Saturday 13 December 2014

Refuting Sam Harris' 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism

Sam Harris intends to debunk some "myths" the general public holds on Atheists and Atheism.But what I noticed was that throughout the article he engages in lots of rhetorical tactics,red herring and strawmen fallacies.He does very little to defend Atheism rationally.
Let's look in:

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
"On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave."
Harris believes religious people embrace meaning because they fear meaninglessness.And what sort of evidence does provide? None.So it's nothing but baseless accusations.

 "Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived."
 As wonderful as this may sound on the surface,it also presents a few problems for Atheists:
Firstly,Atheist regimes have slaughtered 100's of millions of people,falsifying Harris' universal statement that Atheists are quite sure life is precious.And secondly,a life "fully lived" without objective moral principles leads to hedonism and excessive materialism.


"Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless."
 Harris is engaging in a strawman.Theists don't make the argument that only relationships which lasts forever are considered meaningful.Besides the partners we choose to marry,nearly all our relationships with others are not expected to last forever.
To charge religious people who embrace meaning into their lives as fearing meaninglessness is poisoning the well since Harris has presented no evidence to back up his accusation.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok".
In essence what Harris is saying is that when Atheists behave badly  then they are being religious. Is this a fair and honest assessment of Atheists when they're committing atrocities?Harris is attempting to shield Atheists from ever having to take responsibility for their criminal actions because the blame gets automatically shifted to religion,who now has to answer for crimes that the proudly godless folk have perpetrated.

 "There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
The presupposition here is that only Atheists are reasonable and no true Atheist behaves unreasonable.I see no reason why not to charge Harris with a No True Scotsman fallacy.Furthermore,I have news for Harris,only him and his fellow Atheists believe Atheists are reasonable - a fallacy of self-validation.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the programmer Stephen F. Roberts* once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The claim Harris is supposed to refute is "Atheism is dogmatic".Instead he engages in a red herring by redirecting the reader's attention to religious scripture.What ever problems exists in religious books does nothing to refute the accusation that Atheism is dogmatic.
For example: If a UFO believer points out the unscrupulous and unscientific practices that have plagued Psychiatry over the years - would that somehow validate UFOs and prove that aliens exist? Of course not,that's an absurd conclusion.Likewise,Atheism must be scrutinized in isolation,without the crutch of religious issues.
And yes,Atheists are dogmatic about pushing their agenda which goes way beyond mere criticism of religion.Atheists have very specific beliefs about the nature of reality which is not validated by science but simply accepted on the basis of appeal to authority.They even have Atheist churches and split into different denominations due to dogma differences.They proselytize,erect monuments and billboards,send their children to Atheist only summer camps and pimp each others unscientific godless books.

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
"No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself."
Leading cosmologists and physicists like Hawking and Penrose agree the universe and space-time itself had a beginning.Harris is very cautiously trying to avoid answering and pleads ignorance instead.As an Atheist, he is a failure because Atheists have no choice but to believe our universe arose either from nothing and by chance or to evoke the unproven multiverse hypothesis,where anything and everything is possible.

"The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species."
 The entire paragraph above is completely beside the point.Unless that point is to pimp Dawkins' book,then it's a job well done.The point and myth Harris is supposed to refute is that Atheists believe the universe,space-time,its mathematical laws and first-life erupted from nothing and by chance.Harris has done nothing to refute that,he merely gives a shout out to his buddy Dawkins.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.
"Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is."
 First of all, the National Academy of Science (NAS) consists of about 2000 scientists while the overall number of scientists employed in the United States is more than 2 million.Clearly this is a gross instance of hasty generalization on Harris' part.A much more recent survey from the PEW Research Centre reported that 33% of scientists believe in God while 18% believe in a Universal Spirit or Higher Power and 41% reject either notion (aka Atheists).That's a total of 51% of scientists that are Dualists as opposed to Materialists.Harris' dishonesty and dogmatism is exposed as he so desperately clings to any unreliable statistics that could make his position seem attractive and rational.

6) Atheists are arrogant.
"When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion."
Harris starts with a fallacy of false association.Scientists are not tautologically equivalent to Atheists and neither is Atheism equivalent to science,as I've already shown above in myth 5.And since arrogance is claiming credit one is not entitled to - therefore the charge that Atheists are arrogant remains accurate.

