survival of genes. If research was suddenly released that said that in 40% of heterosexual relationships, the man has raped the woman on at least one occasion, and an explanation could be given in terms of evolution, that would not make rape morally acceptable. Furthermore, if a society was found where rape was acceptable or even encouraged, this would not make rape morally right. This view of morality in descriptive terms is misleading. Morality is the wrong term to use if you don't believe there's a 'should' involved.

Donald says

"really high quality, enlightened, self-interest results in many of the same rules as the best that religion preach".

I think we need to be critical of Islamic (or any) fundamentalism when this leads to a loss of human rights for women, a lack of freedom for individuals or, in extremity, terrorism. According to Donald's view of morality, we would first have to ask whether this 'worked' for the people involved. For example, imagine I am a man in a society that oppresses women. Is it right for me to continue to suppress women's rights? For Donald, the answer depends on whether it is in my own interests. Surely that isn't morality at all! Donald may hope that, conveniently, it is in my interests to be a generally good person, but what if suppressing women really worked for me? Would that really make it right?

Donald says:

"Dawkins does not suggest it is wrong to be a Deist. What he is trying to dispel are beliefs that have bad consequences for society."

How do you define 'bad consequences? Imagine I find a way to prevent anyone with Downs Syndrome from ever being born again. Would that be good for society? Pretending that you can answer these questions from a scientific standpoint is every bit as bad as some of the claims theists make. Scientists cannot make value judgments on the basis of science – it just isn't good science.

Finally

"It is possible to be moral, advocate morality, live a satisfying life, and help others, without believing in "god". That is what humanists do."

I would agree. Where I would disagree would be if you said "It is possible to be moral, advocate morality, live a satisfying life, and help others, if there is no God." Humanists can be moral, because God is still real even if they don't believe in God, and morality is still there even if you can't explain how it could be. However, if there were no God, there could be no morality. Humanists could behave altruistically, but altruism would not be 'good'.

phasmagigas in 47. gave a similar account of how you get morality through evolution. My response, as above, is that it isn't morality. Morality means I should, not merely that I do…
Incidentally, the example phasmagigas gives of feral children who terrorise neighbourhoods is a great one. These families, often large families, have real power and control. In evolutionary terms, might they not be onto something? This is exactly the point – just because something works, and allows genes to be continued, doesn't make it right (or would phasmagigas argue that the feral children, if being feral empowers them, are right?)

The Great Teapot (the spaces are mine) posted a long response (50.). Firstly, Emecz is unique to my family, and I have two brothers (one in this country and one in Hungary), and two cousins in this country with the same name. There are a handful of other relatives with the name scattered around, but not in Manchester.
Teapot (if that is not too familiar or derogatory) used terms like "potential actuality". Teapot also said things like "if Moral Relativism is a true proposition, then any action is potentially moral, because nothing is immoral relative to mankind."

Teapot then rejects moral relativism simply on the observation that we do have moral standards. Again, it amounts to describing the way people actually are, rather than the way we 'should' be.

It is only because individuals are beings of a certain kind and behave in a certain way; that allows us to define a moral framework based around that behavior.

It was, as many of the other responses were, a good explanation of why humans behave as though morality exists. Behaving as though morality exists has helped the survival of genes. But if we asked the question "Should an intelligent person, aware of why s/he is inclined to be moral, do their best to avoid the inclination and merely pretend to be moral while looking out for their own interests?" it becomes an interesting question. Dawkins would agree with an evolutionary explanation of the existence of religion, but would argue that religion can hold you back as a scientist (or even, I think he may say, as a human being). What if I suggested that morality could also hold you back? What if Dawkins started arguing that morality prevents us from doing the experiments we need to? The doctors in Alder Hey who used the organs of dead children without parental consent clearly thought that society's morality, which later condemned their actions, was holding them back.

So, we can explain the existence of 'morality', but we cannot explain why we should keep to it.

Corylus, whose contributions I greatly appreciate, said (66.):

Hitler was wrong; because every feeling part of me that experiences another's pain as my own; says he was wrong.

