Theism vs Atheism: What's at Stake

---

View Comments |  Print This Post |

by Alan Roebuck | January 12th, 2009

Unless atheists can give an account of why naturalism is true, their arguments against God all fail, and they are left with agnosticism at best.

My essay "How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist" generated many responses from atheists and agnostics. Some were courteous, some were hostile, and a few were even supercilious.  But none even came near to adequately answering the fundamental challenge to the atheistic establishment that I articulated in "Supercilious Atheist."

Indeed, the public arguments of the so-called "New Atheists," and their admirers and imitators, are based on a fundamental error of thinking: As I showed in "Supercilious Atheist" (and summarize below) they assume atheism, but do not prove it. And given that the worldview by which they judge God to be nonexistent is illogical, and therefore necessarily false, I propose that the New Atheists be given a more accurate label: New Sophists.

And let's be clear what's at stake.  This is not just a matter of what individuals believe, as important as that is.  As I argued in "Liberalism 101," the system of thought commonly called "liberalism," by which I mean the entire worldview of the Left, has de facto control over America. Liberalism is not just an irritant; it expresses the deepest convictions by which our leaders make decisions and form our society.  And liberalism is based, philosophically at least, on the nonexistence of God.

For according to liberalism, even if God exists, nothing certain can be known about Him, and therefore He might as well not exist. Call it functional atheism. And with no God to guide us, mankind becomes the supreme being, i.e. the supreme authority on truth and morality, in which case liberalism's campaign to remake society is legitimate.

In other words, if there is no God, then liberalism makes sense. And if God does exist, then much of liberalism is invalid. This is why most of our public policies are based, indirectly at least, on atheism.  For example:

• The increasingly successful campaign to legitimize homosexuality. After all if, under atheism, we think homosexuality is ok, then it is ok.
• The near-total absence of any restraints on abortion. After all, under atheism, man is just a physical body, in which case the barely-formed fetus cannot possibly be a person deserving the protection of the law.
• Mass immigration. After all, if it is not true that, as the Bible says, God deliberately formed mankind into separate nations, then it's perfectly ok to flood our nation with non-assimilable foreigners, if we think that there is some immediate advantage to be had.

In general, liberalism holds that because there is no creator God, things do not have fixed natures and there is no God who has authority over us. Therefore mankind is radically free, and any social change the majority wants is ok. To be sure, atheists are free to support traditional ideas and ways of life if they choose, but they are also equally free to implement radical change. And the one who is radically free usually does not gravitate toward traditional ways, but instead toward the sort of revolutionary change that liberalism aims for.

Atheism, then, (functional or actual) is the intellectual foundation of liberalism, and so publicly discrediting atheism is, philosophically at least, the first step in publicly discrediting the liberalism that is, in fact, dissolving Western Civilization, including America.

To be sure, theism does remain strong among some individuals and private groups, and vague "God talk" is still popular among politicians. Furthermore, public policy decisions that accord with theism are occasionally put in place, at least until the ACLU swings into action. But overall, atheism-based liberalism rules society. The ACLU is not fighting uphill against an entrenched enemy; they are suppressing rebellion against the ruling order. Furthermore, the policy decisions that accord with theism are made because of a residual allegiance to a mostly-gone theistic tradition, not because of a principled adherence to a living and consciously-believed theistic worldview. True conservatism, therefore, must challenge atheism.

In "Supercilious Atheist," the challenge to the atheism that is (indirectly) the dominant way of thinking in America was, in summary, as follows: 

Aggressive atheists claim there is no evidence for God. Therefore, they say, an intelligent person has no choice but to withhold belief in God. Note the wording: "withhold belief."  Many atheists define their position not as being certain that there is no God, but as simply not believing, even as they concede that a God may, in some sense, really exist. They may be more accurately called "non-theists," but I will use traditional language, and call them atheists.

However, the atheists' position is obtained not by evaluating properly the evidence, but instead by interpreting the evidence according to a philosophical system that is guaranteed to produce atheistic results. Viewing life through atheist-colored glasses, they see atheism.

Of course, atheists don't see it that way. For the aggressive atheist, the philosophical system he uses to interpret the evidence he observes, his "worldview" for short, is not just one among many possible worldviews. No, his worldview is the way things obviously are, and theists, who refuse to acknowledge reality, appear to him to be either stupid or wicked. 

In fact, the most common type of response to my essay from atheists was to say, in effect, "This guy is an idiot; everyone knows there is no evidence for God, because only evidence provided by the five senses is valid."  Ah yes! The old "everybody knows" argument!

Many atheists also complained that I had not provided an actual argument for God.  But it was obviously not my intent to give a proof of God's existence. The entire point of my essay was that the typical atheist cannot properly assimilate the evidence for God because of his false worldview, in which case there would be no point in presenting this evidence. First, we must remove his atheist-colored glasses, and then we can show him the evidence.

In the West, at least, most atheists have a worldview that is some variation of a philosophical system commonly called "naturalism." Naturalism literally means the belief that "nature" is all there is, and this basically means materialism (the belief that only matter and its properties really exist) and empiricism (the belief that all knowledge must be based on sense perception). For a naturalist, God cannot exist, because only the physical exists. Also according to naturalism, even if God existed, we could not know it, because we cannot know anything that is not based on what we perceive with our senses.

For example, theists point to miracles as evidence for God. And the atheist responds that no miracles have happened, or at least, there is no reason to think that they have. But how does the atheist know that all accounts of miracles are unbelievable even before he examines them all? Because of his naturalistic worldview, according to which no supernatural exists, in which case miracles cannot happen. In brief, the atheist knows miracles are no evidence for God because he knows no God exists to do them. This is circular reasoning, i.e., illogical thinking.

And it all hinges on naturalism. But my challenge is that naturalism is not true just because it seems true to the atheist. Naturalism has to be examined and justified before it can be believed, because other worldviews are possible. Therefore one cannot just dismiss the evidence for God because it seems weak when interpreted naturalistically. After giving a brief summary of an argument that naturalism is false, "Supercilious Atheist" provided a link to an essay giving a more complete argument.

(The problem with naturalism, in a nutshell, is that it is fundamentally a negative doctrine, holding that there are no supernatural things and no non-sensory-based knowledge. But you cannot just assume that something does not exist, because an unknown could be anything, including existent. You need some sort of evidence that X does not exist before you can dismiss it. Furthermore, it is illogical to believe that all knowledge must be sensory-based, because sensory data can never prove that all knowledge must be sensory-based.)

With naturalism under a specific indictment, one would assume that thinking atheists would attempt a logical validation of the naturalism that is the foundation for their confidence that God does not exist. To date, though, there have only been weak responses to this challenge. Atheists assert, often in very colorful language, that naturalism is obviously true, but in my experience they rarely make a significant argument for why it is true.

And this is only to be expected. In order to validate naturalism, one would have to consider the possibility that naturalism might be false, and then show that even with this possibility, the best interpretation of the various facts of reality is that naturalism is true.

In other words, one must take off the atheist-colored glasses if one is to verify that they provide an accurate picture. But naturalistic atheists have little practice thinking in a way that makes the supernatural an actual possibility, so they generally cannot do it.

Kelly O'Connor of the atheistic apologetics organization "Rational Responders" provides a representative response to my essay.  Her essay "How to Respond to a Supercilious Christian" attempted to give a relatively comprehensive rebuttal of my argument, and I encourage you to read it before reading my response to her below. When you read it, note that O'Connor devoted most of her essay to rebutting my alleged arguments for God, even though I had given no such arguments. Also note that she made no attempt to validate naturalism.  She simply assumed that only evidence based ultimately on sight, sound, smell, taste and touch can possible be valid.

Here are excerpts of a comment I posted at her website in response to O'Connor's essay:

Dear Kelly:

[My] essay's main point, to which you did not respond adequately, is this: Any [knowledge] you know, you know because you have validated it in some way, and all validation takes place within a definite worldview, i.e., comprehensive philosophical system based on certain axioms.  But since more than one worldview is possible, and since man is capable of being mistaken even about his premises, one must have some sort of justification for his worldview.

(In retrospect, I would modify the above claim in one way: it seems that we can know a few things without formally "validating" them.  For example, we can know what we ate for breakfast without having to validate it within a specific system of axioms.  But knowledge about God does not fall into this category.)

You said:

The only evidence that exists is physical, material, verifiable, and falsifiable.

And also

…the use of scientific methodology to determine the validity of anything is necessarily going to have some starting point and then system of experimentation. That is all we have with which to work…[Italics added]

I use the word "naturalism" to describe the worldview you call "scientific materialism," and these comments are naturalistic beliefs.  And the arguments you give all presuppose naturalism, so I'll assume you are a naturalist. But how do you know that naturalism is true?

You also said:

…an axiom is just something that is self-evident.

But something is not self-evidently true just because you believe it is. I have given an argument why naturalism is not true, and therefore you cannot just say "it's obviously true, and that's all there is to it."

You also said:

…most people that I know would respond with the criteria [for knowing if there is a God] being objectively verifiable evidence, and that we know this method of validation to be the most accurate due to hundreds of years of making advancements as a society thanks to the scientific method.

Of course, "objectively" means truly, but how do you know that "objectively verifiable evidence" must be naturalistic evidence?  If there existed a non-physical God, his existence would not be detected with the senses, and yet He would nevertheless really exist.  The argument that "society has advanced due to science" is not a compelling one. Aside from the fact that social change is not advancement just because you say it is, most of science does not assume that there is no God.  It only assumes that the physical universe operates according to natural law the vast majority of the time. For most (if not all) of science, naturalism need not be posited.  You have not justified naturalism.

And the point of [my] blind man analogy was simply this: Just as the blind man would not be justified in disbelieving in color because he cannot perceive it, the fact that God is not detectable scientifically does not prove that He is not there.  There may be other means of detecting Him.

In fact, you take the position "the supernatural may exist, but until we see scientific evidence for it, we can safely ignore it."  [To begin with], you said:

We don't know for sure that [a supernatural explanation] couldn't be the correct explanation…

And in other places, you clearly specified that you will only accept naturalistic evidence. So you require naturalistic evidence before you will believe in the supernatural, in exact analogy with the illogical blind man of my analogy.  You need to stop being inconsistent, and either disbelieve in the supernatural, or else admit that it may exist, in which case you cannot dismiss its existence based only on naturalistic science.

I must interrupt my comments addressed to O'Connor in order to make sure you don't miss what's happening here. There are two key ideas to know if you want to have a proper understanding of the argument between atheism and theism. Most important is the main point of my "Supercilious Atheist" essay: you cannot just assume that naturalism (or any other worldview) is the correct way to think. You must test your worldview.

But the other key point is this:  Most atheists will eventually say the following: "Sure, a supernatural realm might, in some sense, exist. But since we have no direct, naturalistic experience of it, we cannot know anything about it. And therefore we might as well assume naturalism, and therefore atheism."

This is probably the strongest case that can be made for atheism. The atheist is saying, "Theism goes beyond the tangible and the mundane, so it is fraught with danger, intellectual and otherwise. Let's see if we can get by without it."

I sympathize to a certain extent with this view. If the supernatural is unknowable, then it's a threat, because if we cannot know it, we cannot protect ourselves against its dangerous elements. Furthermore, there is a great deal of charlatanism associated with religion and the supernatural. Why not see if we can, rhetorically speaking, eliminate the supernatural?

But is it really true that we cannot know anything about the supernatural? How, in general, do you know that something cannot be known?  It would appear that you cannot know that something cannot be known unless you consider it to be a real possibility, and then investigate it.

And actually we do have a sense of the supernatural, because we have a sense of the natural, and of its limitations. We observe that purely material processes do not generate the information required to turn mere chemicals into life, so why should we assume this did happen in the remote past, as the Darwinian evolutionists insist? We know that we are conscious, and that matter does not spontaneously generate consciousness. Why should we assume such generation occurred in the remote past? Scientists tell us that the universe has not always existed, and we know that this effect requires a cause that would have to be prior to the universe, that is, prior to the existence of matter.  Something literally super-(i.e., beyond the) natural is needed to explain these things.

The atheist says: "All of these things can be accounted for naturalistically."  But how does the atheist know it can?  Only by assuming that all causes must be naturalistic, not by proving it. It is impossible to prove that all causes must be naturalistic.

Not only that, but naturalism (as indicated above), is logically contradictory, and therefore false. Not only is it impossible to prove naturalism true, it is possible to prove it false!

I quoted O'Connor as saying that a supernatural realm, which would be a realm not detectable with the senses, might exist. But then she immediately said ". . . but unless we see scientific evidence for it [i.e., evidence provided ultimately by our senses], we can safely ignore it." She is literally saying, "The invisible man may exist, but until I see him, I won't believe!"

The typical American atheist is so unaware of her naturalism that it is difficult for her to avoid this sort of illogical thinking even when it is clearly pointed out to her. If you are undecided between atheism and theism, I urge you to study this issue carefully, and ask yourself "Who's being irrational here?"

My post continues:

The basic argument for God is this: with a naturalistic worldview, we cannot adequately account for all that we know to be true, for example, consciousness, objective morality, [and] the creation of the cosmos.  We can certainly know that these things exist, because their existence is pretty much self-evident.  Or, to put it another way, we know intuitively that we really are conscious, that some things would be wrong even if the authorities said otherwise, and that something other than the cosmos would have to have brought the cosmos into being.  [Here,] "intuition" means: "Our ability to know some things directly, without having to engage in some sort of proof by gathering and analyzing evidence."

We know that these things are there, but what can adequately account for why such things are there?  Until you can give a persuasive account of why naturalism gives a better explanation of all known phenomena, not just some, naturalism is suspect.

And I would add to the last sentence, "Especially when a more consistent and rational worldview, i.e., Christian theism, is available."

My post continues:

The naturalist responds, "Yes we can adequately account for these things naturalistically."  Or at least, he says, we can explain most of them, and anything not explained will either be explained later, when science has progressed, or else is not explainable even in principle.

In this connection, you said:

…at this time, there is no evidence for … a [supernatural] being and no need to appeal to one.

Well sure, a naturalistic explanation that sounds plausible to the naturalist can usually be found, but how does the naturalist know it is the correct explanation?

Only by examining his worldview.  And unless you can give an account of why naturalism is true, your arguments against God all fail (all of your arguments I've seen are based on naturalism), and you are left with agnosticism at best.  Real agnosticism, that is, not the agnosticism that is just a disguise for atheism.

I have given elsewhere more detailed arguments against naturalism. There, I argue that naturalism is contradictory, and that it cannot account for some of the basic facts of reality. So you need to give a better answer to the following question: why do you believe naturalism to be true?  Don't refer to success, or to other authorities: What is your evidence?

I have yet to receive an answer from O'Connor to my main question: How do you know that your naturalistic worldview is true? At her website, some of O'Connor's fans, but not O'Connor herself, responded to the comment I posted by simply asserting, without attempting a proof, that naturalism is the proper way of interpreting all phenomena. 

But an assertion is not a proof. Since I have provided an actual argument that naturalism is not automatically true just because it seems so, and since I have also given specific arguments against naturalism, I would say to an atheist: An actual argument always trumps a mere assertion. So the ball is in your court. Can you vindicate your naturalism?  If you cannot, you should continue to be rational, which will require you to admit that some sort of super-naturalistic worldview must be true. That being the case you will finally be capable of thinking rationally about God.

Oh, and American society need not be dominated by atheistic liberalism, either.

Labels: Culture: Religion, Political Theory, Humanities, Language, Academia, Histo

Responses to "Theism vs Atheism: What's at Stake"

1. Alan: A very thoughtful essay.

   My own contribution to this debate is to separate out discussions of God from a discussion of religion or religious tenants. Though related, the two are not necessarily the same. Religion A may or may not “get it right” when speaking about/for God, but their success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. God is what he is, regardless of whether man got the facts right or wrong about His existence.

   Having said this, let’s look at the relationship between the Declaration of Independence — which invokes God-given rights as the foundation for creating our government — and the US Constitution, which provides the direct, legal-political framework for all laws made within the United States.

   What is important here is the fact that the Founding Fathers credited God with bestowing inalienable rights in all man, and these rights in turn justified rebellion against established authority. Therefore, in creating policy or passing laws from this Constitutional basis, the debate isn’t whether to have a God-based morality insert itself into our law-making process. It’s already there. The question is how to do this so that one specific religion does not gain an unfair institutional advantage over other religions. And, furthermore, how to recognize the appropriate limits of this God-based morality when making our laws.

   Limiting the practical application of a God-based morality in political life is not the same thing as denying any role for it in political decisions. This confusion arises because of the relativistic justifications all sides of this debate have brought into the political arena. Atheists want to deny a role for a God-based morality at any point in the law-making process, while Christian activists want to insert God (or more specifically, their concept of religion and the tenets of their faith) into our public institutions.

   Moral Relativists are like the French at the United Nations. They’ll trot out the name of God to sell a Yugo or oppose a policy they don’t like. But otherwise, they’re perfectly fine having God remain an ethereal being that each individual seeks guidance from according to their personal preferences. However, should any of this personal communication from God spill over into the public arena, like the ACLU defending the Constitution, moral Relativists would rather see an immoral law passed legally than a moral law imposed on the people unlawfully.

   The initially confusing thing about this last statement is that these relativists are indeed right about not imposing a private morality on the public no matter how odious the issue. This even applies to situations where this private morality and universal moral code are identical (such as abortion), but the law allows this immoral activity to continue. Morality — even the “right” morality — cannot be imposed in a constitutional republic. It must be willingly embraced by the country through its institutions and practices, or the unintended consequences may far outweigh any short-term good. Efforts to promote prayer in public schools, regardless of how pure the motives of its advocates may have been, led directly to the success of moral Relativists in establishing abortion on demand as a national “right.”

   What has allowed elective abortion to supplant slavery as a national indignation is a combination of factors such as self-interest, rationalization, hidden agendas — but something else too. Those who took the “moral high ground” in sparking this debate had their own set of vested interests and hidden agendas. Beginning with prayer in public schools and other public institutions, they took key provisions of the Declaration of Independence and substituted their own religious preferences for “God” so that paying homage to “Jesus,” not following a God-given moral code, became the focus of their efforts.