"One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty."
Theists make no such claims about science,in fact they insist God is non-physical and science is limited to testable predictions on physical phenomena. Harris is perpetuating the myth that science and religion are at war.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
"There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences."
Not even religious people make such bold claims,they freely admit the limitations of human nature that could prevent them from having spiritual experiences but Harris asserts Atheists are immune to natural human failings.You don't get more arrogant than this.

 "There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences."
This is an argument against nothing.It does nothing to prove that Atheists are open to spiritual experiences.It's a strawman argument at best.Christians do not make the claim that positive experiences are reserved for Christians.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it". 
I wonder if Harris has even met a religious person because accepting the limits of human understanding is a common theme in most religions.


"We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation."
I thought Atheists only draw their opinions from scientific facts and now Harris accepts the possibility of advanced intelligent life on other planets without zero empirical proof.He then further speculates from his position of no-evidence what those aliens' thoughts might be.
Here's something for Harris to ponder over:What will those aliens think when they discover Atheist regimes have slaughtered up to 259 million people?Or the fact that Atheists murdered scientists and banned Mendelian Genetics and Quantum Physics during the Soviet era?Surely those aliens will be even less impressed with human Atheists.


9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
"Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?"
Consistent with his goal to eliminate God,Harris cannot allow himself to accept the facts that religion and Christianity in particular have been extremely beneficial to society.
Here are some of the benefits of religion that Atheists don't want you to know:
-There was no such era as the "Dark Ages".Contemporary historians have debunked the popular myths of Christianity sending Europe into 1000 years of superstition,ignorance,stagnation and continuous bloodshed.

-The Middle Ages was a prosperous and innovative era that gave birth to many inventions,scientific discoveries,charity organizations and hospitals.
  
-Science is in fact a product of religious people.

-The Church built Universities that were initially religious institutions.

-The Catholic Church were the main custodians of Aristotelian logic that were taught in their Universities,as well as philosophy,science and astronomy,which directly caused the birth of Newtonian (classical) physics.

-Galileo,Newton,Copernicus,William of Ockham,Roger Bacon who pioneered much of the scientific method in Europe were deeply religious scientists and often credited their faith for inspiring their work.

-Jesuit priests have a long history of scientific achievements that were sponsored by the Catholic church

-Even after the Middle Ages,Christians continued their significant contributions to mathematics,science and medicine such as Father Gregor Mendel (genetics),Physicist and priest Georges Lemaitre (Big Bang Theory),Alexander Fleming (inventor of penicillin),Michael Faraday,William Thompson Kelvin,James Clerk Maxwell,Robert Boyle and Max Planck are but a few examples.

-In conclusion: Science,technology and modern civilization are products of religion and are not essential for man's survival.Only water,food,shelter and clothing are essential for man's survival.Humans and animals are biologically adjusted towards self-preservation and adapting to environments that are best suited for reproduction and passing on their genes.Living organisms,whether unicellular or multicellular do not need logic, philosophy,astronomy,mathematics and science for their perpetuation,vitality and succession.These disciplines arose from the need to understand God and His creation.


10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
"If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine."
 The fact that Christians who took recourse to the Bible were the ones who pioneered our modern day human rights is proof enough that their scriptures had a positive impact on society.
 Eleanor Roosevelt,Henri Dunant and William Wilberforce are few examples of Christians who instigated our modern Human Rights,abolition of slavery,Geneva Convention and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe."
The above argument is really fatal to Atheism.If our moral intuitions are hard-wired (ie.genetically determined) then those who display immoral behavior like the criminally-inclined have no choice but to act compulsively.They also cannot be held accountable for their actions which are merely based on inclinations,self-interests and instinct.Furthermore,individuals who are in possession of genes that are hard-wired to commit evil acts, will most certainly pass them on to their progeny,resulting in an endless cycle of creating criminals..It's not such a slippery-slope to conclude that Eugenics is the only viable solution to the genetic pollution.Methods for their prevention would include forced sterilizations,forced abortions,infanticide,marriage restrictions and quarantine.This is already a reality in North Korea, an Atheist majority nation.

13 comments:


  1. 1)"To charge religious people who embrace meaning into their lives as fearing meaninglessness is poisoning the well since Harris has presented no evidence to back up his accusation." Religious people claim that without God and an afterlife life would be meaningless so Harris is correct.