I found it very hard to agree with Corylus that morality could still be moral without being objective. What about the idea of preventing Downs Syndrome? There are probably people reading this thread who would see that as a step forward. Not only that, but if there is no moral truth, then those people are not even wrong!

Farmers need to cull deer. This doesn't justify hunting, as there's no need to gain pleasure from it, but it does justify killing off the weakest deer. Our feelings may go out to the deer that are shot, but we ignore those feelings and do the rational thing. I can see Nazi's doing exactly the same with Jews, homosexuals etc. A Nazi might have reasoned "We need to kill off those humans that are holding us back. It is wrong to enjoy doing so, but as it is necessary, we should discount those feelings that would prevent us from doing what we rationally see as the right thing". You need something more to come back with than "every feeling part of me says you are wrong".

Hobbit made some comments (71.) and then quoted Ghandi. Ghandi was a very spiritual person, and I don't think that quoting his wisdom works against me in my argument that a purely physical world, that will come to an end, cannot have morality.

Hobbit said:

200 years ago many people felt that slavery was OK.

Sadly, according to some of the people on this thread, this amounts to the same as saying "200 years ago slavery was OK". I believe that, even then, it was not.

Robert Maynard (72.) said

Our naturally functioning brain provides us with an enormous demographic of people whose subjective morality will be found in agreement on some very simple principles, including: suffering is bad and should be avoided. A relative consensus doesn't render a principle 'objective', but functionally it really is close enough.

He then went on to argue that this would prevent scientists experimenting on people in developing countries. Yet we know people have been experimented on and exploited. This is because we are able to override empathy. An animal researcher does this, thinking always of the greater good that will be served. Nazis did this when experimenting on Jewish children. What was most shocking was not that they were monsters, but that they were 'ordinary' people. In fact, we want our soldiers, when confronting the enemy, to override their feelings of empathy, particularly when in battle.

So, we can override empathy. When should we? This is a moral question, and there needs to be some objective criteria if we are to have a definitive answer. Were the Nazis really wrong to experiment on Jewish children? I can say so with certainty, but where does your certainty come from?

Corylus (76.) went on to describe ethics committees that clear up sloppy thinking and make us consistent in our ethical thinking. The problem here is that ethics committees only exist within an environment that already has agreed certain moral principles. What if we question these principles? Would an ethics committee agree with animal experimentation for medicine? They would note that we already eat animals, and more good would come from experimenting. What about for cosmetics?

Ethics committees cannot answer the interesting questions, such as whether to allow human cloning. They can only say, really, whether the rules we already have in place are compatible with human cloning.

MrEmpirical (79.) said things like:

our basic sense of right and wrong is near-universal

Am I alone in thinking 'near-universal' an unhelpful term? He went on to say, in similar terms

Remember, it is a FACT that our fundamental ethical intuitions are basically universal

Is this arguing against God as a source of human morality? The real question is whether we should follow these pretty-much universal ethical intuitions.

kkant (80.) said:

If you are just a deist, then your God doesn't get involved in his creation--how then can he communicate his morals to us?

'My' God made the physical world and all its laws. Sadly, as a deist, he cannot communicate them to me, so how can I know the laws of physics?

Kkant also said:

You can still think of genocide as being absolutely wrong, and be an atheist.

Yes, you can think of genocide as being absolutely wrong. Thinking it's wrong wouldn't make it wrong, and those (many) people who disagree would merely be thinking of genocide as being right. Is there moral truth? Not, I would argue, if the atheist is right about God.

drbreakfast said (83.):

humans MUST for themselves determine what is moral

I agree. The existence of God merely means that there IS such a thing as morality.

Incidentally, drbreakfast took it that I was arguing that "absolute truth can only come from an all powerful creator". That wasn't my point. It is more that the atheist position, where this physical world, with its limited time span, is all that there is, is not compatible with morality – you can't say you should do x and should not do y: it doesn't make any difference what you do, it all ends up the same. My position comes from a rejection of this view. I am not arguing anything specific about God, merely that morality is incompatible with the atheist view, and a lack of morality is unacceptable to me.