   Because of this approach, moral Relativists were able to seize the debate and frame their core issues in a deceitful way. Since Religion A claims to speak for God, and the Constitution forbids the state to establish an official religion, then both Religion A and the God it speaks for must be completely removed from the secular world. This logic prevailed because the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence, and drawing inspiration and support from God is not the same thing as making laws that reflect God’s rules as expressed by a particular religion. It didn’t matter if what Christians believed perfectly matched 95% of the beliefs of every other religion. The Constitution, though inspired by God-given rights, was still man’s law. And man’s law did not permit the establishment of an official state religion.

   By hijacking God and linking Him to a battle to promote their values, not only did the Christian community lose their fight, it allowed the notion of “God” — the basis for their claim — to be wiped out with it. This then led to an even more determined fight to infuse “politics with religion.” Relativists became even more relative to prevent their opponent’s success, and as the Relativists carried the fight to its relativistic extreme, atrocities like abortion on demand became the law of the land.

   This, ultimately, explains why a concept like abortion could take hold and flourish in a society that condemns human right abuses, and even passes laws against cruelty to animals, but it will allow a healthy 20-month old developing child to be killed without the same level of due process it demands for suspected mass murders and captured terrorists.

   [I lay all this out in more detail in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/ ]

   Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2009

2. But is it really true that we cannot know anything about the supernatural? How, in general, do you know that something cannot be known? It would appear that you cannot know that something cannot be known unless you consider it to be a real possibility, and then investigate it.

   Just a few definitions separate us, really. I define the supernatural as the 'unknowable'. A clarifying example: "Think about the difference between the notion of the 'powerful alien' (a staple of science fiction) and the notion of a 'god' in a religion. What's the essential difference between them? In the stories, they both do amazing, astonishing things. But a powerful alien is (ultimately, eventually) comprehensible – often in the story humans are able to figure out some way of duplicating its powers, or interfering with them, etc. Gods, though, are beyond what humans can do, and there's no point in trying to figure out why or how they do what they do."

   Naturalism boils down, essentially, to the notion that everything is ultimately comprehensible. A clarifying question: "Maybe there really are some [unknowable entities] out there. But… how would you prove it? If we encountered a real, honest-to-goodness 'miracle', what evidence could you possibly present that it was caused by a god and not a powerful alien?"

   Another quote: "Think about all the things that have been confidently declared to be supernatural that have turned out to be perfectly explainable and comprehensible. (I've listed a few here.) Early in human history, practically everything was considered to be the direct result of supernatural forces, but over time more and more things have moved to the 'explainable' column. (BTW, it's worth pointing out that so far as I can see, nothing has ever moved the other way, from the 'explainable' to the 'supernatural' column…)"

   You provide a list of a few such things. "We observe that purely material processes do not generate the information required to turn mere chemicals into life, so why should we assume this did happen in the remote past, as the Darwinian evolutionists insist? We know that we are conscious, and that matter does not spontaneously generate consciousness. Why should we assume such generation occurred in the remote past? Scientists tell us that the universe has not always existed, and we know that this effect requires a cause that would have to be prior to the universe, that is, prior to the existence of matter."

   Of course, it turns out that the boundary between 'mere chemistry' and life is a little fuzzier than many assume. The Big Bang may not have been the 'beginning'. And the more we learn about how the brain works – the less of stuff that previously was considered 'unknowable' – the less room there is for a soul to be around. You come perilously close to committing what I term "Haldane's Error" (see the quote in my first post on this site here.

   Naturalism is, in this sense, simple reason – a blind man can use his reason and the evidence available to him to deduce the existence of radiant energy such as light (just by feeling the warmth of the sun or a fire, for example), and can sense different frequencies of vibration by hearing (or, in a pinch, touch). More detailed experiments can reveal that radiant energy also displays frequencies. Voila, color. Naturalism doesn't deny the unknown – indeed, it acknowledges it quite openly. What it precludes – or a least rejects as philosophically useless – is the unknowable.

   For things like (a full theory of) consciousness, or the origin of the cosmos, why can't we say, "we dunno, yet"? (The 'first post' I linked to above tackles objective morality.)

   Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 12, 2009

3. It's hard to have a discussion when the term "supernatural", "religion", and God" are used interchangeably.

   Religions require God or a gods, but God's existence does not depend on religion. God exists or He doesn't exist regardless of whether man can directly prove His existence through human observations, human senses, and the limitations of the human mind. An ant's brain can't embrace the concept of planets and star systems, but that has nothing to do with whether other planets and stars exist.

   Moreover, if "supernatural" is something that is simply "unknowable", ["I define the supernatural as the 'unknowable'"],then then the position/speed of atomic particles as described in quantum mechanics is supernatural.

   There's no value in arguing for the "proof" that God does not exist, any more than there is in asserting that the lack of human observation and understanding is "proof" that God doesn't exist. If you want to believe that human logic and reasoning as described by the blind man example in Comment 2 is all that we fundamentally need to know the ultimate truth of a thing, far be it from me to tell you you're wrong. I'm sure in some people's judgment the blind man can distinguish between UV light, infrared light, heat from a stove and heat from the sun, and all the variations and permutations inbetween to answer any questions he needs answered — except, of course, who created it all. There's always a space alien theory to cover that; until one asks who created the space alien?

   That's not the logic of naturalism at play. That's the logic of logic at play.

   In the end, these discussions are nothing but a series of parallel conversations with each side using terms in a way that mimics, but does not completely embrace, what is being said by the other side.

   Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2009

4. Dr. Jackson – The position/velocity of a particle is not 'unknowable'. That's just "using terms in a way that mimics, but does not completely embrace, what is being said by" particle physicists. If QM is correct, then what it actually states is that a particle doesn't have a definite velocity or position, just a probability range of being observed in a particular set of states.

   That's the difference between what I'm actually saying and how you're reading it. What would you characterize as the essential difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural', if I may ask? A caveman might attribute a recovery from a stopped heart as 'supernatural'. Why would he be wrong in the case of a defibrillator but right in the case of a saint laying on hands?

   As I said in the page I referenced, "Accepting that there are things that we don't know is not the same as accepting that there are things that we cannot, even in principle, know." That is what I'm talking about when I talk about the supernatural.

   (As to the question of "who created it all", well, (a) why is saying "we dunno, yet" indefensible, and further, (b) why can't we ask, "why do you assume 'who'" rather than "what"? and (c) "why do you assume that created is the right word to use?)

   Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 12, 2009

5. >just a probability range of being observed in a particular set of states.

   Probability isn't certainty. Certainty is precision. Precision is knowability. Imprecision is less than knowability Anything less than knowability is "supernatural". I'm just using your definition of the term "unknowable" as it relates to your definition of "supernatural". [["I define the supernatural as the 'unknowable'"].

   By the way, what you see as “probability” may in fact be perfect predictability — and would be seen as such if the human mind was capable of grasping it. Just because man can’t completely know or understand something due to the limitations of the human mind, doesn’t mean that it lacks perfect predictability and order. That hubris, not logic.

   As for “who” rather that “what” created the universe, I've never assigned God a specific status, other than God is the creator of the Universe. What I think God is, or isn't, is irrelevant.

   By saying "we dunno" who/what created the universe, you are implicitly allowing for the possibility that "God" could be the answer. However, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility that God exists. This is because you keep on mixing discussions of religion with a discussion of God [your caveman/saint example]. Knock down the straw man that saints cure heart attacks, and you think you’ve somehow said something profound about the existence of God.

   I can't prove God exists, other than by using logic to answer the question logically that something created the Universe. And since the ultimate practical definition of God is the creator of all things, then God is an acceptable explanation for me. [And once again, God is not Jesus, Allah, Budda, Jehovah, etc. God is God.]

   What I object to is any theory (naturalism or any other) that automatically assumes that since God is not scientifically measurable, God therefore does not exist.

   God gave us a mind and the ability to reason to understand the workings of his creation —to the extent humanly possible. It’s kind of silly to think that because we can figure out how some things might work, we’ve somehow disproved the notion that God created them in the first place.

   Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2009

6. Oh, and I use the word "created", as in "God created the Universe", because using logic to think logically, something doesn't create itself. That is, unless that something is God, which/who/what by definition always existed.

   If it makes you feel better to think that the Universe itself is God instead of relying on saints and cavemen to grasp the concept, go for it. What you or I think is irrelevant anyway to the ultimate truth of the issue. I don't define God any more than you do.

   The salient point is whether you will acknowledge that something gave rise to and ordered the universe and everything in it, or whether you want to maintain that the Universe just decided to exist by itself one day, and create immutable laws of nature to go with it.

   Saying "I dunno" is a cop out. I dunno a lot of things, but my (or your) lack of direct, personal knowledge does not render those things real or not. There are logical implications of every position.

   I believe that something (God) created the universe. You call this supernatural, and equate it with saints curing heart attacks.

   You think the Universe just decided to exist one day (assuming there were no space aliens around to create it), and you call this science.

   My supernatural has more logical consistency and inherent credability than your science.

   Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2009

7. Probability isn't certainty…

   Which would almost make sense, except you're relying on translations into colloquial English of concepts expressed in mathematical terms. Science doesn't use jargon to be obfuscatory, and asking to "express something in simple terms" is usually misleading… because the expression in scientific jargon actually is usually the most precise and concise way to express the concept. English wasn't constructed to talk about QM. It's like the old saw that asks "Could God make a triangle with four sides?" The question itself is ill-posed.

   Just because man can’t completely know or understand something due to the limitations of the human mind, doesn’t mean that it lacks perfect predictability and order. That hubris, not logic.

   How do you tell if you "can’t completely know or understand something"? What practical difference does the concept make? That's the question I'm asking…

   However, you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility that God exists. This is because you keep on mixing discussions of religion with a discussion of God…

   A concept with no distinguishing features is no concept at all. Why do you call it "God" – and thereby bring in all the historic baggage accreted onto that word – while at the same time claiming to dispense with all the baggage? Why not call it, say, "X", or "Alpha"?

   Defining something as the "something that created the Universe" doesn't mean anything in particular, until you start actually pinning the concept down to the point where you can start making positive statements about it.

   (There's also the question of whether the universe was "created" at all. We've never seen mass/energy created or destroyed. Infinite regresses are not intuitive… but basically nothing about the universe has proven to be intuitive once we've wandered out of the savannahs of Africa, not even the shape of the planet we live on. Hell, even that we lived on a planet. You accuse me of dismissing concepts a priori…)

   It really does seem to me that asking "What created the universe?" is as premature, for now, as asking "What directed that lighning bolt to hit there – Thor, Zeus, or Seth?" was before the 1700s.

   The key point I've been making all along here – that I've made before – is that assuming something is beyond human comprehension – which is what you, too, are doing with the concept of 'supernatural' since you explicitly use the phrase "limitations of the human mind" – can never be justified. It's a useless concept. All we can really divide things into is "stuff we think we understand" and "stuff we're still working on understanding".

   Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 12, 2009

8. Great discussion. Excuse me if I quote myself, arguing against atheism in a discussion elsewhere:

   "I believe I have a statement and a question, each of which
   back any atheist argument into a corner.

   1) The statement is one which I have seen versions of elsewhere. I've
   used it in debate with atheists; the result has been a kind of
   outrage, with a wild-ish accusation that I am being illogical, without
   any demonstration of said illogic. My suspicion is that in these
   occasions I've pointed to an inherent limitation to empiricism, and
   that my antagonists simply cannot think beyond empiricism.

   To the claim that we see no empirical evidence of any God:

   Empiricism requires an object that is passive toward the
   experimenter's procedures. Given any object that is, by definition, of
   higher technological (broadest sense) capability than the
   experimenter, that object's determinable qualities (such as existence)
   are completely *trumped* by the question: Does the object wish to
   permit itself to be observed? The answer to this, from our
   perspective, is at best a coin flip – 50/50. And in this situation,
   empiricism *fails*.

   *Empiricism can make no reliable statement concerning any object of
   higher technological capability than the experimenter.*

   2) The question:

   Where is the triangle?

   I believe it is commonly understood that there exists no such thing as
   a perfect (actual) triangle in nature. Yet so much in nature is clearly
   generated by the triangle. What I'm thinking is that there is no way
   to answer this question without conceding the existence of a *noetic* (mental or conceptual)
   realm. The claim that the triangle, not present in nature, simply
   *does not exist* seems untenable (perhaps I'm wrong here). The atheist
   temptation is to claim something like "abstraction but no existence";
   I'm going to say, If something has no existence, it will not be
   generative of things in the material universe.

   Given the existence of a noetic realm, the whole atheist (as distinct
   from agnostic) position pretty quickly falls apart."

   Comment by Todd | January 12, 2009

9. Empiricism can make no reliable statement concerning any object of higher technological capability than the experimenter.

   Perfectly true, but then… so what? Empiricism doesn't address that, Occam's Razor does. There are a literally infinite number of possible omnipotent (or at least more-potent-than-us) entities that could be hiding in your left eyebrow right now, using their mojo to mask their presence. Which ones do you believe in, if any? If, by definition, there is no possible way to detect them, that specifically means that there is no way to tell the difference between a world where they exist and world where they don't. A difference which makes no difference is, well, no difference.

   Once you start postulating that such an entity (or entities) actually affects something we can observe, though… then we start getting into the realm of empiricism. At which point, we can start making emprirical statements about it, even if incomplete. (Newton's physics didn't explain how gravity acted at a distance, it simply recognized the effect and described how it behaved. The 'how' had to wait until Einstein, who raised new questions…) Note that all religions I'm aware of actually do posit such effects, if only effects on the initial conditions of the universe.

   What I'm thinking is that there is no way to answer this question without conceding the existence of a *noetic* (mental or conceptual) realm.

   Er… only sort of. One doesn't have to go whole-hog into Platonism to accept the notion of different ontological levels. Does a waterfall or a tornado exist as such, or are they things that water and air do?

   Given the existence of a noetic realm, the whole atheist (as distinct from agnostic) position pretty quickly falls apart.

   That, however, needs to be fleshed out. How, exactly?

   Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

10. You guys are truly verbose, but let me try to tackle a few things here. First, Alan opposes naturalism and ties it with liberalism. This is an error akin to insisting on prayer to Jesus in schools. Some conservatives, such as Ayn Rand and her followers are atheists. I fact I’ve met many who claim to be Objectivists, but were really just atheists who were uncomfortable saying so directly. They use many of the same arguments as the naturalists described here.

    Second; PEJ writes “It’s kind of silly to think that because we can figure out how some things might work, we’ve somehow disproved the notion that God created them in the first place.” To that I say: Absolutely!
    A few years ago, I attended some meetings held by an Objectivist discussion group. At one meeting, the question of belief in God was the subject. We were asked to answer with a raising of hands if we believed in God. I was the only one to raise my hand and I was surprised by the reactions. One fellow asked me for my proof. My reply was that I could not prove anything to him and that it was only necessary for me to know for myself. Of course I have proof, through revelation, but I am sure you would not accept such proof because it does not fit your paradigm.

    And lastly: RI writes “Why do you call it "God" – and thereby bring in all the historic baggage accreted onto that word – while at the same time claiming to dispense with all the baggage? Why not call it, say, "X", or "Alpha"?"
    To me the word God is simply a convenience. X, Alpha, Omega, Thor, Zeus, or Seth make no difference. I would even accept that symbol used by the singer formerly known as Prince. I bring no baggage that is created by man, only the witness of my own experience.

    Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 13, 2009

11. Raymond, as I said before, these discussions usually end up as parallel conversations.

    You have no problem using colloquial English to state "I define the supernatural as the 'unknowable'", and back that idea up with a scientific analysis of space aliens! But when it comes to the common sense observation that "probability isn't certainty", it's rejected by you because I'm relying on "translations into colloquial English of concepts expressed in mathematical terms."

    Reality to you is only what can be scientifically measured. For me, the concept of love is as real as the concept of a soul or the belief that God created the universe. I can't scientifically prove that love exists (as opposed to simple biological imperatives or a variant of human lust.) But I and everyone else on the planet know the difference between biology and love, even if there is no scientific test to prove it.

    The truth about the existence of love is not dependent on man’s ability to define or measure it scientifically. Just as the truth about the existence of a creator of the Universe (God) is not dependent on man’s ability to define or measure that scientifically. Truth exists independent of whether we can measure or fully comprehend it. But thanks to our God-given ability to reason, we can be aware of its presence.

    Which gets back to my central observation. For all your supposed scientifically-inspired analysis, you still can't explain how nothing creates something, except to be absolutely certain it isn't God. And you can't understand how reality can transcend the limitations of the human mind — or even understand how the human mind can have limitations — but I'd bet you're willing to accept the fact that even if my dog's mind isn't capable of grasping astrophysics, it proves nothing about the fact that stars and planets exist.

    Human beings aren't the reason for reality. They didn't create it, and they — and they alone — don't determine what is real and what isn't. Thanks to our advanced minds (relative to a dog's) we can figure some things out that Fido can't. But the ultimate truth of an issue isn't dependent on man's ability to grasp it. Just as a car is more than the sum of its individual parts, truth is more than a scientific-method understanding of each constituent element; particularly when there's still the question of what created it all.

    [If it makes you feel better, you can call God, the creator of the Universe, "X" or "Alpha" as you suggested. I don't think God really cares what you call Him. If all it takes to disprove atheism is to refer to God as "Mr. X" or the "Alpha God", then we can all save ourselves a lot of wasted time debating. Somehow, though, I think this won't satisfy you and others who hold out the equally valid (in your mind) possibility that the universe just up and decided to create itself one day because, in the words of the New York State lottery, "you never know".]

    Once again, I believe that something (God) created the universe. You call this supernatural, and equate it with saints curing heart attacks because you continue to disprove or reject the existence of God by referring to man's invention: religion.

    Instead, as a rational human being, you think the Universe just decided to exist one day (assuming there were no space aliens around to create it), and you call this science.