    2)"In essence what Harris is saying is that when Atheists behave badly then they are being religious. Is this a fair and honest assessment of Atheists when they're committing atrocities?" Yes cults of personality are religions.

    The presupposition here is that only Atheists are reasonable and no true Atheist behaves unreasonable." Atheists can be irrational.

    4)".As an Atheist, he is a failure because Atheists have no choice but to believe our universe arose either from nothing" It's the Christians who believe their God magically created everything out of nothing." and by chance or to evoke the unproven multiverse hypothesis,where anything and everything is possible." All we can say is we don't know where our universe came or why it is the way it is, what we can say for sure however is that "God" is not a good explanation.

    "The point and myth Harris is supposed to refute is that Atheists believe the universe,space-time,its mathematical laws and first-life erupted from nothing and by chance." Can you tell me of any famous atheist who believes that? Furthermore atheism doesn't say anything beyond there is no reason or evidence to believe in any God.

    8) Harris accepts the possibility of advanced intelligent life on other planets without zero empirical proof." Key word possibility.


    10) "The above argument is really fatal to Atheism." No it's not.
    "If our moral intuitions are hard-wired (ie.genetically determined) then those who display immoral behavior like the criminally-inclined have no choice but to act compulsively." We don't know if criminality is genetically determined, in most cases it probably isn't. "They also cannot be held accountable for their actions which are merely based on inclinations,self-interests and instinct." We put criminals in jail to protect society and to act as a deterrent.,
    "individuals who are in possession of genes that are hard-wired to commit evil acts, will most certainly pass them on to their progeny,resulting in an endless cycle of creating criminals" How does God ( or believing in God) solve this problem ( if it's true criminality is genetic)?
    " ..It's not such a slippery-slope to conclude that Eugenics is the only viable solution to the genetic pollution.Methods for their prevention would include forced sterilizations,forced abortions,infanticide,marriage restrictions and quarantine.This is already a reality in North Korea, an Atheist majority nation." I have no idea how such eugenics would work since all the leaders of North Korea would be the first to be killed under such eugenics program.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Religious people claim that without God and an afterlife life would be meaningless so Harris is correct.
    The accusation is "fear of meaninglessness" is reserved for theists simply because their "meaning of life" is derived from their beliefs in God.Atheists apparently too subscribe to a meaningful existence but they are excluded from that charge because they get to conjure up any meaning they can think of.There appears to be a double standard in that line of reasoning.

    Yes cults of personality are religions.
    Personality cults is a consequence of Atheism,where the Atheist rejects all absolute external moral authority and places himself as the moral elitist, complete with his own truth.

    Atheists can be irrational.
    That's an understatement but yes.

    Key word possibility.
    Or we talking logical possibility or empirical possiblity?Because the former merely requires a non-contradictory proposition while the latter requires evidence.Under logical possibility almost anything is possible including God.

    We don't know if criminality is genetically determined, in most cases it probably isn't
    Under Philosophical Materialism all behavior are predetemined by a prior arrangement of particles under the concept of Determinism.There can be no choice for the individual but to behave instinctively in accordance with his innate/inborn pattern of activity.

    We put criminals in jail to protect society and to act as a deterrent,
    Sure but our justice system presupposes the individual has (a)chosen his fate and (b) subject to change (rehabilitation) which does not require gene therapy strategies.These are not compatible with physicalist's doctrine of Determinism

    How does God ( or believing in God) solve this problem ( if it's true criminality is genetic)?
    I don't know of any dualist philosopher who believes immoral behavior is genetically inherent.

    I have no idea how such eugenics would work since all the leaders of North Korea would be the first to be killed under such eugenics program
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean or if you're denying this is taking place but it is.There are a plethora of objective reports on this issue.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/deformed-babies-killed-for-super-race/story-e6frg6so-1111112366108?nk=9a3906b91c2153220fd9a2f35d6abf0b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "There appears to be a double standard in that line of reasoning." Harris is saying something doesn't have to last for ever to be meaningful. religious people claim unless life is eternal then everything you do is meaningless. So their is no double standard.

      Yes cults of personality are religions.
      "Personality cults is a consequence of Atheism,where the Atheist rejects all absolute external moral authority and places himself as the moral elitist, complete with his own truth." Atheist have conscience and morals.