ZeusInventedTeapots' comments (88.) amounted to saying that my attempts were "not an ernest attempt to reach a logical conclusion to the matter" and that it was pointless discussing these questions – if I missed an important point there, please let me know and I'll answer it.

Bizarro Dawkins made some points, about free will mostly, and it was then hard to work out where the responses were directed. I'm not sure anyone convincingly showed how free will could be possible with an entirely physical universe, but it is just as hard to show how free will might be possible if God exists, so it wasn't a productive topic to bring in at that point…

I was then accused of 'typical theist behavior' and 'not wanting an honest discussion' which led me to fire a few cheap shots of my own (113.), such as 'I tend to find that the atheists give up when confronted by clear thinking'. It was unfair, I regret it, and it did not do justice to the quality of response, nor the honourable delivery, of people like Corylus who did pull me up on it (115.)

In 117. Kkant said "Please read the thread. Many people have answered your questions." I hope I have done that, and have responded to them.

I still don't see, in all that people said above, how you can have genuine morality, meaning that one course of action is actually right, and another is objectively wrong, alongside atheism.

Dr Benway says (121.) "You are right." Very kind of you to say that. What is the real implication of that, then, if you get someone tearing up the contract like Hitler did? Dr Benway brings in Kant, and says "Ethical rules must be universal if they are to apply to everyone." Good. But Hitler rejected these ethical rules. Was he right to? Kant found the principle of universalisability incompatible with the non-belief in God.

Dr Benway said "Survival of humankind must be good", but should really have limited that to survival of creatures capable of discussing morality. It was a nifty attempt to link the sort of descriptive morality of the evolutionary biology variety described above with the absolute nature of Kant's rules. It failed. Kant would not have argued for the necessity of the continuation of human genes, although he did think it important to consider humans as ends in themselves.

Kkant (122.) argues that

"suffering is something concrete and bad."

Why is it bad? It is essential, and certainly has an important evolutionary function. Look at those poor people who cannot feel pain. Terrible.

So, Dr Dawkins, again:

Do you think rape is wrong, and that no man should ever rape a woman?

176. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54417 by PaulEmecz on July 7, 2007 at 1:55 am

kkant

I will read through the thread carefully before I respond again. Just to put your mind at ease, I don't hear voices in my head. That would be very worrying. I also couldn't sign up to a divinely-authored Bible. Some of it is cracking stuff, but you should read bits of the Old (and New) Testament.

I know where you're coming from. I know Christians who say "But you must believe God inspired every word of the Bible." "Why?" "Because in 1 Timothy it says all scripture is God-breathed". Well, that's one of the first verses I have a problem with.

177. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54231 by PaulEmecz on July 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

Henri Bergson

At last. An atheist who understands what atheism means. I disagree with you about God - I'm a theist. I am uncomfortably aware of the baggage that goes with belief in God. However, so many people on this site want to have their cake and eat it. I think there are only two reasonable positions (and I fully understand why you see my position as less reasonable). The 'third' option of atheism with a belief in morality is not acceptable.

Reciprocal altruism is not morality. If you only believe in what we can know through experience, you can't believe in morality. You can't get from an 'is' to an 'ought'. 'Reciprocal altruism' as evidenced by the prisoner's dilemma works for the lowest forms of life, possibly even at a bacterial level. It is a very long way from being anything like morality.

Henri, I agree with you 99%. Just not about the God not existing bit.

178. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54201 by PaulEmecz on July 6, 2007 at 2:41 am

Where do *you* think you get your morals from?

Okay, here are my morals. I beleive that the following are good:

honesty, unselfish love, justice, truth, wisdom, integrity

These are examples, not an exhaustive list. I can explain why I value some of them (in terms of upbringing etc.) but that is not the same as why they are actually good. Some people end up homophobic or racist because of their upbringing, and in some respects I had to find out for myself what was truly good and reject some of the values of my parents and those around me. Particularly, I have had to question many of the values in the churches I have been part of, particularly with regard to homophobia, and to a degree racism (anti-semitism more than anything else).

Very importantly, you claim that something is shown to be good if society is 'better off' as a result of it. I would argue that this is wrong-headed, and that some societies would be 'better off' if they behaved in a way that wasn't moral. My point is that it is not simply what is 'better for society' that is good.