    My supernatural has more logical consistency and inherent credibility than your science.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

12. Everyone is agnostic. The word is useless.
    Gnostic refers to knowing. Agnostic simply means not knowing.
    Nobody, not theist or atheist can know for certain about the existence or non existence of a deity.
    If we are honest, we are all agnostic.
    Anyone who says he/she knows for sure is either a fool or is lying.

    Words – Mere Muffled Muted Metaphors Mocking Meaning
    By Marilyn LaCourt

    In Time Magazine, November 13, 2006, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said religion answers the why questions, the meaning of life questions.

    This is how Collins finds the meaning of life. First he says, “God could have activated evolution…” So far he sounds like a 19th century deist, content to leave it at that. But then he goes on, “with full knowledge of how it would turn out”. When asked, about belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection, he answered, “if you believe in a God that is outside of nature, why couldn’t that God invade the natural world with miracles?” And, “I don’t think it’s God’s purpose to make everything absolutely obvious to us. It would not have been sensible for Him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal His role in creation.”

    Let me see if I have this right. Collins believes there is a God that created the universe, a belief for which there is no reliable evidence, and he knows that his God thinks, what his God thinks and that his God would not do something that wasn’t sensible. Oh yes, it’s all based on reason. It seems to me he reasons that if he were this God of his, this is what he would think and do. I guess once you take that leap of faith anything goes. Sounds more like making meaning than it does like finding meaning to me.

    Michael Shermer, author of “Why People Believe Weird Things” says, and I agree, we’re asking the wrong questions. “What meaning does the universe have? None.” He goes on, “A star is just a blob of plasma. Of course it has no meaning; it’s just atoms doing what they do under heat and pressure. So the meaning comes from what we put into life, what we make of it.”

    Many smart and foolish people spend all their years on earth searching for the meaning of life, assuming there is one. Others understand and accept that we make our own meanings; we collectively adjudicate social reality, cultures, and religions.

    We use language to make meaning, individually and collectively. We use words in an effort to understand and be understood, to deceive, to predict, and to control. Language is a living system created and recreated by people. We are both constrained and freed by our language.

    We’re born into a culture with a language that shapes our reality. It’s been said that we cannot have an experience for which we don’t have words. The language we’re taught shapes the meaning we attribute to our experience. At the same time we continuously change our language to fit our experience.

    The difference between the dictionary and the Bible is that the dictionary is a living work in process; it reflects the constantly changing meanings we attribute to the words we create. The Bible, on the other hand, is the final word. But then, God did not write the dictionary.

    A student of mine once said to a fellow classmate, “The Bible speaks dead language, as dead as it can be. First it killed the infidels and now it’s killing thee.”

    Sometimes words appear to take on a life of their own, and let me tell you, we have a bully on the block. The word ‘faith’ is shoving the word ‘trust’ out of the neighborhood. There are no shots fired, and there are no broken bones. The bullying is subtle, coercive, political, subversive, and insidious.

    Faith and trust used to share equal status in our language. Older dictionaries clearly differentiate between these words. The word faith was used to describe how a belief is accepted without evidence, and the word trust was used to describe how a belief is accepted based on probabilities and evidence. Newer dictionaries blur these distinctions and today’s thesaurus suggests that the words mean essentially the same thing.

    In the current political climate it is forbidden to criticize the bully faith. Recent polls indicate that atheists are the most hated minority in our country. Why? Because we don’t have faith and we don’t accept faith’s baggage, religion. Faith good. Doubt bad. Trust, a useless word, rendered impotent by faith and with it respect for atheists has been kicked out of the realm of probabilities.

    As faith gained status as a good buzzword used by politicians, mainstream Americans began rolling it off their tongues as automatically as they say under god in the pledge. Unfortunately, the faith and trust words are used interchangeably by nearly everyone, even by atheists.

    Recently I heard a friend of mine, an atheist, say, “I have faith in my son. He is a good person.” I have no doubt that this friend trusts his son based on evidence and probabilities, but the word faith rolled off his tongue quite casually.

    ‘Faith’ is a powerful bully that theists use to discredit atheists. A seemingly harmless little word is used to deceive and control. School board members accuse scientists of having faith in evolution. In one step, with one little word, they position evolution and creationism/intelligent design in the same science classroom, each having equal status.

    I cringe whenever I hear someone say, “I have no faith in our current administration.” We have plenty of evidence upon which to base our lack of trust, and the probabilities indicate they will continue to operate in the corrupt manner to which they have become accustomed. Faith has nothing to do with it.

    There are atheists who would like to clean up our image as the most hated minority in the country. They say, “Look, we’re not so different from you good people of faith. We believe in some of the same things you do”. Saying stuff like that has theists jumping up down, pointing fingers, and saying gocha. “See you do have faith, and atheism is just a different religion.” In the words of Rodney Dangerfield, “We don’t get no respect.”

    Of course atheists have beliefs. What atheists don’t have is faith.

    How do we hold some beliefs without knowing? First we must carefully separate the Siamese twin words named believing and knowing.

    I know and I believe the cars have stopped at the red light and allowed me to cross the street safely only after I have reached the other side of the street unharmed. I believe without knowing the cars will stop and allow me to cross safely based on probabilities. It’s trust, not faith that gets me from one side of the street to the other. Faith requires neither probabilities nor evidence.

    I trust certain people based on their track record or on their reputation. I don’t know that my husband will never cheat on me. I believe that he won’t because experience tells me he is a person who honors his commitments, a person who understands the risks of STD’s, and he has a 30-year track record for being true to his marriage vows. I do not have faith in my husband, I trust him.

    For an atheist, belief is the acceptance that a statement is probably true. We cannot know that a statement is actually true without concrete evidence or until after the event.

    While the word faith has become the bully on the block, agnostic is the disingenuous wimp. Thomas Huxley did us no favors when he coined the word agnostic because a useless concept has been given status and power it doesn’t deserve. Gnostic means knowing. Agnostic means not knowing, plain and simple. The Gnostics claimed they had secret knowledge about the supernatural. Huxley claimed to have no such knowledge. The Gnostics claimed to have knowledge and hinted at evidence to support their claim, but nobody has ever produced such evidence. That is unless Dan Brown’s fiction about Mary Magdalene being the pregnant wife of Jesus turns out to be true. Still there is no evidence that Jesus was god in the first place. Knowledge of a supernatural can only be claimed through belief without evidence, faith.

    When asked, “Do you ‘believe’ in God?” in my opinion, those who answer, “I’m agnostic,” wimp out. They are disingenuous; they don’t answer the question as asked, or perhaps they are simply ignorant about the formal meaning of the word and its concept.

    The question is; do you believe in God? Not, do you know God? They are being asked if they have faith; do they believe something for which there is no evidence.

    When asked, “Do you believe in Thor?” most people, theists and atheists, answer, “No”. We don’t have a word for not knowing Thor because, nobody knows Thor, and nobody claims to know Thor. There is no evidence, and the probabilities of Thor’s existence are nil. The same is true for God. Who knows God? Nobody knows God. There is no evidence to date. In that sense, everybody is agnostic regardless of what they claim to know. The word is useless.

    Theists honestly say it like it is. Belief in God requires faith. A word that clearly differentiates between believers in God and those who do not believe in God is atheist. The preface a means not. For example, an atheist is not a theist. Theists believe there is a God, without evidence. Atheists do not believe without evidence. Contrary to what some claim, atheists are not against theism. If and when there is evidence to support the claim that there is a god, atheists will trust the evidence and believe there is a supernatural.

    There’s a difference between believing something exists and believing something is valuable, something to be achieved. Of course we good atheists believe in all the good moral stuff good people of faith believe in, freedom, love, loyalty, justice, charity, etc. These are values we embrace, something positive to be achieved. We do not believe in God, gods, fairies, ghosts, heaven, hell, or being coerced into good behavior out of fear.

    I like to think an atheist is a person who believes in telling the truth and taking responsibility for our deeds, both the good and the bad.

    Sometimes we make mistakes by believing something because we reason there will be a positive outcome based on evidence and probabilities. Sometimes we call the shots wrong and we lose. Cars sometimes hit people, even when they cross with the light. However, acting on faith (without evidence) is always a mistake even when we get lucky and the outcome is the one we were seeking.

    Reason is a sticky wicket of a word. Richard Dawkins and other scientists use the word reason as a noun meaning the antithesis, the opposite or the antonym of superstition, delusion and religion, eg., unfounded conclusions based on faulty evidence. I’ve checked dictionaries and thesauruses and to date, I can’t find an antonym for superstition or religion listed. Perhaps if the word is used frequently, and in prominent places, as a noun and the meaning attributed is the antithesis of religion and superstition, it might find a home in the company of antonyms in future versions of those reference sources.

    In the mean time, however reason, or reasoning, the verb, is commonly used to represent thinking, problem solving, and making meaning. In the verb sense, many religious people reason as well as the most knowledgeable atheist. Nobody could fault Collins for his inability to reason. The problem is that his reasoning begins with faulty premises. Once you accept the premise that life has meaning, you reason that you can find the meaning. Once you accept the groundless premise that God created the universe, once you take that leap of faith, anything goes. “Why couldn’t He have worked miracles? Why couldn’t He have given us a road map?”

    Reasoning can take us down a slippery slope. Alister McGrath states in “The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World”, “The belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God.” McGrath reasons, “If “faith” is defined as “belief lying beyond proof”, both Christianity and atheism are faiths.” Therefore atheism is a religion.

    Yes, and atheists have faith in evolution. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? I guess some folks reason that you can have it both ways.

    Atheists would do well to take a lesson from scientists and engineers who would not think of communicating with each other about a theory or a bridge without coming as close as possible to a precise definition of terms that is agreed upon by all who participate in the conversation.

    Trust is a good word. We should use it. Agnostic is a useless word. We should dump it. Knowing and believing are not Siamese twins. Believing something exists or something is true is different from believing in something valuable, something to be achieved. Reasoning, the verb, should begin with premises that are probably true based on evidence.

    However muffled, muted and mocking they are, words are still the best tools we posses if we want to understand and be understood, to live and let live in some measure of harmony with other human beings. Let’s hope we can come close enough for all practical purposes.

    Comment by LaCourt | January 13, 2009

13. PEJ writes: "Human beings aren't the reason for reality. They didn't create it, and they — and they alone — don't determine what is real and what isn't."

    I agree with most of what you said, but I beleive that the world is, or was, created for man, by man with the assistance of God. Not really man, but souls that were missing something and went to God for help. God suggested that the missing component was "Free Will" and they said "Yes, that's true. What should we do?" The rest is history, so I'll leave it to you and the space aliens to fill in the blanks.

    Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 13, 2009

14. Lacourt. Another great example of why it is meaningless to discuss the existence of God by discussing religion. They are not the same things.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

15. "Empiricism can make no reliable statement concerning any object of higher technological capability than the experimenter.
    ———————————-
    Perfectly true, but then… so what? Empiricism doesn't address that, Occam's Razor does. There are a literally infinite number of possible omnipotent (or at least more-potent-than-us) entities that could be hiding in your left eyebrow right now, using their mojo to mask their presence. Which ones do you believe in, if any? If, by definition, there is no possible way to detect them, that specifically means that there is no way to tell the difference between a world where they exist and world where they don't. A difference which makes no difference is, well, no difference."

    First, Occam's Razor is no law of physics; it doesn't even approach that status. It's simply an intellectual hygiene for scientists, hewing them to scientific method. Applied to a discussion about deity, it quickly becomes circular thinking.

    More crucially, there certainly ARE means to detect them: revelation, insight, yoga, and other entirely spiritual experiences. As recorded in holy books and human experience since the dawn of time. It's simply that those means aren't empirical. There's plenty of evidence in those holy books that deity prefers to engage human beings selectively, individually, and for the purpose of our edification – NOT to satisfy our curiosity about the contents of the universe. That the universe, when observed empirically, behaves in accordance with this (ie, we cannot empirically detect deity) is a telling consistency.

    About "a difference that makes no difference": here you run up against the evidence that suggests that religious people flourish, when compared to the irreligious, whether measured in terms of happiness or (more objectively) *demographically*.

    Given deity's proclivity to reveal itself to individual human beings, it makes sense that the study of human beings (those who accept deity vs. those that do not) is an apt, and indeed, sole appropriate empirical measure of deity's presence. Not unlike our detection of certain heavenly bodies based upon their effect upon other, nearby heavenly bodies. One can make statements such as, "The difference between a world in which they exist and a world in which they do not can discerned through a perusal of the demographics of Utah vs. those of white Europeans."

    I chose the term "beings of higher technological capability" rather strictly. It points to a fissure between reason and empiricism. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Carl Sagan knows that reason dictates the presence of billions (and billions!) of intelligent life forms, many of which must certainly exceed our capacity. Yet we have empirically detected none. Likewise, God(s) have been reasoned to exist since at least Plato. With none "detected." What's wrong here? What does Occam's Razor say about our failure to detect advanced alien civilizations?

    ————————–

    "What I'm thinking is that there is no way to answer this question without conceding the existence of a *noetic* (mental or conceptual) realm.

    Er… only sort of. One doesn't have to go whole-hog into Platonism to accept the notion of different ontological levels. Does a waterfall or a tornado exist as such, or are they things that water and air do?"

    Yes. A waterfall and a tornado both exist as such. You'll find no triangle.

    "Given the existence of a noetic realm, the whole atheist (as distinct from agnostic) position pretty quickly falls apart.

    That, however, needs to be fleshed out. How, exactly?"

    Because it demonstrates the *existence* of an *intangible*, of something in itself undetectable. The existence of something beyond phenomenological detection. Concede that, and you concede the ground upon which Gods walk.

    Does the Pythagorean theorem *exist*? I will say, yes, it does. But you can't see it, touch it. Existence has realms beyond the physical.

    Comment by Todd | January 13, 2009

16. Ivan – “It’s kind of silly to think that because we can figure out how some things might work, we’ve somehow disproved the notion that God created them in the first place.” To that I say: Absolutely!

    And to that I say: Thankfully that's not what people actually say. The problem is that people – even scientists – have always come up on the limit of what was then known, and invoked God's direct action. Only, later on, it was discovered that that didn't need direct miraculous intervention. But, beyond the new boundary, surely God was acting… until the next advance in understanding.

    As I noted, I'm not aware of anything that's gone from the "explained" column to the "supernatural" column. The flow seems to be all in one direction. Can you provide a counterexample?

    That doesn't mean God doesn't (or gods don't) exist. It just means that, historically, it's seems like God's domain always seems to be "stuff we don't understand yet".

    To me the word God is simply a convenience. X, Alpha, Omega, Thor, Zeus, or Seth make no difference.

    My question was addressed to Dr. Jackson – and still has not really been answered. Since he claims to want to separate out the 'existence' question from the 'properties' question, and religions are all about the 'properties', I can't understand why he uses the same word to refer to both concepts, muddying the waters.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

17. > To me the word God is simply a convenience. X, Alpha, Omega, Thor, Zeus, or Seth make no difference.

    > My question was addressed to Dr. Jackson – and still has not really been answered.

    Raymond: you need to hone your reading skills.

    Comment 11: If it makes you feel better, you can call God, the creator of the Universe, "X" or "Alpha" as you suggested. I don't think God really cares what you call Him. If all it takes to disprove atheism is to refer to God as "Mr. X" or the "Alpha God", then we can all save ourselves a lot of wasted time debating. Somehow, though, I think this won't satisfy you and others who hold out the equally valid (in your mind) possibility that the universe just up and decided to create itself one day because, in the words of the New York State lottery, "you never know".

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

18. It’s always interesting to see modern day atheists/”scientists” challenge the notion that God exists. They do this by pointing to aspects of religious philosophy or theory, showcasing any doubt about the accuracy of that belief, and extrapolating from this the conclusion that God does not exist.

    Einstein, just to pull a random name out of the hat of a guy who considered himself to be a scientist, framed the issue this way. “Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. The firm belief, which is bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind revealing himself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God, which may, therefore be described in common parlance as `pantheistic' (Spinoza). “ Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1955, p. 131.

    ***
    More on this from http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm :

    Einstein was often asked, "Do you believe in God?", to which he sometimes replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being". "By God", Spinoza wrote at the very beginning of his Ethica, "I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality". Proposition XV of the Ethica stated: "Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."

    Einstein certainly held, as his constant appeal to God showed, that without God nothing can be known, but what did he really mean by his appeal to Spinoza? Once in answer to the question "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

    I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

    ***

    Einstein saw the wisdom of believing that a “higher order” — let’s call him “Mr. X.” — created the universe. He understood that this discussion gravitates toward/inspires discussions of religion, but is not religion in and of itself.

    For Spinoza, God was synonymous with nature. [Thus my offer to Raymond in comment #6 “If it makes you feel better to think that the Universe itself is God instead of relying on saints and cavemen to grasp the concept, go for it.”]

    What we all think is irrelevant anyway to the ultimate truth of the issue. I don't define God any more than anyone else does. What I DO do, is acknowledge that the universe has a creator, and did not simply decide to come into being by itself.

    While Einstein and I can agree on this, Raymond can’t.

    This is what we call in political science arguing a point from a “hidden agenda”. There is nothing that can be said to Raymond that would allow him to form the same conclusion Einstein did, and that tells you everything you need to know about Raymond’s position.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

19. You have no problem using colloquial English to state "I define the supernatural as the 'unknowable'", and back that idea up with a scientific analysis of space aliens!

    Please quote my 'scientific' analysis of space aliens. I didn't realize it was publishable.

    This stuff usually devolves into parallel conversations because I state pretty clearly what I think, and then other people ignore that and tell me what I actually think. Case in point: But when it comes to the common sense observation that "probability isn't certainty", it's rejected by you because I'm relying on "translations into colloquial English of concepts expressed in mathematical terms."

    You specifically brought up 'unknowability' in the sense of QM, and I specifically pointed out that that doesn't work because QM is, well, very weird and "common sense" doesn't apply. "Particles" aren't really particles (or waves), and (assuming QM is in fact an accurate description of reality, and it works to many, many decimal places in every area we've managed to test so far) don't have a position or velocity in the English sense of the term. It's no failure to not know about something that doesn't exist.