      " the latter requires evidence." No it doesn't since we are just talking about possibilities and not certainties. "Under logical possibility almost anything is possible including God." The concept of God in the monotheistic religions is logically incoherent and contradictory.

      "Under Philosophical Materialism all behavior are predetemined by a prior arrangement of particles under the concept of Determinism." Yes free will is not free in that sense - since ultimately you have no choice about having it. "There can be no choice for the individual but to behave instinctively in accordance with his innate/inborn pattern of activity." I don't know anybody who believes we are 100% determined by our genes. Is child abuse genetic? Is a traumatic life experience genetic? Is a brain injury genetic? No, such things are not genetic.

      "Sure but our justice system presupposes the individual has (a)chosen his fate and (b) subject to change (rehabilitation) which does not require gene therapy strategies." That's because criminality at least in most cases is not genetic. "These are not compatible with physicalist's doctrine of Determinism" They are compatible since we have the ability to make intelligent decisions, predict the outcome of our actions, plan for the future and so on.

      "I don't know of any dualist philosopher who believes immoral behavior is genetically inherent." You was saying if criminality is hereditary then if they was allowed to breed this would be a threat to society's survival. so My question was IF criminality was genetic then how God solves this problem?

      "I'm not exactly sure what you mean or if you're denying this is taking place but it is.There are a plethora of objective reports on this issue." You was saying criminals for example would be killed under eugenics in an atheist country (North Korea). I said I don't know how such a program would work since the leaders of North Korea are criminals so by rights they should be the first to be killed under such program. Also the evolution just means survival of whatever survives in its environment it's not survival of the strongest, smartest etc.

      Delete
    2. religious people claim unless life is eternal then everything you do is meaningless.//
      You're missing the point.Does a meaningful existence imply fear of its contrary?This is the issue.

      Atheist have conscience and morals//
      True but Atheism is without any moral precepts,meaning Atheists co-opt their morality from Theists then deride the source.For example,the golden rule.

      //The concept of God in the monotheistic religions is logically incoherent and contradictory.//
      If you're referring to scriptural errancies then yes but I don't see how that could invalidate a Single and neccessary First Cause of our universe.If so,then what reasons do you suspect there could be more than one cause?

      Yes free will is not free in that sense - since ultimately you have no choice about having it.//
      (It) meaning free will?Yes,people often give up their free will and become slaves to fashion,drugs,porn,gambling,etc.

      I don't know anybody who believes we are 100% determined by our genes. Is child abuse genetic? Is a traumatic life experience genetic? Is a brain injury genetic? No, such things are not genetic.

      You have just touched on an interesting problem for Materialists.
      On the one hand Atheists cheerfully accept certain premises (reductionism,determinism,selfish gene,humans are merely biological,survival of the fittest,etc.) but cannot accept the implications of consistently applying those principles.Atheists are therefore intellectually dishonest because they realize the absurdity of the consequences of their beliefs which is not practical to implement for any sane and rational human being but continue to hold onto these irrational principles.

      That's because criminality at least in most cases is not genetic//
      Agreed,our moral intuitions are not hard wired.

      //They are compatible since we have the ability to make intelligent decisions, predict the outcome of our actions, plan for the future and so on.//
      No we do not,that's according to the Libet experiments.Remember how Atheists were celebrating that free will has been refuted?

      so My question was IF criminality was genetic then how God solves this problem?//
      If the above was true that would've refuted dualism,free will and by implication God and afterlife.So God cannot solve such an issue that negates his existence.

      Delete
    3. You're missing the point.Does a meaningful existence imply fear of its contrary?This is the issue." The point was religious people claim without God and an afterlife life would be meaningless. Religious people do indeed believe in their God and afterlife because they feel such beliefs give their life meaning.

      "Atheists co-opt their morality from Theists then deride the source.For example,the golden rule." This is nonsense you will find the golden rule in virtually all the cultures. Confucius for example talks about it - hundreds of years before christ.

      "Single and neccessary First Cause of our universe." Coherently define "first cause". "If so,then what reasons do you suspect there could be more than one cause?" why couldn't there be billions of gods?

      ("It) meaning free will?Yes,people often give up their free will and become slaves to fashion,drugs,porn,gambling,etc" When I said you don't have a choice about having it (free will) I meant in the sense that you don't have a brain (or soul if you believe in that) of a paranoid schizophrenic.