I believe that God designed the universe, and is the author of morality, and that sometimes if I search my conscience I find that the right thing is different from the pragmatic approach.

What you describe, the 'greater good' approach to morality, is flawed. It is wrong to see it as morality (you cannot achieve 'ought' however hard you look at the 'is'), and it leads to some very wrong decisions.

If I believed in a 'greater good' morality, I would have to sacrifice my integrity, and I am not prepared to do that.

179. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54198 by PaulEmecz on July 6, 2007 at 2:26 am

It looks to me like you're ignoring all the arguments from our side that you find inconveniently unanswerable

Please point out these unanswerable arguments. I tend to find that the atheists give up when confronted by clear thinking (I've been contributing to a few threads and the come-backs just stop):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1324,The-infinite-wisdom-of-Richard-Dawkins,John-Allemang,page2#comments

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris,page2#comments

Maybe you mean the devestating:

The less religion, the better off society is.

My parents live in Hungary. The communist government is back in there. They don't see it as an improvement, but maybe they're just 'faith-heads' and therefore unable to comment on politics.

So where is your evidence coming from? Personally, I think ignorance, selfishness, unquestioning adherence to a set of beliefs etc. cause the problems. You get that in religion, but it is not a necessary part of religion.

Besides, if large numbers of scientists started behaving in a terrible way that was detrimental to society, would that show that science was wrong?

This is hardly 'inconveniently unanswerable'.

180. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54149 by PaulEmecz on July 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I am a teacher in the UK. I have to say, if I taught in the same country as this had happened, it would make me want to quit my job. What possible benefit can that institution be to the young people in their care? This isn't learning. What are they trying to protect students from??

I teach Religious Studies. It's not always popular on this website, and sadly some atheists respond to me in much the same way as the father in the account above (even with the slurred speech).

I strongly believe that we all need to question our assumptions, and that questioning improves our understanding of the world. I hate that ignorant, unquestioning attitude, the sort of approach that decides not to read a book because they disagree with the author. These are exactly the sort of books we need to read!

I am thoroughly impressed with the young man who wrote the above account. It is vital to strive after the truth, and not to be swayed by people who think that 'their answers' (often unquestioning adherence to someone else's views) are the whole truth.

181. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54146 by PaulEmecz on July 5, 2007 at 3:50 pm

the religious mind

Shall I start talking about

the moral mind

to refer to those poor people who believe in the existence of morality (the idea that we ought to do certain things) in a complete absence of any evidence?

People on this thread seem perfectly happy explaining the evolutionary origins and benefits of morality, and hold morality in high esteem. However, if I started talking about religion in those terms, and these are beliefs that have evolutionary origins and benefits, would religion be held in such high esteem?

Please, let's not talk in these terms. Many, maybe most atheists believe in morality, and there really isn't, can't be, a shred of empirical evidence for morality (you can't move from is to ought). So let's not pretend that somehow the 'religious mind' accepts things without proof, while the 'non-religious mind' is above this!

182. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53862 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Troy,

I never get an intelligent answer to this question - people tend to pick fights about other issues. Either there is or is not a creator. Given we can't prove it either way, it is at least worth asking what the creator would be like, if there were a creator. My wife studied literature, often the writings of people now dead. In many cases, most, if not all, that one could find out came from reading the texts.

If the world was created, why could we not find out about the creator by looking at the world?

Wouldn't it actually be better science to present the two possible explanations, as fully as possible, using all of the relevant observations, rather than saying "You'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe and all its laws to come into existence" and pretending that it therefore wasn't a scientific question?

183. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53773 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 5:10 am

Why must the creator, if there is one, be omniscient?

184. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53762 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 4:01 am

The religious believers do think they are right.

Does that mean that when an atheist says something, atheists think they are right?

It isn't helpful to make generalisations, particularly those that are unfounded. There have been excellent documentaries on religious responses to 9-11, 7/7 and the Tsunami. The vast majority of religious believers would not have agree with these sentiments. Here are some excerpts from the Channel 4 documentary "Tsunami - Where was God?"