    Meanwhile, I've been very clear that by "unknowable", I mean unknowable in principle, "beyond the grasp of human understanding." Not just in this discussion, but here and here, both of which you've seen before. (Indeed, the phrase "beyond the grasp of human understanding" is from the former, and I know you read that, or at least you replied to it.)

    For all your supposed scientifically-inspired analysis, you still can't explain how nothing creates something, except to be absolutely certain it isn't God.

    Here's a prime example of someone telling me what I think rather than actually reading what I write, since I have never stated that at any point. Indeed, I have explicitly stated the opposite. (Feel free to produce a contrary quote of mine – there's a $15 donation to the charity of your choice at stake if you're successful.)

    What I have stated – very clearly – is that it's not even settled that the universe was created. From our limited experience – as I, y'know, explicitly said in this discussion here – mass/energy doesn't ever seem to be created or destroyed. It meets every experimental test we could can come up with for something 'eternal'.

    Here's another example of me being very clear, specifically to you, specifically about this issue: And, for at least the "1001st time", Dr. Jackson, I do not assume "that the universe simply exists, needs no beginning", and I can't imagine how much more clearly I could possibly state it. What I have (repeatedly) said is that I don't know how or if the universe arose, and I've seen no compelling reason to think anyone else knows, either.

    I would call myself "agnostic" on this point, except that "agnostic" has the connotation of being unable to ever know, that the question is undecidable. I think that we might eventually have enough data to test various hypotheses, including "universe was created" and "universe always existed". I think we just don't know yet.

    And you can't understand how reality can transcend the limitations of the human mind — or even understand how the human mind can have limitations…

    Another example of being told what I think rather than reading my explicit statements. I've admitted openly that there may well be things we can't understand. Let me quote from that same work you replied to: "Now, it may be true that there exist subjects that actually are unknowable, and therefore not amenable to scientific inquiry, but the above examples would seem to urge caution before making confident pronouncements on that score. Personally, I'm not convinced there's ever a time to declare something 'unknowable.' If one decides that something is 'unknowable,' one will stop trying to understand it."

    My actual point is not that the "unknowable" cannot exist. My actual point is that the notion has no practical utility whatsoever. Even if it's true… that's useless to us. Another quote: "How does one, in practice, distinguish between something 'currently unknown but comprehensible' and something 'forever unknowable?'… From a practical perspective, the only way to tell which category something falls into is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can't conclude that it's unknowable. It might be, but it might also be the case that you just didn't happen to figure out something knowable, and you or someone else might have better luck on a subsequent attempt."

    Like technologically advanced aliens living undetectably in our eyebrows, the notion of "beyond human comprehension" is worthless. All we can ever do is try to understand things. Some things we'll figure out. Some we won't, but we'll never, ever be able to tell what things we "can't understand", versus "don't yet understand".

    (I decline the invitation to rehash our discussion about love from before.)

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

20. Dr. Jackson – Here's the actual question: "Since he claims to want to separate out the 'existence' question from the 'properties' question, and religions are all about the 'properties', I can't understand why he uses the same word to refer to both concepts, muddying the waters."

    Seriously: Since using the term "God" is only going to sow confusion among the people you're ostensibly trying to reach with your distinction, why persist in doing so?

    If it makes you feel better, you can call God, the creator of the Universe, "X" or "Alpha" as you suggested. I don't think God really cares what you call Him.

    See, there's the thing. You're trying to work on an existence proof. (Consider – a man starts climbing a mountain at 9am, and reaches the peak at 5pm, then camps overnight. The next day, he starts descending leisurely at 9am, and reaches his starting point at 5am. It's easy to show that there must exist a point on the mountain and a time where the man was in exactly the same point at the same time of day. However, without a lot more data we only know such a point exists, we can't say anything about where and when that point was.)

    You think you've got an existence proof (though I obviously disagree, for all the reasons I've pointed out before). Even if you're right, it says nothing whatsoever about the traits of that entity. Essentially every religion in history's consistent with it (including the polytheistic ones), as well as all kinds of other hypotheses.

    It's like people have long believed in the Midline, where the guy was at the same point around noon each day, halfway up the mountain. But while you've proved there was a common point, calling it the Midline brings up a lot of other ideas (noon, halfway up the mountain) that just aren't established by that proof.

    If you're actually trying to convince people, I can't understand why you wouldn't first worry about getting to "Alpha", and then work on showing (by other considerations) that gee, "Alpha" probably has this trait, and that trait, and interestingly, these are traits commonly ascribed to "God" in these types of religions…

    It's not a question about the proof. (Again, I have other problems with that.) It's a question about your rhetoric (and by extension, your intent).

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

21. (Whoops, of course the second one is meant to be "5pm". Ah, well.)

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

22. Raymond: I think I got it.

    The universe didn’t create itself. Which means, it needs a Creator. But, we can’t understand what the word “create” means (your Comment #4), so there’s nothing we can really say about the existence of God, because some religions believe things that aren’t scientifically correct (Saints and cavemen).

    So, while the universe didn’t create itself, God didn’t either, because there’s no proof that God exists, even if we call him “Mr. X” instead of God. So, all we know is that we exist within a universe that was not created but exists, even though it didn’t create itself, because all we can say is “I dunno.”

    Oh, and we can’t discuss whether other things like “love” are real because, well, we don’t even understand what love really is, so how can we discuss it? So like the universe, it simultaneously exists and doesn’t, depending upon which point you need to support.

    I think I got it. Now, explain it to Einstein.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

23. Todd: First, Occam's Razor is no law of physics; it doesn't even approach that status. It's simply an intellectual hygiene for scientists, hewing them to scientific method.

    It's a bit more than that. It's a necessary principle of reason. Without it, you have no way to limit your theories from multiplying without bound. Look at any conspiracy theorist for concrete examples. Dr. Jackson likes to quote Einstein, apparently, so I don't feel presumptuous in pointing out his paraphrase, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

    About "a difference that makes no difference": here you run up against the evidence that suggests that religious people flourish, when compared to the irreligious, whether measured in terms of happiness or (more objectively) *demographically*.

    Correlation does not imply causation. Minorities of all stripes tend to do less well in a society compared to the majority, "demographically", but that doesn't mean that minorities are on average inherently unable to do better (or even that minorities are consciously "held down"). It's also worth noting that these correlations tend to hold regardless of the actual religion involved, even when the religions have radically different conceptions of 'deity'. A hypothesis that might account for that would be "believing in something is of some benefit (on average), but it doesn't really matter what". In other words, the belief provides the benefit, not what's believed in. All the evidence I've seen so far is consistent with that – a large placebo effect, if you will.

    What does Occam's Razor say about our failure to detect advanced alien civilizations?

    Actually, several things.

    Because it demonstrates the *existence* of an *intangible*, of something in itself undetectable. The existence of something beyond phenomenological detection.

    Again, things can 'exist' on other ontological levels. But they don't 'exist' in the way physical objects do. The fact that certain postulates have inevitable consequences doesn't mean that they 'exist' as such. Are you talking about a Euclidean triangle, a hyperbolic triangle, or an elliptical triangle?

    Consider the set of all possible books that you could write. Some of them you may write; the Vast majority neither you nor anyone else will ever write. In what sense can it be said that they 'exist'?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

24. Raymond, if it isn't clear by now, no one believes that you've come to your conclusions objectively and scientifically. The big clue is your constant interchange of religious beliefs with the question of whether God exists. You always end up arguing your case against religion (which may or may not have gotten any/all of the “details” about God right). Discussions of religion are not the same things as discussions about the existence of God.

    People (even atheists) believe a lot of things that they can’t always prove scientifically. Einstein believed that a higher power was behind the creation of the universe. This didn’t require him to impose Judeo-Christian tenants on his scientific analyses. It was simply an acknowledgment that man has limitations in his ability to comprehend that which the Creator created (see comment 18 about books in the library).

    You’re so busy fighting against a straw man — that somehow the Church or religiously-motivated politicians — will quash scientific inquiry, that you can’t even see that I hold this same position on this matter (see my comment #1). But unlike you, I don’t take this to the illogical extreme and actually maintain that we can posit absolutely nothing about the existence of God.

    When you profess that we can’t even discuss love without the same level of confusion, and that the best we can say about the origin of the universe is “I dunno”, it rings hollow. We draw lots of conclusions about life and nature from incomplete, even contradictory observations. What distinguishes these from more complete and less contradictory observations are these very qualifying statements. We don’t simply say “I dunno” because we can’t fully understand the workings of QM. We instead talk about probabilities and theories.

    And so it is with the existence of God (the question on the table: not what does God look like, what does he think, how does he act or not act, what are His Commandments, etc.). It’s the simple question: do you believe that God (or X or Alpha — the creator of the Universe) exists?

    Your answer is no. And thus you begin your analysis from that point. I hold the opposite belief that God exists, and begin mine from that point.

    The difference is that I acknowledge my belief. You maintain that yours is not a belief, but simply the outcome of a neutral, unbiased scientific inquiry.

    And yet when your wife asks “do you love me?”, I doubt seriously that you engage in an extended discussion about love, agape, phila, or any one of the other dodges you use to avoid answering my questions.

    Like Einstein, I can believe that God exists and created the universe, and then use the scientific method (the logic of man’s God-given mind) to appreciate how it works to the limits of human reasoning. No adherence to a religious doctrine is required for this.

    But unlike Einstein, all you can say is “I dunno”, and that since God cannot be scientifically measured, you personally cannot believe that God exists. And besides, if God exists, you presumably believe that religion will rule science, which is a — dare I say — belief on your part, and not an absolute certainty. Otherwise, why are you always arguing against the existence of God by arguing against religion?

    Atheism is not a requirement of scientific analysis, as Einstein showed. It’s only a requirement if you don’t want to believe that there is a higher intelligence than man that gave rise to the universe in the first place.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

25. Dr. Jackson – I'm really mystified.

    I've said that I don't know if the universe was created or not. I never, ever said the universe "was not created". At most, I've said that we exist in a universe that may or may not have been created, I'm not sure and haven't seen anything that can be used to decide the issue yet. I've even said that the closest word to my position is "agnostic". I'm loath to believe your misrepresentation is willful. Perhaps you are simply unable to conceive of someone reserving judgement on the issue?

    As I stated in the web page I linked to before:
    "I am generally what is called on the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism a 'weak atheist'. That is to say, lacking any convincing evidence, I don't believe in God(s). In general, I take the position of not(believe(God)). Obviously I haven't investigated every religion in detail, but lacking any convincing evidence, I return the Scottish verdict of "not proven".

    On the other hand, of the religions I have investigated, I have specific reasons for rejecting them. In particular, for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judeo/Christian/Islamic conceptions of 'God'), I believe them to be internally inconsistent and illogical. In these specific cases, I take the position of believe(not(God))."

    I'm aware of the distinction you're trying to make between existence in general of an entity, and specific propositions about an entity. I have been for at least a decade, but I can show that I've been since 2004. This shouldn't be a surprise to you. I have problems will all the propositions I've seen so far (religions), so I can be 'atheist' with respect to them. On the general notion of existence of God(s), I'm not agnostic, but sort of "non-gnostic". I don't think it's impossible to know, but I don't think we know yet.

    Let me ask you a question: What if the universe always existed, and had no beginning? What would that mean for your existence proof?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

26. By the way, is the irony lost on anyone that the man who "invented" Occam's Razor was the Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.

    I may be wrong, but I don't think this guy was an atheist.

    So, applying Occam's Razor to William of Ockham's own belief sets, is there any other conclusion than God exists?

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

27. Oh, Dr. Jackson, you never did answer this question: "What would you characterize as the essential difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural', if I may ask?"

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

28. >I'm really mystified. I've said that I don't know if the universe was created or not. I never, ever said the universe "was not created". At most, I've said that we exist in a universe that may or may not have been created … I've even said that the closest word to my position is "agnostic".

    We have another term for this in political science: Weasel words. If you will accept the possibility that the universe was not created, then you accept the possibility that it always existed, which means it … what? It was never created. No creation, no Creator.

    I guess depending upon how hyper technical you want to get about the term “agnostic”, you can say it means anything from full blown atheism to a belief in God without an adherence to a formal religion. So, let’s stop the hyper technical word games about love or phila, atheist or just a really-really-really strong agnostic, and cut to the chase.

    I haven't left open the possibility that God may or may not have created the universe. I've only left open the questions of the details of who/what God is, because like you, I don't believe that's directly knowable by man.

    I think you only hold one belief, not the two possibilities you said you embrace (“At most, I've said that we exist in a universe that may or may not have been created …”). I don’t think there is any circumstance which you could defend the possibility that God exists, and created the universe.

    Have the courage of your convictions, Raymond, a say what you believe. There is no God, period, end of discussion. Which means, the universe created itself, because God is "The Creator of the Universe".

    Of course, I may be wrong. You may honestly hold out the option that "we exist in a universe that may have been created." If so, let hear your arguments for that proposition. I want to hear how the universe was created without God [a higher intelligence or Mr. X] creating the Universe. [If our universe came from another universe, who created that one?]

    And, I want to hear you defend this point in view of your contention that God cannot be scientifically proven, and what you said in comment 7: “assuming something is beyond human comprehension – which is what you, too, are doing with the concept of 'supernatural' since you explicitly use the phrase ‘limitations of the human mind’ – can never be justified. It's a useless concept.”

    You don’t believe in God. That’s atheism, not agnosticism as the phrase is commonly employed. No on e is condemning you for your beliefs. This is America, and you can believe what you want to believe. Just don’t tell us you accept the possibility that God created the Universe as a theoretically plausible explanation, when you really don’t,

    If the only difference between our positions is that I say "God" and you say "X", and we both acknowledge that this higher power is the source of all creation (and, like Einstein posited, that higher power is eternal and infinite; i.e. what we think of when we say the word "God"), then like I said an earlier comment, there’s nothing really more for you and I to discuss.

    But the fact that you want it both ways (“I never, ever said the universe ‘was not created’. At most, I've said that we exist in a universe that may or may not have been created …), makes me go back to the conclusions I raised in Comment 24.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

29. "What would you characterize as the essential difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

    Raymond. The only time I’ve ever used the word “supernatural” is to comment on you imposing that word on a discussion of the existence of God by referring to matters of religious faith.

    It’s not a word I use to describe what I believe about the existence of God. Since I take no ownership of the word, my only interest is in exposing the sleight of hand some people employ by using it to discuss religious teachings when the subject matter of a discussion is whether God exists.

    If you have any questions about words that I actually use, like “Constitution” “immoral,” “God”, etc., I’m happy to clarify any confusion for you. But please don’t ask me to make sense out of your misuse of language to confuse discussions about the existence of God with saints, cavemen and space aliens.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

30. ROTFLMAO

    "And yet when your wife asks “do you love me?”, I doubt seriously that you engage in an extended discussion about love, agape, phila, or any one of the other dodges you use to avoid answering my questions."

    I'm just imagining how far into this extended discussion any of us would get before she said "SO, you DON'T love me, do you!"

    I think Mr. X is laughing now too. Maybe that's why we are here. Sort of Seinfeld reruns for God.

    Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 13, 2009

31. I'm coming in late to the party, luckily. That way I was able to avoid the typical procession of "Raymond Ingles tangents."

    How many times can it be said? God and religion are not synonymous! Mr. Ingles says, "On the other hand, of the religions I have investigated, I have specific reasons for rejecting them. In particular, for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judeo/Christian/Islamic conceptions of 'God'), I believe them to be internally inconsistent and illogical. In these specific cases, I take the position of believe(not(God))."

    I'll say again, God and religion are not synonymous!

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 13, 2009

32. Have the courage of your convictions, Raymond, a[nd] say what you believe. There is no God, period, end of discussion.

    Like I said, "I state pretty clearly what I think, and then other people ignore that and tell me what I actually think." Oy.

    BTW, please cite exactly where I contended that 'God couldn't be scientifically proven'. An html link would be preferred if you can manage it, but just the words and a description of where you found it would be helpful. (Hint: All I've ever said is that God hasn't been scientifically proven. See for example here: "It's not that God is ruled out because It could not be observed, should It choose to act in an amenable manner.".)

    It's true that I don't believe Gods exist. But that's not the same thing as believing that no type of God whatsoever might exist (There is no God, period, end of discussion). I'm as sure as I can be that the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that I'm convinced that "the universe created itself".

    I actively disbelieve in the Gods of the various religions I've encountered. By some definitions, that makes me an atheist.

    I don't think we know enough about universes to know how – or if – they begin. (For an example of a cosmology that doesn't require an ultimate beginning, I repeat this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce. Read it.) I reserve judgement there, and it's not like I've made a secret of it. By some lights, that makes me an agnostic.

    If my beliefs don't fit into your classification system… well, so much the worse for your system, I guess.

    (Just in case you missed it: Let me ask you a question: What if the universe always existed, and had no beginning? What would that mean for your existence proof?)

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

33. Raymond. No one asked you about gods. I don't believe in Zeus either. I doubt others do here as well.

    The question is, as a non-athiest agnostic, do you believe in God?

    The question is not do you believe in the Christian interpretation of God, the Jewish interpretation of God, etc. Again, answering questions no one asked you is distracting.

    The question on the table is, do you believe in God?

    It isn't how did God create the universe? It isn't whether God rules over the universe and intervenes directly, benignly, or not at all?

    The question, simply, is do you believe in God?

    Most people can answer yes or no.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

34. Oh, and because I'm having these Paleocon flashbacks where it took me 9 months to get someone to actually give me a concrete example of a "natural hierarchial social order", no one is asking whether you can proove that God exists.

    The question, simply, is do you believe in God?

    I'm interested to know whether a self-described "agnostic" answers yes, or no.

    I'll go first, if you think the question is a trap, and to show you that it can be answered with a yes or no.

    My answer is "yes."

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

35. Oh, and again drawing upon my experience with people who avoid direct answers to direct questions, no on is asking whether you 'allow for the possibility of' God, or 'can hypothetically envision what a god may look like', or any variation inbetween.

    The question is, simply, do you believe in God?

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

36. Mr. Ingles,

    You say "All I've ever said is that God hasn't been scientifically proven."