      "You have just touched on an interesting problem for Materialists." It's not a problem since not all our causes are biological.

      "Agreed,our moral intuitions are not hard wired." Theirs good reason to think it is. When we are born we are born with the "seeds" for having a conscience, unless a person is abused, brainwashed into a cult or something like that then the seeds won't develop. Some people may be born with a biological defect or some such thing (as is theorised in some cases of psychopathy) which means they are born without those "seeds".

      "No we do not,that's according to the Libet experiments.Remember how Atheists were celebrating that free will has been refuted?" Well their is whole philosophy on this it's called compatiblism . Compatiblist definition of free will is "the ability of a rational agent to make intelligent decisions". This ability is not supernatural but a brain function. Libet experiments are not relevant to Compatiblist free will since it claims both the conscious and the unconscious mind make up our will.

      If the above was true that would've refuted dualism,free will and by implication God and afterlife.So God cannot solve such an issue that negates his existence." I was saying how does God solve moral dilemmas?

      Delete
    4. The point was religious people claim without God and an afterlife life would be meaningless.Religious people do indeed believe in their God and afterlife because they feel such beliefs give their life meaning.//
      I see no problem with deriving your meaning of life from God.The alternative is to derive a superficial meaning in a world of random events over which we have no control.

      This is nonsense you will find the golden rule in virtually all the cultures. Confucius for example talks about it - hundreds of years before christ.//
      You use the word "cultures" to imply that the Golden Rule has atheistic or non-religious origins but that is false,even Confucius practiced ancestor worship,which is based on the belief that their relatives exist in the afterlife and can influence the life of the worshipper.Also,I did not say Jesus invented the golden rule.

      Coherently define "first cause"//
      The originator of the universe

      I asked you:If so,then what reasons do you suspect there could be more than one cause?"
      You respond with another question,which is a variant of my question:
      "why couldn't there be billions of gods?"
      So I'll ask you again,what reasons do you have to suspect billions of gods as multiple causes for the universe?

      It's not a problem since not all our causes are biological//
      Oh really?Humans are more than biological machines?That's a first for a Materialist.Like I said before,Atheism is not practical to implement that's why Atheists are always appropriating Theist terminologies and concepts.

      //Theirs good reason to think it is. When we are born we are born with the "seeds" for having a conscience, unless a person is abused, brainwashed into a cult or something like that then the seeds won't develop. Some people may be born with a biological defect or some such thing (as is theorised in some cases of psychopathy) which means they are born without those "seeds".//
      Okay,then we can plant those seeds in them to grow a conscience.Sounds simple enough.But the question is,does science support these assertions?

      //Well their is whole philosophy on this it's called compatiblism . Compatiblist definition of free will is "the ability of a rational agent to make intelligent decisions". This ability is not supernatural but a brain function. Libet experiments are not relevant to Compatiblist free will since it claims both the conscious and the unconscious mind make up our will.//
      So you subscribe to both Determinism and Free will(aka Compatibilism)

      http://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html
      Determinism is defined as:The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is caused by preceding factors and is thus predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science.

      Free Will: is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior, in other words we are self determined.

      Now it's apparent that there's a contradiction in these two concepts,both cannot be true simultaneously.If all actions and thoughts are pre-determined based on prior factors then it cannot be freely chosen.
      It's up to you to explain how you can hold both positions logically.

      I was saying how does God solve moral dilemmas?//
      Moral principles allow us to differentiate between good and evil

      Delete

    5. "I see no problem with deriving your meaning of life from God." Their is a big problem if such a god doesn't exist or your God is the wrong God.

      This is nonsense you will find the golden rule in virtually all the cultures. Confucius for example talks about it - hundreds of years before christ.//
      "You use the word "cultures" to imply that the Golden Rule has atheistic or non-religious origins" It implies conscience is innate in humans. ".Also,I did not say Jesus invented the golden rule". If it's innate in humans then nobody invented it.

      Coherently define "first cause"//
      "The originator of the universe" Meaningless.

      "So I'll ask you again,what reasons do you have to suspect billions of gods as multiple causes for the universe?" I don't believe in any god I was asking, What reasons do you have to suspect one specific God? Give me your reasoning as to why you think their is only one God and not billions of them (or why their can't be billions of them)?