Nancey Murphy
Fuller Theological Seminary

There's this excellent two page article on why there couldn't be any complex life at all on the surface of the Earth if we didn't have a movable crust, and if we have a movable crust you're going to have earth quakes, and if we have earth quakes under water we're gonna have tsunamis.

If we didn't have a crust that moved, ultimately with erosion the whole surface of the planet would be basically smooth. Given the amount of water on it, it would probably be marsh land all over, so you could have some simple forms of life but you certainly couldn't have complex animals like us. And then also it replenishes the sort of elements on the surface that we need. If there were no recycling of the crust then basically the whole planet would become infertile after a certain period of time.

Fr George Coyne
Vatican Observatory

You see that physical evil is absolutely necessary for physical good. The hurricane that happened in New Orleans was absolutely necessary in order to have heat exchange from one part of the continent to the other, otherwise the Earth would not be habitable.

Scripture is full of, and Catholic tradition is full of, unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, next year you will not have wheat.

These religious scientists had given me plenty to chew on, but one nagging question persisted, the one raised by the Russian author Feodor Dostoevsky… If you can't create without some degree of suffering, then why bother in the first place?

Is it really worth the suffering of one innocent creature, Dostoevsky says. If you had to press the button on creation and produce that, is it justifiable?

Philip Clayton
Author: God and Contemporary Science

That's a tremendous question, and if I don't stop in silence before your question, then I'd say I don't get it. Anyone who sees the depth of the suffering that happens in our world and answers that question simply "Oh, of course it was all worth it" doesn't get it. I would love to imagine a divine who stood before that button and wept, and somehow at the last minute felt it was better to have us than to have only the divine in eternal emptiness. You and I would probably not push the button as Ivan argued against Alyosha in the Brothers Karamazov. We shouldn't push the button, and that God pushed that button and made creation hints at a mystery that we don't understand. It hints at a resolution that we can only hope for. God will only be God if the outcome is something so far better than what we see around us that it would make it all right. But I can only say that as a wish and a hope, and not as an item of knowledge.

185. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53749 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 2:46 am

The Bishop was wrong.

So are suicide bombers.

In both cases, they do not speak for the vast majority of religious believers.

186. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #53737 by PaulEmecz on July 3, 2007 at 1:38 am

1. We are unlikely.
2. A monkey typing Hamlet would be unlikely.
3. THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS.

Well, you can't argue with logic.

Hang on, isn't it 'You can't argue without logic'?

Anyway, the point about the complexity of the universe is this: the physical laws governing the universe are very complex. If they were very slightly different, the whole universe would be very different. If we imagine a computer program that could mimic the universe, and there was a 'create' button and the laws of the universe were randomly created, then the program showed you what you'd get, most times you'd just get stuff. Most universes would have no life at all. It would be very rare for there to be intelligent life in the universe, but it would happen occasionally.

Now, we can argue about whether the above is a fair summary of the way the universe is. Let's say it is fair. What does it tell us? We are clearly intelligent (I humbly include myself and all others on this thread, and it goes without saying that Is is). How could that be?

1. Pure, unlikely chance
2. There are lots of universes
3. The laws weren't decided randomly

On this specific occasion, I rule out 1. Dr Dawkins would be inclined to agree that we should rule out the least likely or most unlikely option. I'm left with a choice between 2. and 3. I'm also left wondering why everyone's so keen to get rid of God, and yet there are very few answers to how the laws of this universe may have come about without God.

The most interesting response I have heard is that God is unnecessarily complex, and that complexity can be shown to come about from simplicity. I like that idea. I don't think it explains the structure of the universe.

Seeing as the best 'logic' you could muster lead you to the fallacious conclusions that there is either a designer or many, many universes - neither of which have a shred of supporting evidence

Is, do you see now why the evidence bit relates to the unlikeliness of intelligent life? It isn't enough to say "We're here, so our likeliness is probability 1". If evidence shows intelligent life to be unlikely, there needs to be an explanation of how this might be. No fallacy there, I'm afraid.

187. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53724 by PaulEmecz on July 2, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Your statement "the Not God package lacks morality" is clearly false - a lie.