    Scientifically prove to me that Christopher Columbus existed.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 13, 2009

37. Dr. Jackson – No, I don't believe in God. (As I've said – as in "not(believe(God))".)

    A question for you: Do you think that means that I must therefore believe "[t]here is no God, period, end of discussion"?

    (Something to reflect on before you answer. Do you believe that there's a dwarf planet orbiting our star at about 35 AU?)

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

38. Mountain Man – Are you saying that God couldn't give scientific proof of Its existence if It chose?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

39. I would think that a typical self-described agnostic would decline to answer 'yes' OR 'no' to the question, and for good reasons. Naturally, Mr. Ingles can speak for himself (and quite well, from what I've seen).

    The primary reason is that the agnostic probably prizes precision in thought and language, and most especially in communication. For many types of questions, 'yes or no' is an inappropriate framing of the question, and thus should be resisted.

    If I am a weak atheist (as I think Mr. Ingles described himself), my position might be this: "There's no evidence for the existence of any God, therefore, I have no reason to believe God exists." The implicit continuation of the thought, for a weak atheist: "But that evidence might show up tomorrow, so I'll not make any bold pronouncements that God certainly does not exist."

    Now, the literal answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" would seem to be No.

    But the answer–No–is an inadequate, incomplete, and potentially misleading answer, that does violence to fullness of my thinking.

    I would therefore decline to answer that question, even if the questioner insists that I must, or even if the questioner confuses my desire for precision with evasiveness. I decline to answer the question in the terms demanded, because those terms seem inappropriate, and fertile ground for subsequent misinterpretation of my views.

    In court, they can force you to say 'yes' or 'no', whether or not either answer best conveys your opinion. In science and skepticism, inappropriate binary responses cannot be imposed under threat of incarceration, thankfully.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

40. >Dr. Jackson – No, I don't believe in God. (As I've said – as in "not(believe(God))".) A question for you: Do you think that means that I must therefore believe "[t]here is no God, period, end of discussion"?

    Raymond. No.

    I’m just trying to figure out the difference between an agnostic, atheist, weak atheist, and someone who posits that we may actually live in a universe that was created by, well, something or someone or someother. Apparently, holding all these positions lead to the same conclusion. There is no God.

    All of which makes me wonder how a man of science (you, not Einstein) can hold the position that, since there definitely is no God, the universe happens to exist? That is, other than to say “I dunno”, but definitely God could not have created it because, well, there is no God to create it. This wouldn’t be a problem if you believed that the universe created itself (thus, in your view obviating the need for God). It’s a pretty silly position to take, but it would be consistent with the no-God foundation upon which it’s laid.

    But you get very exorcised when I attach that phrase to your position. So, if the universe exists, but God didn’t create it, then something else created it (or created the “it” that ultimately created it). I’d still call that God, but you’ve stated categorically there is no God (whether we call God God, X, Alpha, or the Big Kahuna.) So I again ask, where did the universe come from, at least in concept?

    You say “I dunno” because you can’t measure God and prove He exists, so God cannot possibly be the answer. But no one’s asked you to prove God exists. We’ve only asked you to embrace the concept that it’s possible God exists. To which you reply, he may, or he may not, but I can’t “prove” it, so I (Raymond) will not believe that God is a possible explanation.

    All roads for Raymond lead back to the same a-priori position. The only things you believe are the things you can apparently “prove”. Do you believe your wife loves you? Prove it? You certainly don’t believe that there is an existence after death. So this must mean that you believe that existence ends with death. Well, prove that. Prove to me that when you die, you just rot and cease to exist at any level. You can’t prove it, because it’s just a belief. But Raymond’s beliefs, whether they involve love or death, apparently don’t require absolute proof. Only ours do.

    As for whether I believe that there's a dwarf planet orbiting our star at about 35 AU, I believe a lot of things that cannot directly be observed or measured by me, or even by other men and their machines.

    I believe that love is real, even though it can’t be precisely measured. I believe that morality is real, and that it can be deduced by applying our God-given logic. I believe that the universe did not create itself, nor just happen to come into existence, or happen to develop laws of physics to regulate it without the actions and guidance of a higher power, which I call God, or, not (not believe (God)).

    I believe that a human being is greater than the sum total of his/her constituent points, and that when we die we don’t simply rot and cease to exist, end of story. I believe that science is a tool to peek into the workings of God’s mind, not evidence that God is fiction because we’ve been able to figure some things out.

    I believe that there’s a difference between talking about the existence of God and talking about what individual religions believe, and that someone who consistently blends the two has ulterior motives for doing so. That is, unless they’re just plain stupid, which you clearly are not.

    So, if you want to tell me there’s a dwarf planet orbiting a distant star, I’m prepared to accept that as a matter of my faith in your God-given application of human intelligence in a field that I have no particular expertise in.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

41. Ozzie: I was not not impressed with the almost perhaps but not quite absence of but still some relevance and marginal presence of thought in your not not answer.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

42. There (not(not)) a lot more for me to say, but I (won't (won't))resist, and therefore will refrain from any further comments.

    What I think, and why I think it, is pretty clear, and these word games in the guise of furthering a debate are so typical of the way this subject matter tends to go, that there's no reason to keep repeating myself.

    If Einstein can believe in God, so can I. Anyone who has a problem with that has other motives at play in not wanting to acknowledge something so obvious.

    PS: Religion is not God.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

43. "Are you saying that God couldn't give scientific proof of Its existence if It chose?"

    No. First I quoted you: "All I've ever said is that God hasn't been scientifically proven."

    I then wrote, "Scientifically prove to me that Christopher Columbus existed." You will note that the word "God" does not appear in this statement.

    Your standard of proof of God's existence is science. I applied that standard to Columbus.

    My request is simple, I think.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 13, 2009

44. Dr. Jackson – It's official. I have said, phrasing it at least four different ways in this discussion alone, that I do not proclaim definitively that there is no God. You repeatedly, in direct contradiction to my plain words, attribute that position to me.

    I've also clearly stated that I accept that God is a "possible explanation", or at the very least one that can't be ruled out by what we know about universes right now. On the other hand, other explanations (like the universe existing eternally) are equally compatible with what we know. Lacking any way (at present) to distinguish, I reserve judgement – I don't believe any of them are correct, and neither to I believe that any of them are incorrect.

    I haven't asked for "proof", in any case. I've asked for "evidence", something rather less demanding.

    I think it's fairly clear who's playing games here. And I'm afraid I'm not interested in playing that game with you anymore, either.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

45. Mountain Man – I'd say Christopher Columbus, God, and Santa Claus haven't been scientifically proven.

    On the other hand, very few things – if any – are scientifically proven true. Science progresses by proving things false. Ideas that survive lots of tests that would prove them false gain progressively more credibility. Ideas which can't be tested at all – which make no difference anyone can check – are dismissed as irrelevant.

    The theory that Christopher Columbus existed could be proven false in a lot of different ways, none of which have shown up, so it's pretty credible. Santa Claus and God,… well, there is no observation that can't be made consistent with those 'hypotheses', so…

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 13, 2009

46. >>>>>So, if you want to tell me there’s a dwarf planet orbiting a distant star, I’m prepared to accept that as a matter of my faith in your God-given application of human intelligence in a field that I have no particular expertise in.<<<<<

    If told me that there was such a planet, I would consider the range of likely possibilities and tend to believe the one that is most likely. If I'm aware he has some knowledge of these matters (maybe he's an astrophysicist by trade) and the possibility he is lying or delusional seems remote, I'd agree he is likely describing something real, that exists. I 'believe' him, because there is reason to do so.

    If he told me there is life on that planet, from what I know about the universe, I'd judge him to be guessing. Just because he's guessing doesn't make him wrong, it's just that his guesses don't have any evidence value and I'll put no confidence in it.

    When the believer tells me there's a God, I judge him to be guessing. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but he hasn't supported his assertion with anything at all. His guess is as good as mine, I'm happy to admit, but when he claims his guess is better than mine, he ought to bring some evidence.

    My inability to prove him wrong isn't evidence for his case. My inability to prove (to his satisfaction) that naturalism is the only ground of existence isn't evidence for his case. Bald assertions that 'the universe must have been created by somebody' are not evidence for his case. He is claiming that something specific exists–he needs to support it with evidence or the default position by a reasonable person would be that he's guessing.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

47. "Raymond. No one asked you about gods. I don't believe in Zeus either. I doubt others do here as well."

    Actually, I do. I'm what's known by most Judaeo-Christians and (to my mild annoyance) by most of my own, as a "Pagan." You'd be surprised how many of us are out there.

    My altars are in the spare bedroom.

    Christians could find us quite a resource in the debate against atheism, which is so totally skewed against the JC God that it doesn't often consider alternatives.

    For instance, it is not essential to the definition of a God that he be Creator of the universe, and the religious would do well to separate the argument into its components:

    1) There is a God, or are Gods.

    2) The being under discussion is the Creator of the universe.

    This begs the question, if a God is not the Creator, what justifies the distinction, God – as opposed to, say, Advanced Alien? [Note: this would exclude Zeus, who is understood in Hellenismos to be the Demiurge of the Cosmos.

    I will posit that *rule* of the Cosmos, including humans, is sufficient for the designation, God (Gr. *theos*).

    To argue against such a being, atheism must begin making very difficult claims about the limits of what I will call technology. There's no necessary reason a sufficiently advanced being couldn't reduce the contents of the universe to hydrogen atoms and *recompose* it according to his desires.

    And – again – empiricism can make no reliable statement about any entity of higher technological capacity than the experimenter. This is simply above empiricism's "pay grade."

    The thesis of the article, that atheism is necessary to liberalism, is intriguing and seems quite right.

    I actually perceive a greater danger than liberalism at work here. The project of militant atheism is to TURN OFF humankind's capacity to perceive the divine – through shame and banishment. This is why they're so aggressive, offering, for instance, that for parents to raise their children in their faith is a form of child abuse. Slowly, they work to erect social conditions resembling Soviet psychiatry, in which belief outside what is sanctioned brought the judgment of mental disorder.

    This is a profound assault on human dignity, and it must be understood that the real target isn't God – it's man. Militant atheism seeks to reduce man to the status of a scientific instrument. In the world being erected, there would be no dignity granted you, alone, with your free conscience. That which cannot be seen by two or more individuals in exactly, objectively, the same way (these are the rules by which science proceeds) is to be considered beyond the pale.

    This suggests another tactic against militant atheism: let it be understood as an assault on man, and the free range of his knowing, extending to the intuitional.

    Comment by Todd | January 13, 2009

48. Mr. Ingles beat me to it, but I'll say it anyway. Science rarely aims to prove anything. Scientific theories and hypotheses are supported (or sometimes massacred) by incoming evidence, not proven. That is the logic of the scientific method. It is always assumed that, no matter how well-supported your theory, it could be disconfirmed in its entirety tomorrow, if a contrary observation is made.

    The existence of Columbus is well-supported by multiple streams of evidence. That evidence exists in the real world, and is relatively unambiguous. Alternative theories (that his existence is simply a mistake, a tall tale, or a conspiracy) make little sense.

    Different sciences have different standards of proof and different methods of supporting theories. Physics is a harder science, and history is softer, but practitioners of both expect that some rules of evidence are followed (for example, that the evidence can be public – seen and verified by anyone).

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

49. >Dr. Jackson – It's official. I have said, phrasing it at least four different ways in this discussion alone, that I do not proclaim definitively that there is no God. You repeatedly, in direct contradiction to my plain words, attribute that position to me.

    Raymond. Just for the record, most of your conversation has been about gods and religion, not God.

    When you do talk about God (not gods or religion), you want us to believe that “I accept that God is a ‘possible explanation’”, even though “I don't believe in God”.

    So your “possible explanation” is something that you don’t think actually exists. This is absurd reasoning, and more game playing with words.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

50. Well, we've now heard from the pagans. Can the wickans be far behind?

    And, more importantly, can we accept the Wickans as a possible explanation for the origin of the universe, even though we don't believe in witchcraft?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

51. I can't much argue with the proposition that acceptance of a Religion and belief in some sort of God (such as one that is vanishingly subtle and nearly abstracted out of meaningfulness) — can be very different things. At least, I wouldn't quibble with it.

    But it might help to point out some context: the original article that everyone is barking about. The writer makes an interesting claim–that a belief in atheism seems to lead to an acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, and (apparently) ineffective immigration laws. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assume that the writer thinks that God, on the other hand, opposes these things.

    The writer then detours to try and demonstrate that atheists can't disprove the existence of SOME TYPE of God. Point taken. But he is making some really quite spectacular and specific claims that he has some special knowledge of God and his preferences for human activity. (At least by clear implication in the text concerning abortion, etc.) These are the claims that nettle and alarm the non-believer. Those are the types of extraordinary assertions that clearly require evidence that can be seen and felt in THIS world, because it is in THIS world that those beliefs would have consequences. At least, if the writer had it his way.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

52. >I'd say Christopher Columbus, God, and Santa Claus haven't been scientifically proven.

    MM: You might want to give this whole system of logic and thought a second look. I mean, think of what it could do to bring up test scores nationally if kids can claim that Columbus, God and Santa Clause all share the same status of scientific credibility! I mean, how could any answer to “who discovered America in 1492?” be wrong?

    If the teacher won’t accept the fact that Columbus’ existence is a legitimate scientific question (citing historical documents to the contrary), then they could always debate what “discovered” means, what “America” means, and what 1492 signifies (I mean, just who decided the year 0, and why?).

    Then, in the end, an answer could be given, followed by the assertion that the student doesn’t actually believe the answer exists, thus covering all basis.

    Test scores will soar incrementally as nothing is “true”, therefore everything is potentially true to one degree or another — except, of course, for the question of whether there is a God. That’s definitely untrue, though still a potentially correct answer.

    Or, they could just answer “I dunno.”

    You gotta love the reasoning.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

53. Ozzie. Virtually no one's been talking about the original essay for some time now, just the sidebar issue of whether God exists or not.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 13, 2009

54. "And, more importantly, can we accept the Wickans as a possible explanation for the origin of the universe, even though we don't believe in witchcraft?

    Inquiring minds want to know."

    That'd be SOME witchcraft. Wd hate to be Hansel and Gretel in those circumstances.

    Comment by Todd | January 13, 2009

55. Dr. Jackson: Exactly my point. Even the writer, after briefly revealing his actual aims and beliefs, lit out for safer territories (abstractions, paradoxes, and logical conundrums). Looks like the other conservatives in the thread have followed suit, and I don't blame them.

    But the mischief is in the specific claims he makes to know God's mind. As to a theoretical, ineffable God who makes no measurable inroads into our reality, I'll spot you that one. I don't think it matters, as others have noted, at least not yet.

    Perhaps every person in the thread, past, present, and future, could simply answer (Yes or No only, please) whether God's opinion on immigration policy is knowable by humans. If yes, present some evidence. I think that would be a lot more fun and relevant discussion regarding the proper role of religion and atheism in our society.

    But hey, my impatience with abstractions needn't be anybody else's problem. Feel free to re-focus on ontology and epistemology, if you wish, and I'll try not to drag the discussion back into relevance.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

56. "Perhaps every person in the thread, past, present, and future, could simply answer (Yes or No only, please) whether God's opinion on immigration policy is knowable by humans."

    Yes.

    And Pope Benedict, for one, has in my opinion correctly apprehended what I will here call God's opinion on immigration policy. [Inconvenient for a certain sort of nationalist that on most matters includes myself.]

    "If yes, present some evidence."

    Knowledge that God's will on immigration policy can be discerned is not of the sort that provides that which could constitute empirical evidence. The failure here belongs entirely to empiricism.

    What you would do – what your second question attempts – is to cast such knowing beyond the orbit of that which might constitute "knowledge." And by one notch, we are dehumanized.

    Comment by Todd | January 13, 2009

57. Empiricism – "If yes, present some evidence." – requires an object of experiment that will remain passive to the scientist, while the scientist counts its hairs.

    Comment by Todd | January 13, 2009

58. Todd, I'm not going to belabor the point, and intend no disrespect to Pope Benedict, who seems like a dignified and sincere individual. Obviously, the non-believer would reasonably and with good foundation (in the real world) attribute this belief about special knowledge to factors other than a revelation.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 13, 2009

59. >Perhaps every person in the thread, past, present, and future, could simply answer (Yes or No only, please) whether God's opinion on immigration policy is knowable by humans.

    No. But then again, only a person who defines God as a "vanishingly subtle and nearly abstracted out of meaningfulness" entity would ask such a stupid question.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

60. Well, if Dr. Jackson can go back on his word, I suppose I can too, just once. You completely missed the point of my 'dwarf planet' example. Pluto's currently about 30AU out, as I recall anyway. Eris (the most recently-discovered dwarf planet) is around 40AU out.

    Now, do you believe there's a dwarf planet around 35AU out from the Sun? I don't. We haven't spotted one. On the other hand, space – even in the neighborhood of the solar system – is really big, and we haven't come close to exhaustively searching it. I would not be even mildly surprised if a new dwarf planet was discovered about 35AU out tomorrow. So while I don't believe that such a planetoid exists, neither do I actively believe that such a planetoid doesn't exist. The evidence is simply inconclusive.

    Saying you don't believe in something (to take a random example, God in the Alpha sense) does not inevitably mean that you actually beleive it doesn't exist. There are other options besides "believe exists" and "believe doesn't exist", such as "undecided".

    You apparently can't wrap your head around this notion. You may fear for my wife, but I shudder for everyone who has to interact with you, since I can only conclude you are never undecided about anything…

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 14, 2009

61. By the way Ozzie, if you bother to read my Comment #1, and what I actually write on the subject of God, politics, religion, social policies and morality, you’d understand that I think people who use the Bible to make social policy are as misguided as people who think God is the same thing as religion.

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

    Excesses on the Religious Right gave rise to excess on the Anti-religious Left, as I explained in comment 1. It’s one thing to invoke the concept of God-given rights and morality upon which to create a Constitutional government, and another thing to make policy based exclusively on the Bible.

    What Alan did in his essay is mock the way liberalism/atheism mocks the Bible by interchanging the Bible with discussions of God, thus setting up a straw man to knock down so as to institute liberal policies.