      "Oh really?Humans are more than biological machines?That's a first for a Materialist." As I said nobody claims we are determined 100% by our genes, this is a straw man you have invented out of thin air.

      "Okay,then we can plant those seeds in them to grow a conscience.Sounds simple enough" The seeds are already their, unless you are talking about psychopaths?."But the question is,does science support these assertions?" Yes conscience is hard wired into our brain, just like our sense of taste is hard wired into our brain and is determined by genes. If you don't think that then where you do think our morality/conscience comes from? God? Dictator? Social conditioning?

      "So you subscribe to both Determinism and Free will(aka Compatibilism)" Yes.

      "http://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html
      Determinism is defined as:The determinist approach proposes that all behavior is caused by preceding factors and is thus predictable. The causal laws of determinism form the basis of science." Determinism does not claim human behaviour is predictable, we cannot know the future and at best can make estimates about what may happen in the futures - that's all.

      "Free Will: is the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act and assumes that we are free to choose our behavior, in other words we are self determined.

      Now it's apparent that there's a contradiction in these two concepts,both cannot be true simultaneously.If all actions and thoughts are pre-determined based on prior factors then it cannot be freely chosen.
      "It's up to you to explain how you can hold both positions logically." Who we are determines what we do but we did not choice those things that cause us to be what are. Or as the philosopher Schopenhauer said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." This is what I meant when I said you don't have any choice about having free will.

      "Moral principles allow us to differentiate between good and evil" Consider this moral dilemma "You are a skilled doctor, with five patients who all need different organ transplants. There are currently no organs available to give them, and if they don’t get their transplants soon they will all die. You have a sixth patient, who needs medication to keep him alive and for pain relief. He is a compatible organ donor for your five other patients. If you were to stop giving him medicine he would die before them, in a very painful way, but you would then be able to use his organs to save the other five. What should you do?"
      What does Gods divine morality - or believing in divine morality - say is the right thing to do is this case? How does God - or believing in God - help us to reach a decision in this case?

      Delete
  3. It implies conscience is innate in humans//
    The Golden Rule is explicitly derived from a belief in transcendent morals that cannot be referenced to natural laws - thus it falls outside of the physicalist's paradigm.

    "The originator of the universe" Meaningless.//
    And yet they are perfectly good english words.

    Give me your reasoning as to why you think their is only one God and not billions of them (or why their can't be billions of them)?//
    "First" is an ordinal preceding multiplicities and any series of numbers,so your issue with a myriad of gods does nothing to refute the need for a First Cause.At best,it could just push the First Cause back by a number of steps.But I suspect you refering to the hindu deities,since they have the most gods.Now,are they somewhat included and relevant in the First Cause? I will answer yes because my understanding is that although hinduism has millions of gods they are all reflections and expressions of one single spiritual source called Brahman (the ultimate reality and consciousness).I think hinduism is a very good example of "multiplicities" that can be traced back to a singular source.

    As I said nobody claims we are determined 100% by our genes, this is a straw man you have invented out of thin air.//
    According to Philosophical Materialism we are determined by our genes as well as random past events over which we have no control.

    \\Yes conscience is hard wired into our brain, just like our sense of taste is hard wired into our brain and is determined by genes.//
    Nope.Conscience is not like our 5 senses at all.Our 5 senses are physiological stimuli that are linked with our nervous system.Conscience is an ability to distinguish between principles.Conscience presuppose an already existing morality but is not morality per se.

    //Who we are determines what we do but we did not choice those things that cause us to be what are.Schopenhauer said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.//
    What I think you're saying or trying to say in my own words:Man can act the way he pleases but he cannot choose his condition.
    The problem here is that this statement needs to be formulated into a deductive argument for validity.It's too vague on its own.

    \\What does Gods divine morality - or believing in divine morality - say is the right thing to do is this case? How does God - or believing in God - help us to reach a decision in this case?//

    Your "moral dilemma" makes no mention of either the donor and the recipients or their families consenting.That's unethical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    2. "The Golden Rule is explicitly derived from a belief in transcendent morals that cannot be referenced to" You are making up nonsense again all it is derived from is human decency not "transcendent" moral - whatever that means.

      "The originator of the universe" Meaningless.//
      "And yet they are perfectly good english words." Again coherently define "first cause" and then tell me what you mean by universe. Until you do that what you write is incoherent.