I don't like it when you're trying to be rational, and someone introduces emotive language. A person can be mistaken without being a liar. For example:

Q: How long is a meter in meters? A: 1. Q: Why is this a vacuous question? A: Because there is no external objective standard by which to judge the length of 1m in the scope of the question. It is trivially true by definition in the same way that 1=1 is true.

Not so. There is an external, objective standard for a metre (even if not for its spelling!). It is currently the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. It used to be the length between two marks on a platinum-iridium bar which was kept in Paris.

There is a necessary difference between the analytic and the synthetic. Morality is synthetic - it is not true by definition. The big morality question is how you get synthetic a priori - statements about the world not verified by reference to experience. The reason it is a problem is explained by the naturalistic fallacy: you can't move from is to ought. Describing what animals (even us) do cannot be the same as saying what they/we OUGHT to do.

188. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53712 by PaulEmecz on July 2, 2007 at 7:29 pm

You seem a nice guy: trust yourself.

This isn't good enough! Let's consider embryonic stem-cell research. It happens in the UK, but Bush has hampered progress significantly in the US. I would argue, from my current ethical standpoint, for an understanding of the sanctity of life as we have it under UK law.

Now, if we get rid of this principle, we would be able to do wonderful things in terms of research. What would stop us, though, from setting up research institutes in the poorer nations of the world, and exploiting desperate people by carrying out dangerous experiments on human subjects?

I want to bring my (3) children up with the values of truth, justice, wisdom, and love. I don't view these virtues as having only subjective value, and I believe I detect in Dr Dawkins a respect for the quest of truth as well as other virtues. Is intellectual honesty really only subjectively valuable?

I am not ready to let go of objective values. Should I be?

189. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53662 by PaulEmecz on July 2, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Thank you for the many responses to the morality question.

I think there's a difficult choice to be made, given that both belief in God and atheism are compatible with good science. Atheism understands morality, as explained, as a social phenomenon. Accepting this explanation would change my understanding of morality. It would amount to having to admit that if Hitler had been more successful, he may have been right. I don't want to hold Hitler wrong because it was scientifically a bad thing to reduce the variety in the human gene pool, I want genocide to be absolutely wrong.

My biggest worry, and I don't know if it has a name, is that, on metaphysical questions, I ask "What would I prefer the truth to be?" and then set about finding arguments to support it, rather than asking first what the truth actually is.

I suppose I have started by assuming that some actions actually should not be done. I can explain why I would have a tendency to think that (those whose genetic inheritance has led to a personality that is not inclined to help others are more likely to have been rejected by the pack and therefore die out). That doesn't seem enough.

When I see people acting in a morally inconsistent way (for example, mob mentality, where people are happy to do things in a crowd and don't feel morally responsible for their actions), I want to say they are wrong. Maybe they just are what they are.

Here's a different question, then. Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

190. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53345 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Ow!

Donald,

I appear to be talking to someone more intelligent, and far better informed, than I am. I'm going to shut up and read some more of Wolfram's book.

Thank you for explaining the bit about God being unnecessarily complex. I'm still going to have to think a great deal about how a universe such as this may have come to exist in the first place, but it is massively important that complexity comes out of simplicity.

Thank you.

Paul Emecz

191. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53258 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 12:09 pm

This was a well-written article, and I now have little desire to read 'The Edge of Evolution'. Dr Dawkins is at his best when talking science. I wish he could write so clearly about some of the other areas that he seems to tackle so frequently. I would still like to hear him say, honestly and openly, "If morality means 'You should do one thing and you should not do another' then there is no such thing as morality". He says things like the existence of God is very, very unlikely, but then has no other explanation for the existence of this universe where intelligent life exists. He constantly criticises religious believers, but doesn't include Deists for some inexplicable reason.

Dr Dawkins, you are an intelligent man who can reason very clearly. Please answer the morality question once and for all, and explain to me why it's so wrong (or not!) to be a Deist.

192. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53255 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 11:48 am

Donald,

Thank you for the explanation of natural selection - it seems accurate, and I'm happy with that. Incidentally, the gap into which I fit God is not inside this universe, but has more to do with the existence of such a universe as this, and the existence of intelligent life in the universe (the two things together seeming very unlikely, given what we know scientifically).