    People interested in a real discussion understand this. People who want to insert “relevance” into a conversation by dismissing the Creator of the Universe as a vanishingly subtle and nearly abstracted out of meaningfulness" entity don’t.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

62. >Dr. Jackson can go back on his word, I suppose I can too, just once.

    Raymond. I'm just making fun of your silly arguments, not further repeating my position which is what I said I would (not (not)) refrain from, which apparently escaped you.

    Irony is never lost on the ironic. Apparently, by saying "if you (Raymond) want to tell me there’s a dwarf planet orbiting a distant star, I’m prepared to accept that as a matter of my faith in your (Raymond) God-given application of human intelligence in a field that I have no particular expertise in," this shows poor reasoning ability on my part.

    And perhaps it does, because I was prepared to defer to your empiracle knowledge in an area that I possess none, until you yourself cautioned me against believing anything you said.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

63. >There are other options besides "believe exists" and "believe doesn't exist", such as "undecided".

    True. But when someone has ALREADY CHOSEN "BELIEVE DOESN'T EXIST" as an answer to the question "Does God exist?", then it's no longer a suitable option for that person for a line of inquiry.

    I'm not "undecided" about the belief that fairy dust makes airplanes fly, or think that it might possibly be true. I’ve chosen “do not believe” for my answer. So, in the event that someone proposes that fairy dust powers airplanes, my only choice in responding is "believe not true". I can't be legitimately open to a possibility I've already rejected, or undecided about a possibility I've already rejected.

    This is why your protestations that “I've also clearly stated that I accept that God is a ‘possible explanation’, or at the very least one that can't be ruled out by what we know about universes right now,” is so bogus and condescending. Clearly you don’t believe this. Substitute “The Easter Bunny” for God, who I presume you also don’t believe exists, and I doubt seriously you’ll go on record saying “I accept that The Easter Bunny is a ‘possible explanation’, or at the very least one that can't be ruled out by what we know about universes right now.”

    This is why no one believes your arguments. What you believe is apparent to everyone, but the more you are pressed to state your beliefs forthrightly, the more you dance and play word games.

    Of course, I could be mistaken. If you’re prepared to go on record saying that other things you don’t believe exist like The Easter Bunny, Fairies, or Intellectually Honest Liberals might have also created the universe — or at least the issue is “undecided” — then I’m prepared to withdraw my accusation.

    But since you put God and the Easter Bunny in the same category of “does not exist”, I’d like you to explain why you still allow for the possibility that God may have created the universe but not the Easter Bunny.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

64. > you are never undecided about anything…

    No. Just unlike others, I avoid making categorical statements about stupid things.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

65. Mr. Ingles,

    YOU are the one who set the bar for proving God exists. YOU set the standard. Scienfific evidence, remember? I simply applied that standard to another person.

    When Ozzie_M says, "The existence of Columbus is well-supported by multiple streams of evidence. That evidence exists in the real world, and is relatively unambiguous. Alternative theories (that his existence is simply a mistake, a tall tale, or a conspiracy) make little sense," he has moved the goalposts.

    But Mr. Ingles, your standard was "scientific proof." I asked for that standard to be applied to Columbus. Not hitorical evidence, scientific evidence, please.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 14, 2009

66. I have not followed all the details of the discussion triggered by my essay, but some general comments are in order.

    First, it was not the intent of my essay to prove God’s existence. In fact, when speaking precisely about this issue, I often avoid the term “prove,” as it sounds more precise and certain that can be achieved here. If God is real, then there will be evidence for Him, and a “proof” of God consists in pointing to this evidence and showing, against the general thrust of atheistic apologetics, that this evidence is valid. It also consists in showing the invalidity of the various disproofs of God.

    And although it does not achieve mathematical precision, belief in God is more rational than naturalism, as I indicate below.

    As for the issue of naturalism: Supporters of naturalism generally say that it is simply the most reasonable way to interpret reality, and that any reference to the supernatural is unreasonable. They also assert that naturalism, by way of science, has given plausible explanations for almost everything, and therefore it is reasonable to agree that naturalism is true, and to anticipate that it will eventually explain everything, or at least everything for which an explanation is needed.

    But the problem with naturalism is not just that we theists stubbornly refuse to concede that it explains things. Naturalism is illogical, self-refuting, and therefore it cannot possibly be true. For more details, see my IC essay “The Scientific Leftists of the Center for Inquiry.”

    If the embedded link fails, go to

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/

    Comment by Alan Roebuck | January 14, 2009

67. Faith and Science

    • Science is the process of determining how matter behaves using observation, testing and inductive reason.

    • Faith is any belief undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief which is unobservable and untestable.

    • Religion contains faith that eternal God created matter.

    • Atheism contains faith that matter is either eternal or created it's self.

    • By definition there can be no conflict between Science and either Atheistic Faith or Religious Faith since all faith is outside the domain of science, and science is likewise outside the domain of any faith. True faith and true science are, and always have been, mutually exclusive and never in conflict.

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

68. Dr. Jackson – I really thought you were honest. I'm genuinely sad to see this kind of dreck from you. I usually adhere to Hanlon's Razor, but I can't believe your reading comprehension skills or reasoning are this bad.

    For example, I didn't "tell you" that that there was a dwarf planet at 35AU, I very plainly and directly asked if you believed there was one. You didn't ask for clarification or further information, and when I did make excruciatingly plain how you had misinterpreted the question, you decided to treat it as me having "cautioned [you] against believing anything [I] said." I've actually seen young-Earth creationists do a better job paraphrasing what people have said, and that's saying something.

    You think I'm lying about saying that I accept the possibility that God (in the Alpha sense) created the universe – that I'm undecided about the origins of the universe. I'd like to know how you know this. If you can offer good evidence of your telepathy, I'd be very interested. I "don't believe" that Alpha created the universe, and I "don't beleive" that the unvierse is eternal – I'm undecided. I've stated this in no uncertain terms. What evidence do you proffer that I'm lying?

    Then you change the goalposts. If you want to call God or Alpha the "Easter Bunny" for the purposes of this conversation, then fine. If, however, you want to bring 'religion' by your lights into it – defining the Easter Bunny as a quadrupedal mammal that distributes painted eggs in secret on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21st each year – then sure, I'm willing to go on record as stating that I believe that that entity doesn't exist and didn't create the universe.

    If you answer nothing else, please directly answer these questions: (a) Do you think there's any difference between "not believing that something exists" and "believing something doesn't exist"? (b) If so, what's the difference? (c) If not – do you believe there's no dwarf planet orbiting Sol at 35AU?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 14, 2009

69. Mountain Man – Please cite exactly where I demanded "scientific proof" of God. Hint: comment 38 doesn't mean what you think it means. All I asked there was if it would be possible for God to offer scientific proof of Its existence. (You still haven't answered that question, btw.)

    Further, what you're on about supports what I've been saying. That hypothetical dwarf planet at 35AU (let's call it DP35 for short) hasn't been "scientifically proven", either, but I'm open to the possibility.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 14, 2009

70. There is no scientific proof for God's existence, nor scientific proof for God's non-existence. Science is simply outside the realm of God – Science represents the laws of nature, whereas God represents the super-natural. The greatest minds of the renaissance and scientific revolution have spoken on this subject:

    “Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason, are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason has nothing to do.“ John Locke

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

    "The doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." Albert Einstein

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_einstein.php3

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

71. >For example, I didn't "tell you" that that there was a dwarf planet at 35AU, I very plainly and directly asked if you believed there was one.

    *** Raymond, I have no reason to believe there is or isn’t a planet (dwarf or otherwise) around 35AU, wherever that is, other than you have posited the question that there may be one.

    My political philosophy does not depend on it, my religious beliefs (such as they are) do not depend on it, my belief in God does not depend on it, logic in and of itself doesn’t require it, philosophy in and of itself doesn’t require it, and so on and so on. It’s a question (unlike, say, is there a God or not?) that has absolutely no relevance to anything in my life.

    So, instead of simply saying “How the hell should I know?”, I said that if you, as a scientist who presumably knows something about the issue, tells me there is, then I’m willing to accept it, because I know that it’s possible for science to discover these things. But this isn’t good enough for you. You want me to make an a-priori judgment about something completely irrelevant to my life or existence, in a subject area I have no interest in or knowledge of at all, and if I don’t say “yes” or “no”, that somehow say’s, what?

    Okay, do you believe that I have two quarters and a nickel in my pocket? And if I do, exactly what the hell does that prove?

    Once again, you want to talk about Young-Earth Creationists, which is a religious discussion, when I want to talk about whether God exists. So, I ask you if you believe in God, and you counter with do I believe in the scientific possibility of a dwarf planet around a star. Yes I do believe that’s it’s a possibility that a star can have a dwarf planet orbiting it. As for specific stars with specific planets in specific orbits, tell me how much money you believe I have in my pocket, and I’ll guess whether 35AU has a dwarf planet.

    Just where did you learn how to reason out a problem, anyway? This is beyond sophomoric.

    >You think I'm lying about saying that I accept the possibility that God (in the Alpha sense) created the universe – that I'm undecided about the origins of the universe.

    *** No. I said that if you don’t believe in God or the Easter Bunny, then it’s illogical to think that you’ll allow for the possibility that God or the Easter Bunny created the universe. You have one pre-determined position — There Is No God. That is the only possibility you allow for in investigating the origin of the universe — that God (and everything else you don’t believe exists) didn’t do it. To maintain that you don’t believe in God, but that God may have created the universe, is, in a word, stupid. Or dishonest, if you prefer.

    Once again, you take the word “God” — which I have always defined as the Creator of the Universe — and ascribe religious attributes to the word. This is why you simultaneously don’t believe in “God” (namely, Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc.), but allow for “Alpha” (which might possibly be “Gods” to repeat the way you frame the matter), because to say there is a possibly “a God” is — in your mind — to talk about religion.

    You are incapable of separating out a discussion of God from a discussion of what religions say about God, which is why we are constantly subjected to the mental contortions of your logic.

    >Then you change the goalposts. If you want to call God or Alpha the "Easter Bunny" for the purposes of this conversation, then fine. If, however, you want to bring 'religion' by your lights into it – defining the Easter Bunny as a quadrupedal mammal that distributes painted eggs in secret on the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21st each year – then sure, I'm willing to go on record as stating that I believe that that entity doesn't exist and didn't create the universe.

    *** Bingo! You can’t discuss the possibility of God without discussing Religion. [The Easter Bunny, by the way, is not a religious symbol. There is no “St. Easter Bunny”. You really need to get a grip on your religious-paranoia].

    You can’t give a direct, consistent answer to a question, and I’ll tell you why. If you truly believe that God is a possible explanation for the origin of the universe, in your mind you’ve just bought into Christianity, Judaism, etc., because once again, you can’t separate discussions of God the Creator of the Universe (something Einstein could do) from God as defined and described by Religion A, B, C, D, etc.

    This is why a real conversation is impossible with you, and all that’s left is to point out the silliness of your thought process and have some fun with it.

    So, do I have 55 cents in my pocket or not? Apparently, the creation of the universe depends upon knowing tyhese kinds of things.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

72. > There is no scientific proof for God's existence …

    On this we are in complete agreement. Science does not validate or invalidate the existence of God, any more than science "proves" the existence of love. Some things exist outside the realm of a human being's ability to fully comprehend or measure. But that doesn't make it any less real.

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

73. By the way, I usually adhere to Jackson's razor, an eponymous adage which reads:

    Never attribute to simple stupidity that which can be adequately explained by deliberate stupidity

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

74. Phillip,
    Yes, there are two types of reality. Scientific reality is that which we can observe, measure and test; whereas spiritual reality cannot be observed, measured or tested in scientific ways. Spiritual reality must either come by revelation or by another super-natural means. For me the Bible is such revelation, although much of it is symbolic and metaphor and some of it remains mysterious to me. The only other super-natural evidence for God that I've experienced is the reality of the human soul – the reality of the infinite value of human life and human liberty; something our founding fathers knew and wrote into our Declaration of Independence.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

    "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

75. Ronald: I never denegrate people who get their inspiration from religion. I just work to keep discussions about religion out of public policy making, where it doesn't belong. Or, when they merge as in the Declaration of Independence, assign them their proper role in policy making (see my comment #1).

    I don't use religion to look at the things that are beyond science, but nevertheless real (God, love, etc.) rather, I use my God-given abilities to reason these things out.

    All I know for sure is that it makes no sense to conclude that 'nothing creates something'. There is a beginning to the universe (or the universe that gave rise to this universe, and so on, and so on.)

    If we work backwards to get to that ultimate seminal point where it all began, and ask the simple question what created it all, we've just come up with the operational definition of God. God is the only thing that, by definition, transcends everything else.

    So, call God God, Alpha, X, or whatever you want, and it makes no differene. God is still what God has always been.

    I, personally, see no problem with God setting in motion the universe and giving it its laws of physics, then staying completely out of things and allowing men to figure out as much of it as we can. When "religion" begins to impose on me what a set of beliefs, or "science" tells me that only things that can be measured or observed are real, I react the same way.

    There is no incompatability between science and religion, unless someone wants there to be. They ask and answer different questions.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

76. Please. Do we really have to go through this again?

    "Mr. Ingles,

    You say "All I've ever said is that God hasn't been scientifically proven."

    Scientifically prove to me that Christopher Columbus existed."

    Please STOP obfuscating.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 14, 2009

77. I'm usually not one for commenting, but it looks like there has been such a simple misunderstanding in these comments between Dr. Jackson and Mr. Ingles.

    When claiming "I don't believe in God, but accept that God is a possible explanation", it seems to me that Mr. Ingles is simply leaving open the possibility that his belief is wrong. Fleshed out, his opinion might read "I don't believe in God, but understand that this belief may be wrong. Therefore I accept that God is a possible explanation for the creation of the universe."

    On the other hand, Dr. Jackson equates Mr. Ingles expressed opinion "I don't believe in God" to be the same thing as stating "There is no God." (comment 71.) It appears obvious to me that Mr. Ingles never intended for his opinion to be expressed in that way, so it is difficult for me to see why Dr. Jackson has continually misconstrued Mr. Ingles' beliefs. Referring to his beliefs as "sophomoric" "stupid" "illogical" "bogus" " condescending" and "absurd" while at the same time misinterpreting them does not make Dr. Jackson appear to be the most open minded person.

    Of course, while I believe my interpretation to be correct, I fully understand that I might be wrong, and there is an alternate explanation.

    Comment by DED | January 14, 2009

78. >"I don't believe in God, but understand that this belief may be wrong. Therefore I accept that God is a possible explanation for the creation of the universe."

    DED: If the misunderstanding was that simple, it could have been cleared up with that simple reply, instead of invoking dwarf stars and creationism and Alpha and X and Gods [not God] and "not(believe(God))", etc.

    Once again I invoke Jackson's razor: "Never attribute to simple stupidity that which can be adequately explained by deliberate stupidity."

    As far as using phrases like "sophomoric" "stupid" "illogical" "bogus" " condescending" and "absurd", these are characterizations of absurd, bogus, condescending arguments, not personal insults.

    I value direct, clear language, and never have a problem telling people what I really believe. If that makes me closed minded to "sophomoric" "stupid" "illogical" "bogus" " condescending" and "absurd" arguments, it's a burden I'll have to live with.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

79. Phillip

    Would you agree with me that science cannot answer the questions:

    What is the value of human life?

    Is the value of human life infinite?

    What is the value of human liberty?

    Is the value of human liberty infinite?

    In my mind the answers to those questions reflect on the nature of man, i.e.: whether man is made in the image of God – whether or not man has an eternal soul.

    “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

80. Ronald: This expresses my position best on all these issues.

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

    It answers all these questions, and more.

    Phil

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

81. Continuation of Comment 78 —

    I’m more than prepared to drop the subject if Raymond wants to take up DED’s offer and put the only issue I’ve been debated with him to rest by accepting DED’s characterization of his position, namely: "I don't believe in God, but understand that this belief may be wrong. Therefore I accept that God is a possible explanation for the creation of the universe."

    It’s a simple, straightforward statement that is perfectly clear.

    If this is not what Raymond actually means to say, then I restate my position that his position is internally inconsistent, self-contradictory, and deliberately made so to mask a hidden agenda.

    To use Raymond’s own dwarf planet example, there’s a difference between “I don’t believe that X exists at all, period”, and “I don’t believe that X exists at 35AU.”

    I don’t believe the Easter Bunny exists, period. I don’t believe he exists in the USA, in Europe, in 2009, in 1909, on Earth, on the moon, or anywhere. In short, the fact that I haven’t found the Easter Bunny at 35AU because he’s really at 40AU is irrelevant. I do not believe in the Easter Bunny. He doesn’t exist.

    Now look at what Raymond said about whether God exists in Comment 37: “No, I don't believe in God. (As I've said – as in "not(believe(God))".)”

    It isn’t that Raymond believes in God if we place him at 40AU instead of 35AU, or that he believes in God if God has red hair instead of brown hair, or that God is actually the universe itself instead of something that created the universe. Raymond doesn’t believe in God, period.

    Like I said before, this is American and he can believe or disbelieve what he wants to. But it is not an honest way to portray a position by holding out the possibility that God exists as an explanation for the creation of the universe, when you’ve stated categorically that God doesn’t exist period (and therefore cannot be an explanation for the creation of the universe).

    It’s the difference between saying what Raymond actually said —

    (a) “while I don't believe that SUCH A PLANETOID exists, neither do I actively believe that such a planetoid doesn't exist. The evidence is simply inconclusive”,

    — and saying

    (b) “while I don't believe that ANY PLANETOIDS DO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE, I also believe that NO PLANETOIDS EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE.”

    Statement (b) makes absolutely no sense. You can’t believe that something doesn’t inherently exist, and believe equally that the same thing does inherently exist. Confusion over where it is or might be, or if it is in a certain location at all, is not the same thing as confusion whether the such things even exist in reality in the first place.