      ""First" is an ordinal preceding multiplicities and any series of numbers,so your issue with a myriad of gods does nothing to refute the need for a First Cause." What "need" for a first cause?
      "At best,it could just push the First Cause back by a number of steps" First of all you don't know the universe could have been caused by billions of uncaused gods. Second each God could have created their own universe (or many universes). third your God itself may not be god but maybe created by another God or caused some other way, their no way you can know this is not the case.
      "But I suspect you refering to the hindu deities,since they have the most gods." No I wasn't talking about Hindu gods.
      "Now,are they somewhat included and relevant in the First Cause? I will answer yes because my understanding is that although hinduism has millions of gods they are all reflections and expressions of one single spiritual source called Brahman (the ultimate reality and consciousness).I think hinduism is a very good example of "multiplicities" that can be traced back to a singular source." Brahman is not a personal being but as you say ultimate reality itself so this is a bad example, the gods are manifestations of this reality.

      "According to Philosophical Materialism we are determined by our genes as well as random past events over which we have no control." We are determined by the past history of the universe yes.

      "Nope.Conscience is not like our 5 senses at all.Our 5 senses are physiological stimuli that are linked with our nervous system." Our conscience is just like our senses in that it helped us survive? "Conscience is an ability to distinguish between principles." Our sense of taste evolved so we have the ability to distinguish between a food which is good for us and those things which can kill us.We have conscience for exactly the same reason - because it necessary for our survival.

      //Who we are determines what we do but we did not choice those things that cause us to be what are.Schopenhauer said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.//

      "The problem here is that this statement needs to be formulated into a deductive argument for validity.It's too vague on its own." Schopenhauer is saying who we are - as individuals - determines what we do but we did not not choose who we are. Not hard to understand.


      "Your "moral dilemma" makes no mention of either the donor and the recipients or their families consenting.That's unethical." It also highly unethical to let 5 of your patients die - that's why it called a moral dilemma. Also is your answer from you or God? You answered, not God nor does invoking "God" help you reach a decision. This is why "God" has nothing to do with morality.

      Delete
    3. You are making up nonsense again all it is derived from is human decency not "transcendent" moral - whatever that means.//
      Human decency assumes there's a moral benchmark to compare human behavior with.So what is your Atheist moral principles,what makes them moral and how did you acquire them?
      Concerning the term transcendent,it is a perfectly good term used in philosophy.If I used the term out of context then correct me but claiming I am making things up is a dodge not a counter argument.

      Again coherently define "first cause" and then tell me what you mean by universe. Until you do that what you write is incoherent.//
      It cannot be incoherent merely because you say it is,unless I have used those terms incorrectly.That would be for you to specifically point out.

      What "need" for a first cause?//
      Every effect has a cause,and since the universe is an effect,so it needs a cause.Unless you believe the universe is the cause of the universe.

      First of all you don't know the universe could have been caused by billions of uncaused gods. Second each God could have created their own universe (or many universes). third your God itself may not be god but maybe created by another God or caused some other way, their no way you can know this is not the case//
      One is a cardinal number that precedes all cardinal numbers denoting quantity including a billion or billions.So once again,your examples of multiple gods does not refute what came before,which is one.Also,Zero is the absence of quantity.
      Your issue with many gods creating many universes must be declared false,because we are only aware of one physical universe.

      Brahman is not a personal being but as you say ultimate reality itself so this is a bad example, the gods are manifestations of this reality.//
      I avoided the term god because in hinduism they are not exactly equivalent to the western concepts of god,although Brahman is considered the Supreme Being and First cause.Check this hindu site.
      http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/brahman.htm
      The Nature of Brahman
      As the primary causal substance of material

      Our sense of taste evolved so we have the ability to distinguish between a food which is good for us and those things which can kill us.We have conscience for exactly the same reason - because it necessary for our survival.//
      Our taste buds are continuously fluctuating.My taste buds could hardly stand spinach when I was younger,now I can't get enough of them and what I enjoyed back then like baloney I now find repulsive.
      My point is that taste buds evolve and each person have their preferences.Morals do not evolve.Rape and plunder could not have been acceptable thousands of years ago but unacceptable now and might be acceptable in the future, depending on our subjective preferences.