I was merely interested in one specific issue - as this appeared more of a science thread than a God thread - which was

In terms of evolution, I remain to be convinced that it is random mutation that leads to a change in genetic code.

Put another way, what caused the specific event that led to the reality, in this universe (or any other), of Schrodinger's dead cat?

Isn't 'randomness' as much of a cop-out as 'God' in explanatory terms? Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

193. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53184 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 2:39 am

the great teapot,

It is not an argument for God (read Kant), and I'm glad you admit that without God, there can be no objective values. It's merely that without God, you are not in a position to say "Someone raped a child - they shouldn't have done that!" You may have come to terms with that yourself (it's a big step), but lots of atheists haven't, and are still laughing at religious believers for not coming to terms with the implications of their beliefs.

194. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53178 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 2:02 am

Can I just make an observation about the difference between good science (and I include Dr Dawkins here) and bad science. Good science seeks to disprove a theory, not to prove it (Sir Karl Popper), as scientific theories are not verifiable. Dr Dawkins would be wasting his time looking for evidence in support of his theory. Instead, he should focus on what might not fit, and try to explain that.

In terms of evolution, I remain to be convinced that it is random mutation that leads to a change in genetic code.

The correct response to that statement shouldn't be an emotional one (people so easily get angered on these threads) or to re-gurgitate something someone else has told you. What evidence might there be that evolution could be the result of something else? Don't look for proof, look for alternatives. The more alternatives we can rule out, the more likely it becomes that evolution is the result of random mutations of genes.

I really do think that evolution is not just the result of random mutations. What do you think (please, do think)?

195. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53171 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 12:11 am

I'm not quite sure that I understand your point that "meaning has no meaning if it's only temporary." I take it that you mean that atheism allows for amoral or immoral behavior because once we die, we cannot be "held accountable?"

My aunt died. The people she killed, and all of their families, are dead. Everyone affected by anything she ever did is dead. So what does it matter what she did? This is nothing to do with accountability.

Say you had an aunt whose final wish was for her ashes to be sprinkled on the top of Everest. Would you honour it? Certainly not for her sake, as she's dead, right? So if we all end up dead, what does it matter how we behaved when we were alive, if we ALL end up dead?

196. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53050 by PaulEmecz on June 29, 2007 at 5:33 am

Here's an entirely made up scenario:

I come across a letter my aunt wrote years ago, I never received it. It says she had cancer and was not sure whether to continue fighting it, or to go and have the holiday of a lifetime.

I try, but I can't find out what she chose. Does it matter, at all, which she chose? Does it matter if she had a great time, spent her last months in hospital, or even lost her mind and went on a crazed killing spree?

If, ultimately, this is it, and in a short space of time the entire human race will no longer exist (depending how you define short, of course), then what does it matter what we do? Rawls' man counting grass is no better or worse than a tortured soul (am I allowed to use that word?) who was unable to find any joy, peace or purpose in their whole life.

If I said you could have one night (week, month, year - what's the difference?) where you felt completely fulfilled, then you'd completely forget about it, would you?

What if I told you you'd made the choice, already had the night - would you think "Great - I'm glad I did that!" Meaning has no meaning if it's only temporary.

197. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52985 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 11:28 pm

kkant

You ask:

do you think we get our morals from the Bible?

That's an anthropological question. We, as a society, seem to be fairly closely aligned with the Ten Commandments.

Are you asking what I think the true source of morality is? I've recently made a few comments about this on a different thread, and can't bring myself to summarise Kant in a nutshell again:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris,page2#comments

I like The Schuermannator's response. How would you respond to Kant? You can't get away with claiming that he wasn't a logical thinker in the least.

198. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52982 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 11:03 pm

I think that any rational and civilized person would agree that Hitler's actions of killing people merely because of certain attributes, (being Jewish, homosexual, disabled, etc.), were immoral.

This is exactly what I mean! I get criticised for any talk about God ('just a way of giving a name to our ignorance'), and yet you try and get away with talking about morality as if it were sitting on the chair next to you smoking a pipe.