    Putting such a self-contradictory position forward is either a sign of stupidity (which I discounted for Raymond in comment 40), or a sign of deception and hidden agendas, which in the absence of accepting DED’s language, is a fair conclusion and one that I’ve offered.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

82. Igor Shafarevich lived in the Soviet Union and he was a witness to the full tyrannical effects of Atheistic Marxist Socialism, i.e.: Communism. Mr. Shafarevich understood that atheism was an essential component of Communism along with state ownership of private property. Igor Shafarevich understood that Atheistic Marxist Socialism is tantamount to religion – it is a substitute religion.

    “We can see that all elements of the socialist ideal–the abolition of private property, family, hierarchies; the hostility toward religion–could be regarded as a manifestation of one basic principle: the suppression of individuality…Finally, human individuality finds its greatest support and its highest appreciation in religion. Only as a personality can man turn to God and only through this dialogue does he realize himself as a person commensurate with the person of God. It is for this very reason that socialist ideology and religion are mutually exclusive.” Igor Shafarevich

    “The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism's pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything (from the transformation of a liquid into steam to the appearance of Christianity) also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism's view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically. Bulgakov draws our attention to numerous and far-reaching analogies between socialism (especially Marxism) and Judaic apocalyptics and eschatology. Finally, socialism's hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions.” Igor Shafarevich

    “It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration) or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism's attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term "atheism" is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of "atheists" but of "God-haters," not of "atheism" but of "theophobia." Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich

    http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

83. Regarding the Universal Moral Code, I did take the time to read (sometimes skimming) the two articles from Dr. Jackson linked above. Unsurprisingly, I suppose, I didn't see anything that persuaded me, but then, if I were a scientist I would be a methodological materialist.

    But when I read the articles, I found myself surprised that any detailed discussion of evolutionary psychology was omitted. Maybe it is elsewhere, but I was surprised because I would imagine that the first alternative explanation someone would raise to 'God-given' universal morality would be hard-wired, evolutionarily-selected behavioral tendencies (reinforced and elaborated by social/cultural transmission, of course).

    There was some commentary about how Darwin cannot provide answers to moral questions (is stem cell research moral or immoral?). But evolutionists don’t claim to do so. Evolutionary theory is (mostly) descriptive, not prescriptive. He mentions that evolution is morally neutral. Of course it is– it is a blind process (though of course not a random one). It is not goal-oriented in any way. However, its results may look indistinguishable from what we call morality.

    Just to make the point, narrow the focus from a universal revulsion to harming ANY innocent children, to the universal revulsion we feel toward harming our own children. Cross-cultural, seemingly innate, extremely powerful (though not insurmountable). Why not view that as an aspect of God-given universal morality? Well, because there’s a more parsimonious alternative that immediately presents itself-—a tendency to protect one’s offspring ensures transmission of your genes (and the proliferation of that behavioral trait over time).

    Humans, of course, tend to generalize. It is not a leap to imagine that benign behavior towards the offspring of others in the clan could be genetically programmed as well, since it probably confers an adaptive advantage of some sort.

    And so on.

    Please, before anyone jumps on my explanation of evolutionary psychology, I’ll admit that I’m not well-versed in the issue, I just a have a casual layman’s familiarity with the concepts. My explanations are kindergarten-level, as science. I'm NOT pretending that I have provided a detailed and persuasive evolutionary explanation of what appears to be moral behavior, but only to propose a sense of how science could easily provide an alternative explanation that requires no recourse to the supernatural. (A real scientist would produce a more subtle, persuasive, and complete account that I can.)

    Then you add cultural norms and transmissions, and those should not be underestimated. It is true that widely varying cultures demonstrate some similar fundamental proscriptions. But that could be because although cultures are widely scattered in space and time, they all face some of the same fundamental problems and tend to resolve them is generally similar ways. Clan members who are aggressive towards the offspring of other clan members are disruptive and undesirable, here or in ancient Egypt, and are likely to be dealt with just as decisively.

    Humans have many shared traits and common cross-cultural behaviors, some more powerful and consistent than others. We effortlessly acquire language, we tend to affiliate and construct clans, we cooperate, we seek novelty and stimulation, we ‘play’, we engage in humor and artistic expression, we are cautious in the face of the unknown. At least some of these traits seem inborn, transmitted by no really specific mechanism (ie, not specifically taught or culturally generated). But most of them can be explained, with varying degrees of certainty, without recourse to anything supernatural. They are temperamental and behavioral tendencies that have proven adaptive and are thus naturally selected over time. Not sure why apparently moral behavior has to occupy a special status as God-given.

    I’m anticipating Dr. Jackson has a ready answer, but I was surprised that the articles didn’t make much effort to dismiss what would seem to be a likely rival (and thoroughly materialistic) explanation for common cross-cultural behaviors such as a proscription against harming the young.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 14, 2009

84. Ozzie: "Then you add cultural norms and transmissions, and those should not be underestimated. It is true that widely varying cultures demonstrate some similar fundamental proscriptions. But that could be because although cultures are widely scattered in space and time, they all face some of the same fundamental problems and tend to resolve them is generally similar ways."

    Actually some cultures resolve problems in evil ways, i.e.: The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, The Mongol Empire, The Roman Empire…. All people are created equal, but all cultures and belief systems are not equal – that is a Marxist idea.

    "We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia? We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions." Fjordman

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125/print

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 14, 2009

85. >>>>>>Actually some cultures resolve problems in evil ways, i.e.: The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, The Mongol Empire, The Roman Empire…. All people are created equal, but all cultures and belief systems are not equal – that is a Marxist idea.<<<<<<

    Who could disagree with that? Certainly not me. I don't get how it relates to my post. I didn't say all cultures turn out nice, or that they turn out the same.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 14, 2009

86. Ozzie — to the valid question you raise:

    >I would imagine that the first alternative explanation someone would raise to 'God-given' universal morality would be hard-wired, evolutionarily-selected behavioral tendencies (reinforced and elaborated by social/cultural transmission, of course).

    ** hard wired, except for 50 million elective abortions in the US. And, often as not societies inhibit the expression of morality (Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea), as “reinforce and elaborate” morality. That is, unless you simply define morality as human consensus, in which case the UN is the fountainhead of morality.

    >… the universal revulsion we feel toward harming our own children.

    *** There have been 50 million abortions in the US. Those were somebody’s children. They were killed because their humanity was stripped away, allowing them to be killed. That’s a legal justification, not an example of morality at work in protecting only human beings officially certified as such by the state.

    >because there’s a more parsimonious alternative that immediately presents itself-—a tendency to protect one’s offspring ensures transmission of your genes (and the proliferation of that behavioral trait over time).

    *** Except, again, for those 50 million electively aborted fetuses. Of course, if you arbitrarily define a 19 week, 6 day, 23 hour, 59 second as “non human”, then you can promote the fiction that you’re not killing any of your children. But this is a legal designation, not a biological one. The kid is just as dead even if you call him a tissue mass instead of acknowledging its humanity.

    I actually cover a lot of this supposed “hard wiring” (though I don't expressly use that term) in the original article that started it all, http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/ It was referenced in the introduction to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

    See, for example, this passage among others —

    Leaving aside little problems like genetic mutations that alter genes — and could one day remove this trait all together, or divide humanity into two separate genetic camps — I’m going to use the moral Relativists' own pronouncements about a woman’s “Right” to kill her unborn child to create this scenario. That is, I will show how a genetic foundation could possibly account for the universal reaction we all have to harming an innocent child, but would actually permit (also from a genetic-based morality) a woman to have an abortion. All we have to do is suspend reality for a few minutes and hang on for the ride while we let the Women’s Rights/Relativist logic lead the way.
    Here it goes.

    The human race is still expanding in the US and elsewhere, even in abortion-happy China. Consequently, there’s no real worry about the human species’ ability to survive.
    This means, logically and genetically, that we should not expect to see the same uniform reaction to child rape and murder if worries about the species are driving this emotion. Unless the action affects the biological imperative of the species, that gene remains dormant. Animals do a form of this all the time in nature as pregnancy rates rise and fall with different environmental conditions. In extreme cases, lower life forms have even been known to change their actual sex to help preserve the species. Humans are just a higher form of animals. We can understand our own innate biological drives by studying lower forms of animal life, since we’re all part of the same ecosystem that will be here until Global Warming destroys the planet.

    Which leads to the following logically-Relativistic hypothesis.

    Hypothesis: There is some innate, genetic “worry” about too many abortions of “potential” life, when combined with too many killings of “actual” life. Taken together, they could reach a point where they begin to impact population growth. This might explain an innate abhorrence to harm 5-year old children. That is, women have no problem aborting their fetus at any time (20 weeks is a political compromise; it could have been 15 weeks, 25 weeks, etc.). Society also has no particular moral inhibition against killing children either. But there is a biological need in everyone that is concerned about preserving the species. And when worries about preservation of the species reach a certain threshold, everybody’s anti-kid-kill gene kicks in.
    Note: Please read the passages below carefully, because a lot of it will seem counter-intuitive at first. We have to place these hypothetical biological imperatives in the context of how societies are actually organized, particularly their political systems that make laws governing human behavior.

    Assumption #1: Abortion is a natural female drive (which is why it is a “Right”) that is suppressed by male-dominated Conservative governments. Left to their own free will, many women would choose abortion over birth.

    Assumption #2: There will be periods of great Abortion Freedom when Morally Relativistic Liberal governments dominate the world, and periods of Abortion Repression when male-dominated Conservative governments dominate the world.

    Assumption #3: The more male-dominated Conservative governments there are in power around the world, the more the population will therefore rise as women are forced to bear more children instead of aborting them.

    Assumption #4: When Morally Relativistic Liberal governments return to power, abortion restraints are lifted. When this happens, the population will begin to decline.

    Assumption #5: This trend will be further accelerated when deluded Judeo-Christian women see the fruits of a Liberal paradise blossoming around them. They will break free of the brainwashing that deceives them into thinking that a developing fetus is an actual human life, and join the abortion sisterhood.

    Assumption #6: If Morally Relativistic Liberal governments retain power for several generations and allow unrestricted abortion, the combination of (1) the natural proclivity for women to abort, (2) the lack of an innate moral inhibition to kill children, and (3) the lack of an even more important biological inhibition to kill children, would produce the following result. Too few humans would be produced that make it to a breeding age and repopulate the species.

    Consequently, the human race would perish. And we certainly can’t have that.

    Analysis: So, this twisted logic goes, we innately respect the life of a young child because they are part of the “natural abortion cycle” that is part of every woman’s genetic makeup. Not killing young children in certain periods of time only is nature’s way of preserving the race in a time of prolonged Abortion Freedom, where “too much of a good thing” (i.e. killing babies) is literally true.
    Before the Liberals and moral Relativists brave enough to have read this far start accusing me of deliberately-tortured logic to make them look silly, I’d like you to consider how the above reasoning fits with the supposed notion of a woman’s “Right” to choose.

    Liberal Relativist thinking states emphatically that women have a Right to Choose what to do with their own body. This includes foreign bodies attached to them by a placenta.
    If this right does indeed exist, then it isn’t a stretch to conclude that abortion must be a “common choice.” If not, banning abortions wouldn’t affect anything. For example, anyone can choose to kill themselves. They can use a gun, buy pills, sit in a running car in a closed garage, or jump in front of a train. The opportunities are endless, and can be exercised at will. But in America, no one has a “Right” to kill themselves. Attempting suicide is illegal in most states. The only way to beat the rap is to succeed; otherwise you end up in the custody of the state for a few days observation — or maybe a lot longer.
    Both suicide and abortion deal with an individual’s choice about their own body. Moreover, neither action is said to harm another human being because abortionists don’t consider the thing they kill to be human life. And yet, the state gives “Rights” to one action, but not to the other.

    Since there are no marches on Washington or other demonstrable actions that demand rights for the oppressed suicide-attempters in America, I can only conclude that it must not be a very popular choice compared to such things as the Right to Vote, the Right to Free Speech, and the Right to Kill That Thing Growing Inside Your Belly Before The Twentieth Week — all of which have strong, vocal movements behind them.

    But, tempting as it might be to draw on this logic and say that “species survival” is the explanation for not raping or killing a five-year old child, I think maybe we should step back for a moment and take another look.

    [Note: This is a reference to a central question I pose about the existence of a UMC: “If there is no objective ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ just equally valid differing opinions, then under what conditions would you say that raping and murdering a five-year old child isn’t wrong?”]

    While not killing five-year olds would certainly counter-balance a natural propensity for women to abort their children, thus tending to support the logical-Relativist hypothesis, perhaps we should look at what other strongly held “rights” exist today in America? We’ll suspend the obvious observation here regarding the difference between a basic moral code and a temporary human consensus to let the logic draw out a bit further, and see if we need to bring it back later to kill it, or whether the premise is ridiculous enough to collapse of its own weight.

    Simply reading a newspaper or watching your neighbors go about their lives will quickly point out at least three more rights Americans hold dear: the Right to Party and Have a Good Time, the Right to Run Up Large Charge Account Bills and Then Declare Bankruptcy, and the Right to Download Music Free on The Internet.

    These aren’t just options or opportunities that theoretically exist, like the option to wear slacks or shorts depending on the weather. Pass laws that limit or take away any of these “rights” and you’ll get a march on Washington that will rival Dr. King’s. People care about these rights; not just isolated individuals here and there, but millions of people throughout the country. Although these genetic rights seem to manifest themselves most strongly among high school and college-age hormonally active human males, people of all ages and sexes seem drawn to these rights. We can all point to enough personal experiences observing overweight 50-year old men driving around town in a brand new Porsche with a 22-year old trophy wife at their side, or read the newspapers about the rise in bankruptcy filings under Republican administrations. And then there’s that song or two you asked your twelve-year old nephew to download from a share file that paid no royalties to the composer.

    Attempts to “limit fun,” force people to manage their financial affairs responsibly, and/or start charging them for using the Internet have routinely met with loud, wailing, hand-wringing howls. This isn’t some isolated group we hear screaming, it’s your neighbors, friends, and even your family. And perhaps you too on occasion.

    But the simple fact that one group (however large and vocal) may want to do something — and want it really badly — doesn’t mean that all people want or demand it. If it was a fundamental human need, there wouldn’t be any question about it. As vocal as these advocates might be, they need to be balanced against a larger number of people who are interested in having children and raising a family, pursuing a successful career, managing their and the country’s finances responsibly, and paying for what they want instead of scamming the system.

    Like the previous examples, though, these things are no more “rights” than the right to turn on red is a “right.” They are felt strongly, and to some people may even manifest themselves as a genetic disposition (fun times and alcoholism, for example), but they are not universally shared by all mankind, which if true would elevate them to the level of a universal moral imperative.

    But what about other, more serious human rights? Let’s look at the U.S. Bill of Rights. As important and deeply ingrained as the Right to Vote and Right to Free Speech are in Western society, I still can’t elevate either of these to a universal principle. Even after the collapse of Soviet communism and the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, there are still a large number of people in these countries who reject any notion of Western-style democracy. Russians live in a quasi-capitalist thugocracy, and in Afghanistan and Iraq a lot of people still take their marching orders from the local Ayatollah.

    “Rights” connected with personal freedom may tie back to certain moral principles, but it is these principles — such as a basic respect for human life — that are universal, not a free press or other rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution. A true appreciation for democracy is something that evolves with thought, debate, and cultural evolution. I have high hopes for democracy taking a firm root in the Middle East thanks to the courage and leadership of President Bush. But neither he nor I, nor maybe even my children, will live to see it work as well as I believe it can. Which means, not even the U.S. Bill of Rights has intrinsic universal appeal, because some of these concepts require a different cultural and social structure to be in place before they can truly be understood and flourish. Russia today is a perfect example of both the potential of, and cultural/historical barriers to, Western-style democracy taking hold and prospering. Afghanistan and Iraq will require decades of additional preparation to pave the way for thinking about Thomas Paine instead of “giving pain” when operating in a political environment.

    Which puts the lie to any suggestion that abortion is either an innate, genetic drive in women upon which moral-based decisions can be made, or a universal right to kill your own unborn child that all women seek. Rather, it is a means to a political objective perpetrated on the United States by a logic that gives more weight to man-made laws and the culturally-dependent notions of privacy and fairness, than it does to basic human dignity. It’s the perfect, morally-relativistic logic gone completely out of control, where the focus becomes the mother’s desires, as opposed to what is in the best interest of another human being’s life.

    So I ask again. If the future of mankind is not at stake, why won’t some society, somewhere, sometime in human history, condone child rape and murder as an acceptable practice?

    And if it won’t, why not?

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

87. Ozzie: because I don't know how far you read, one other point. Even though the UMC (universal moral code) says it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human being, people deliberately harm/kill/rape other people all tyhe time.

    This isn't a contradiction, though. They harm/kill/rape people that they determine to be "not innocent", or "not human".

    Thus, Islamo-fascists kill subhuman, non-innocent Jews whose sub human and non-human status comes from the simple fact they are Jews, not due to any direct action by the person being harmed. They have no compunction about terror bombing a Jewish school bus, but wouldn't even think about physically harming a young Muslim child. The Muslim is human and innocent in their eyes (unless he's the wrong kind of Muslim, in which case he remain human but loses his innocence, and thus fair game for harm.

    So to with elective abortion. A woman killing her 19 week fetus rationalizes that it's not really a child. She would never even spank her three year old kid, but she would suck the brains out of the 19 week old fetus.

    The fetus and Jew are just as human as you or I. The only difference is that someone has decided that harm is permissible (by themselves, based on their religion or political philosophy — think Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia — or a "legal" ruling that it's OK to abort a 19 week but not 20 week old fetus because it's not legally human).

    This is not morality, genetics, biology, etc at play. It's ratinalization based on human consensus, societal influences, or individual preferences).

    If forced to acknowledge that the Jew/Fetus/Infidel/noisy neighbor/girl-about-to-be-raped is "innocent" and/or "human", the person would have to directly confront the immorality of the act. This may not always stop the action (free will gives us the right to choose to do bad/immoral things), but it would make it an obvious bad/immoral thing they are doing.