      Schopenhauer is saying who we are - as individuals - determines what we do but we did not not choose who we are. Not hard to understand.//
      Is it true because (a)Schopenhauer said it (appeal to authority) or (b) is it true because it is logically sound and supported by evidence?
      So far you have suggested (a) appeal to authority.Furthermore,there are several areas in Psychology that can help the individual change his/her negative traits.Cognitive Behavorial Therapy is one such discipline where the personality can change drastically,resulting in more positive behavior.

      It also highly unethical to let 5 of your patients die - that's why it called a moral dilemma//
      A moral dilemma implies both courses of action are valid,that's why it's a dilemma.It's not really a moral dilemma when the unscrupulous practices are clearly apparent.

      Also is your answer from you or God? You answered, not God nor does invoking "God" help you reach a decision. This is why "God" has nothing to do with morality.//
      For a Theist,God's nature IS the moral benchmark.

      Delete
    4. "Human decency assumes there's a moral benchmark to compare human behavior with." We usually assume that people have conscience and they are capable of behaving with decency.

      "So what is your Atheist moral principles,what makes them moral and how did you acquire them?" What are Gods moral principles, what makes them moral and how did he acquire them? No doubt you will say his morals come from his nature, but then I can cut your God out and say my morals come from - and where they in fact do come from - which is my nature.

      "Concerning the term transcendent,it is a perfectly good term used in philosophy.If I used the term out of context then correct me but claiming I am making things up is a dodge not a counter argument." You said morality is transcendentmeans "Beyond the limits of human experience" how so could we humans recognise or know what Gods "transcendent" morals are if their beyond us?


      "It cannot be incoherent merely because you say it is,unless I have used those terms incorrectly.That would be for you to specifically point out." What is it the "first cause" of? Answer this otherwise this concept is incoherent.
      "Every effect has a cause,and since the universe is an effect,so it needs a cause.Unless you believe the universe is the cause of the universe." The universe doesn't need a cause. In fact the universe is defined as everything which exists so it cannot logically have a cause.

      "One is a cardinal number that precedes all cardinal numbers denoting quantity including a billion or billions." You did not answer my question as to why their cannot be billions of uncaused gods?
      "Your issue with many gods creating many universes must be declared false,because we are only aware of one physical universe." This is like saying as far we are aware earth is the only planet with life, so life on other planets must be declared false.

      "Our taste buds are continuously fluctuating.My taste buds could hardly stand spinach when I was younger,now I can't get enough of them and what I enjoyed back then like baloney I now find repulsive." No human is ever going to think dog shit tastes delicious - unless they have something wrong with their brain.

      "My point is that taste buds evolve and each person have their preferences.Morals do not evolve." Our morals come from our evolution, if everybody liked eating dog shit we would not be around for around - that's why we evolved a sense a taste so we don't eat things like dog shit. Like wise we have a conscience so we don't do things which will kill us - that's why the Jeffrey dahmers of the world will always be the exception.

      "Rape and plunder could not have been acceptable thousands of years ago but unacceptable now and might be acceptable in the future, depending on our subjective preferences." If a society value rape, plunder and killing its not going to be around for long - just like a society which loves the taste of dog shit isn't going to be around for long.

      Delete
    5. Part 2
      "Is it true because (a)Schopenhauer said it (appeal to authority) or (b) is it true because it is logically sound and supported by evidence?" Again what are you talking about? We say it's a free action if it's the result of your will. Let's make an example if a person is chained to a chair we say he has no choice about getting up and walking - because he is physically restrained by the chains obviously. But a person who is not physically restrained can choose to get up of the chair and walk if he wants to - since he has the ability to walk. That is what free will is in compatibilism -the ability to act on your desires and plan your future

      "So far you have suggested (a) appeal to authority." Eh?I am just explaining to you what the compatibilst view is.

      "Furthermore,there are several areas in Psychology that can help the individual change his/her negative traits.Cognitive Behavorial Therapy is one such discipline where the personality can change drastically,resulting in more positive behavior." Compatibilism doesn't dispute this.

      "moral dilemma implies both courses of action are valid,that's why it's a dilemma.It's not really a moral dilemma when the unscrupulous practices are clearly apparent." Cases like this happen in real life so I am asking what's does gods absolute divine morality say to do in this case?

      "For a Theist,God's nature IS the moral benchmark." 1) You don't know what gods nature is 2) It is you who is making the judgement not God 3) In reality it's your nature which is the moral benchmark - since you are the one making the decision.

      Delete