Civilized people may say it was immoral. They may also say it was ungodly (many would). I get why you'd pounce on the second comment, but why not the first?

perhaps you can share with us how a theistic perspective can do better.

I like Kant. People mistake what he said as an argument for the existence of God (Google 'Kant's moral argument' and you'll see how common this mistake is). Kant works like this - he asks "If there were morality, what would it be like?" There are therefore 2 options - no morality (a valid option as I see it) or morality (a preferrable option for so many reasons).

If there were morality, then it would be the same for you as it was for me. If I should do X, you should do X. Moral statements fall into a wonderful category called the synthetic a priori - substantive statements about the world that are not empirically verifiable. You'd be amazed what else falls into that category (and yes, you do believe many important things that can't be verified a posteriori).

So, Kant comes up with the Categorical Imperative. You should do X means I should do X. If you follow 'You should do X' you must be able to will that it become a universal law of nature. Doing X cannot mean merely using humanity as a means to an end.

Does Kant's moral law lead to the greater good? Not necessarily (and we all know the problems with consequentialism: sometimes good consequences result from nasty actions). So, there can be no justification to behave morally, which would mean there is no morality. We have to get rid of all 'should' statements (except for the hypothetical 'If you don't want to go to jail, then you should not murder' etc.). There can be no morality. Unless...

If there was a higher good, a summum bonum, then there could be morality. There is no higher good in this life. There could be with God in the next life...

Now, before you jump down my throat and criticise my summary of Kant, this is stuff that takes University lecturers hours of explaining, so I have by necessity shortened it. Kant's theory is about as easy to grasp as the theory of relativity - which means most people go some way to understanding it, then just accept what other people say about it. As you can see, with so many people treating it as an argument for God's existence, most people don't get it.

It does give grounds for believing that the only way there can be morality is if there is 'God' or 'another life (something akin to heaven)'.

199. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52829 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 6:39 am

Humans were and are animals, there is NO difference at any level.

Beachbum, you can't really be serious! There are vast differences between humans and non-human animals. Should I ask the human animals on this thread to identify themselves as such? I am of course sticking my neck out here, because I'll look such a fool if Beachbum turns out to be a non-human animal...

mrjonno, you said:

Awareness/consciousness deterioriates when the brain suffers injury or illness (fact?)

From this I postulate awareness/consciousness/soul? is a purely physical thing and when the brain ceases to exist so do you.

I can see a flaw. If you watch a demolition derby, you'll see that as the cars progress and become more battered and dented, they slow down, the lights don't work properly etc. Could you argue therefore that there is nothing more than nuts and bolts there, and that when the car is too damaged to be able to continue, there is nothing left at all? The driver is still there. Would it be any different if it was the smaller and frankly less entertaining remote-controlled demolition derby? This is not an argument that shows there is a soul, but I think it is a counter-argument to yours. Your argument doesn't show that we don't have a non-physical aspect to us.

200. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52750 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 1:53 am

drbreakfast,

I think you fudge the morality point, and it was my greatest disappointment in TGD that Dr Dawkins didn't answer the point properly.

Morality means that one course of action is right, another wrong. When I say Hitler was wrong, I mean he should not have committed genocide.

You say:

Yes, it is relative -- morals do not exist in a vacuum, but there are universal truths that can be ascertained from the human experience which will tend to demonstrate that an act (or inaction) can be moral or immoral given certain circumstances.

They are only immoral if you agree that 'you should not cause unnecessary pain'. As an atheist, I can't see where you could get that claim from.

Your claim that 9-11 etc. is part of the 'God package' is also wrong. I am not talking about what people who do or don't believe in God actually do. I'm talking about what is philosophically compatible with belief in God or the converse. I don't have to agree with terrorism just because I believe in God. Whereas...

My lack of belief, in and of itself, has no "philosophical implications"

It depends. If you believe that entropy increases, that conscious life will some day end in the universe, then you can't argue for a teleological, consequentialist morality. The reason - whatever we do, the consequences are the same!

The 'Not-God' package cannot have morali