    And recognizing the inherent morality or immorality of an act is the first step in acknowledging the existence of, and influence of, our universally shared, God-given moral cose which is the same for all people regardless of their society, education, genetic makeup, or any other such factors.

    Again, I lay the reasoning for this out in "What kind of car would Jesus Drive". The "True Nature of Morality" was a response to Raymond's essay about mathematics and game playing, etc. as factors involved in making allegedly universal moral decisions.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2009

88. I'm not sure I view abortion in quite the way that you do, but other than that there isn't much I would disagree with in this last post. I would just frame it all differently.

    We have some common moral inclinations, across most cultures and places, however, the way that they play out in reality depends on a lot of things, including: specific subcultural norms; human appraisals and ideologies; environmental stressors; malfunctioning brains; malfunctioning legal systems; and so on. The reason I refer to these norms of conduct and moral reasoning as 'tendencies' is precisely because they are so frequently and easily derailed by more immediate contingencies.

    But I see no reason, still, to assume that because they are strikingly common across cultures, and seem to be reasonably innate, that they are God-given. They could be the fruit of a million years of natural selection, in fact, that seems a far more practical, likely, and reasonable explanation.

    Traits and behavioral tendencies are not immutable. They are just tendencies. And although introspection might tell us we are behaving in a certain manner because we are adhering to a moral code, I believe psychological research shows that much of our behavior is much more biologically and socially determined than we would like to believe–and that our subjective account for why we behave in certain ways is (frequently, not always) a post hoc, self-justifying, and highly incomplete account.

    If I get time, I'll read the other essay you mention, but my point is, fundamentally, that I haven't yet seen evidence that there is a universal moral code, that it is God-given, or that my naturalistic explanation isn't much more parsimonious.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 14, 2009

89. Ozzie: " I haven't yet seen evidence that there is a universal moral code, that it is God-given"

    There is no scientific evidence for a God or a God-given moral code, other than the fact that Godless societies have suppressed human liberty and have by far committed the greatest mass-murder compared to societies which keep a sense of God's moral code.

    According to The Black Book of Communism the total murdered by Atheist-Communist regeims approaches 100 million people killed. According to R.J. Rummel (author of Death By Government), the figure could exceed 250 million. There is some uncertainty over who is the all-time killer: the Soviet Union or China. The Black Book of Communism attributes roughly 20 million deaths to the USSR (Lenin and Stalin) and 65 million to China (Mao). Rummel's best estimates are 62 million USSR deaths and 35 million Communist China deaths (but could be up to 127 and 103 million, respectively).

    R.J. Rummel credibly estimates other death counts throughout history, and he pulls no punches or otherwise minimizes the death counts from Christian and Western movements.

    • European slave trade with New World – up to 2 million.
    • European Christian Crusades – 1 million.
    • Spanish Inquisition – 350,000.
    • North American Indians – up to 25,000.

    http://theblackbook.wordpress.com/

    According to Death by Government by R. J. Rummel, over 169,000,000 innocent civilians were murdered by their Communist or Fascist governments in the twentieth century.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    There is evidence for God in the human heart and mind, due to the infinite value of human life. Don't we know what happens when people don't value human life religously? “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

    Ozzie, you have an opinion on this that contradicts that of our founding fathers:

    “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html

    “The eyes of all should be turned to that Almighty Power, in whose hands are the welfare and the destiny of nations” James Madison

    http://www.heritage.org/research/americanfoundingandhistory/wm375.cfm

    "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." John Adams

    http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/quotes.html

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” John Adams

    http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Adams/

    “The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” Samuel Adams

    http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

    “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs the affairs of men. And if the sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord builds the House, they labor in vain who build it.” Benjamin Franklin

    http://www.flipsideshow.com/Documents/Founding%20Fathers%20Faith%20Quotes.htm

    "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

    “With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” Abraham Lincoln

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/abraham_lincoln.html

    "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln

    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=nation%20under%20god;singlegenre=All;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln7;node=lincoln7%3A40

    Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 15, 2009

90. Dr. Jackson, actually I just noticed you made two responses, I didn't see #86. I'll sort through that after work.

    Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

91. Ozzie: To your point about shared behavior and morality. You need to distinguish between an action, and the content/reason for an action. And between societal influences that reflect the UMC or and repress it, but do not provide the shared universal content of that morality.

    Consider these two example from my “What kind of car …” essay.

    ***
    SOCIETY/EDUCATION: In the broadest sense, a study of morality comes down to deciding a basic issue. Is morality objective, or subjective? Is it the product of opinions and preferences, or a universal truth?
    Subjective morality is a fancy way of saying that moral judgments arise through individual preferences; social, economic and/or cultural conditions; or environmental factors. We judge something to be “moral” because that’s what our culture tells us, or our institutions and practices lead us toward, or other outside factors impose upon us at a particular moment in time. In the most extreme, relativistic case, morality is nothing more than the opinion each individual holds on a given issue, a sort of judgment de jure.

    Objective morality implies the opposite. While the process of recognizing or expressing a particular moral judgment may be influenced by social, cultural, political, economic, or other outside pressures, the content of the moral judgment is not. Morality is truth. Truth is universal. Society, politics, and individual personal preferences do not give us our morality. Rather, they work to suppress an individual’s recognition of the truth, or to help bring that truth out in its fullest expression.

    The U.S. gives its citizens the opportunity to start a private sector business and hire employees. We call them “entrepreneurs.” In Cuba — 90 miles away from the U.S. — these same people doing the same things are called “bourgeois capitalist lackeys and counter-revolutionaries,” or the shortened version: “prison inmates.”

    Same acts, same period of time. Different cultures, different outcomes. But as repressive a regime as Cuba is today, the leadership’s opinion about private enterprise will not always be the same. Following Castro’s death it may tighten even further, relax a bit as it has in mainland China, or go the way of Eastern Europe and be abandoned all together in favor of installing a free market system. But the value judgment about child rape and murder will always stay the same, whether it is in communist Cuba or the capitalist United States.

    ***

    SHARED BIOLOGY/GENETICS: There is at least one universally-shared biological reaction we all have in common that could, if applicable to this discussion, provide for the possibility of a genetic-based morality. It involves both sight and sound, and it’s pretty gross, so I’ll try to outline it just as my psych books used to.

    It goes something like this.

    We all automatically feel the need to wretch at the sight or sound of seeing someone vomit. This is a hold-over from our “cave man” days when tainted meat or poisonous roots or fruits were a real problem. Say a member of the clan gets a bad chunk of dinosaur meat (yes I know, they didn’t co-exist; I’m just making a point), and starts to vomit. Others in the group see or hear him and immediately feel the need to vomit too. It’s a shared genetic trait, and every single human has it. So does it allow for the possibility of a shared genetic-based morality too?

    If you think the answer is yes, consider this. Al Gore and I are standing next to each other at a party talking about Global Warming. I grow quiet for a moment. He thinks I’m dazzled by the depth of his brilliance, and keeps pressing his point that we’re all going to die unless he’s elected president. Suddenly, I begin to vomit. Al sees me hurl chunks, and he feels the need to vomit too, as does everyone around us. We’re all sharing a common human moment, though one I’d rather not spend too much more time discussing.

    If you think this in any way lays a foundation for a genetic-based explanation of shared moral values, you may want to ask a follow-up question. Exactly why was I vomiting? The answer is pretty simple. What made me vomit was listening to Al Gore!

    So even though everyone had the same exact reaction, the stimulus wasn’t bad meat or too many funny little mushrooms. It was a thought, a belief, an opinion or a judgment I had. And even though Big Al vomited right along with me, I doubt seriously that we shared the same belief system at that moment in time.

    Therefore, to prove the existence of a genetic-based morality, we need more than sweaty palms or a Global Warming lecture. Morality encompasses an innate belief system, and those core beliefs need to be the thing that triggers a common human reaction — like the thought of someone raping or killing an innocent child. My visual image may be a white female five years old, while yours may be a black three-year old baby or a six-year old Asian boy. It doesn’t matter. It’s the act, or a visualization of it, that triggers the common moral response. Not the fact that the kid was male or female, or black or white, or green or yellow.

    ***

    I'll make you the same offer I've made other people who had a genuine interest in this subject.

    If you still have questions after reading my "What kind of car …" essay, use my website email to contact me. I can write you off line, or we can talk by phone. [If I don’t respond for some reason, the email didn’t get through. Just prompt me publicly in the next article I post].

    The only way one knows if their theories make sense is to subject them to review. If I can't defend something I wrote, or it needs to be amended in light of new evidence or analysis, I'd rather confront that than just pretend it's not an issue. This, in fact, is how I first came in contact with Raymond, who despite the sh*t I give him about his analysis, I still have genuine respect for. He’s a bright guy, but misguided :) [By contrast, others I’ve locked horns with who try and defend truly indefensible propositions like "race matters" I not only vilify and lampoon, I also personally despise.]

    Politics is my profession, both academically and to a large extent professionally based on many jobs I've held. It's a contact sport, and not for the faint hearted. I value direct, often politically-incorrect language to make a point. But I can take it as well as dish it out, so none of it’s personal. Unless, of course, the person is a complete assh*le, at which point I give much better than I take. :)

    Phil

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

92. Dr. Jackson – We're actually making progress. You accept that people can be undecided about mundane matters like DP35 or change in pockets.

    Now, is it possible to be undecided about things that are more important? Take, for example, "Is time travel possible?" That's a very important question that touches on a lot of areas both philosophical and practical… and we just don't know enough about spacetime, gravity, QM, and so forth to be sure either that it's possible or that it's impossible. General Relativity predicts it can be done, QM (mostly) predicts it can't, and at most one can be correct. To decide it, we'll need to do experiments around spinning black holes or equally exotic conditions.

    In other words, I actively believe that we don't have enough information to decide if time travel is possible. Given that, let's say you ask me "Do you believe in time travel?" Should I say "I believe in time travel?" or "I believe time travel is impossible?" (And do these mean the same as saying "I don't believe in time travel?" or "I don't believe time travel is impossible"?)

    The way I would put it is, "I don't know how or if [time travel is possible], and I've seen no compelling reason to think anyone else knows, either."

    Note that with DP35, I don't believe that it exists… but that doesn't mean I believe that it's impossible. That doesn't mean I believe there's no DP35 – the odds seem about equal given what we know. You interpret "I don't believe in God (as Alpha)" to be equal to saying "I believe there's no God (as Alpha)", and that's just incorrect. It actually means "I lack belief in God (as Alpha)."

    DED's characterization makes that same conflation – I don't think I could be "wrong" about Alpha, because I haven't even decided what I think is right. Given what I currently know, I don't think I can make a decision.

    So how about it? "I lack belief in God", along with "I lack belief that God's impossible"? Can you accept that?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 15, 2009

93. Ozzie – I already tried to make a very similar case to Dr. Jackson here. Best of luck.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 15, 2009

94. >Dr. Jackson – We're actually making progress. You accept that people can be undecided about mundane matters like DP35 or change in pockets. Now, is it possible to be undecided about things that are more important?

    ** Sure. That’s when people say, “I’m undecided about the existence of God”, vs. “I don't believe in God.”
    I’m undecided about the position of dwarf planets at 35AU, but not about whether I “believe in” dwarf planets in the first place. However, I am not undecided about whether I believe in the Easter Bunny. I don’t.

    Language was created for a purpose. When someone wants to weasel out of making a direct statement because they have a hidden agenda, or because they conflate “God” and “religion” even though the two are separate issues, they avoid making clear, emphatic, universally understood and recognizable statements, such as "I don't believe in God, but understand that this belief may be wrong.

    Therefore I accept that God is a possible explanation for the creation of the universe." Which, by the way, contrary to DED’s assumptions, you still refuse to state that way.

    And why is this? Because stating it this clearly is not in your interest, because you either have a hidden agenda or believe that accepting the possible existence of God (not gods/alpha/X or believe(not(God)) will somehow associate you with religious beliefs

    One of the benefits of working in both the public and private sectors is that you learn that people who speak clearly, speak truthfully; and people who eschew obfuscation are usually obfuscating something

    Maybe it’s just me, but if I stated emphatically that “I don't believe in the Easter Bunny”, I would not offer the option in any analysis that the Easter Bunny could be an answer — even if we call the Easter Bunny X or alpha, instead of The Easter Bunny. People who do reason this way are trying to out-Clinton Clinton in leaving every door open and creating every impression possible so as to mask what they really, actually, truly believe.

    If you don’t believe God exists, you have to account (at least conceptually) for how something came into existence from nothing. This you can’t do. But, if you allow for “Alpha” instead of “God”, you keep an even implausible (in your mind) option open as you decry the association of God with religion, while not forcing you to address anything about Alpha, except to say “I dunno.”

    I find this to be dishonest debate. You don’t have the courage to defend the implications of your belief that there is no God. People who speak clearly are always willing to discuss the implications of what they believe. If, in the final analysis, they simply ‘dunno”, they avoid making empathic statements in the first place about key components of that issue (like, say, whether God actually exists). Again, if a belief in God is genuinely a maybe/maybe not proposition, I’d expect to see as much discussion about this as the opposite. And the discussion would be about God, not “Alpha”.

    Just for the record, it took me 9 months of not letting the issue go to finally get the paleoconservatives to admit that they could not talk about any concrete policies to go along with their lofty philosophy, since to put real flesh on their theories (i.e. talk about the actual implications of what they believed) was to expose the smelly underside of their beliefs. In your case, I don’t think you’re hiding an odious world view. I just think you’re dodging the implications of what you actually believe so you don’t have to defend it, and can continue talking exclusively about scientific evidence as the only true measure of reality.

    But, as you said, we are making some progress. At least now, after all these months, you’ve been prodded to say "’I lack belief in God’", along with ‘I lack belief that God's impossible’." No Alpha’s, X’s, gods or (not(God)). To which I would reply to illustrate the differences in our positions, "’I lack belief in the Easter Bunny’", along with ‘I DON’T lack belief that the Easter Bunny’s impossible’."

    So, at least we now know that to you, the possibility that God exists is somewhat higher than the possibility to me that the Easter Bunny exists. There’s hope we can get you to at least the level that Einstein was able to conceive: “We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.”

    And by the way, I not only believe in time travel, I’ve written three novels about it. I time travel it all the time. I go from the past/present, toward the future.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

95. More –

    >"I don't believe in God (as Alpha)" to be equal to saying "I believe there's no God (as Alpha)", and that's just incorrect. It actually means "I lack belief in God (as Alpha)." DED's characterization makes that same conflation – I don't think I could be "wrong" about Alpha, because I haven't even decided what I think is right. Given what I currently know, I don't think I can make a decision.

    This is deliberately confusing language. “God” has been defined here (by me, to clarify what my position is) as “The creator of the universe”. He/it isn’t Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc. I am not saying that God is a better way to describe Jesus, Jehovah, etc. And I'm not saying how he did it. (I don't know how, any more than I know how many other things that are real came into being. But they exist, as does the universe). I’m simply saying that God is the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus/Jehovah etc. a religious interpretations of God. They are related concepts, but are not synonymous.

    Raymond says there is an Alpha — the presumed creator/initiator/starter of — (or whatever designation he’s most comfortable with) the universe. But, God is not Alpha because Raymond personally doesn’t believe in God. Nevertheless, God and Alpha apparently have in principle the same powers/abilities/influence/position in the whole universe-creation thing. It’s just that Raymond cannot adequately describe or define Alpha yet.

    Again, this is because Raymond cannot distinguish between God and religion. I’ve assigned absolutely no characteristics to God whatsoever, other than to define him as an eternal entity that created the universe. Raymond’s Alpha has to exist before everything else existed, and have created the universe. There’s no practical difference between Alpha and God, unless you inject religion into the equation. Yet Raymond can be undecided about what Alpha is, though not about Alpha’s “existence”, and not believe that God exists, and therefore God is not part of the final calculation.

    As for – “I don't think I could be ‘wrong’ about Alpha, because I haven't even decided what I think is right. Given what I currently know, I don't think I can make a decision,” this is another inconsistent tautology.

    Haven't you made a decision when you say "I don't believe in God"? You've decided that a component of the calculation is unbelievable to you. You've removed an element from your final decision.

    Decisions are built on foundations. The Easter Bunny will never be a part of my "decisions" about how the universe was created. By not believing in EB, I’ve rejected EB as part of the answer to my question. That’s a decision I made on the way to the final decision. And those intermediate decisions shape the way the final decision is made, and what it consists of.

    All this mental masturbation is designed to confuse, not clarify.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

96. Raymond: By the way, if I've misrepresented your positioin that you do believe that Alpha exists, and instead actually aren't sure that Alpha exists — Alpha being that which created the universe — all you have to do now is discuss the implications of how nothing gave rise to something (the Universe).

    We don't need to know the detailed "how", just the logically-consistent-with-physics "how". How does such a thing logically happen, given what science can measure and understand about reality?

    Note: if something else created our universe, what created that?

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

97. Dr. Jackson – You're very careful to parse "God" (in the Alpha sense) differently from "God" (in the sense used in Christianity or paganism). You acknowledge that we have to use words very carefully when we talk about this topic. So when I state that 'the closest word to my position is "agnostic"', and then when you demand a yes-or-no answer I make a statement like "I don't believe in God" – but immediately and specifically clarify exactly what I mean by that – I assume you're capable of understanding that I mean something different from the usual.

    Evidently not.

    If we recall, you are the one who brought up the Easter Bunny – and I called you on it. The Easter Bunny is a pretty specific concept compared to "whatever created the Universe" – as I said, "by your lights", it's a religious concept (if applied to the creator of the universe). As you put it, "God is what he is, regardless of whether man got the facts right or wrong about His existence." It'd be a pretty silly religion that held the creator of the universe was a herbivorous mammal that liked to paint eggs… but that would be a religion the way you term it. And you proposed that very religion for discussion, explicitly, when you brought it up… despite your ostensible concern over separating "properties of God" from the question of "existence of God". (What if you had said 'Substitute “Yaweh” for God'?)

    If you don’t believe God exists, you have to account (at least conceptually) for how something came into existence from nothing.

    I have raised this question numerous times, and you have always completely ignored it: What if the universe didn't come from nothing – didn't have an origin at all – but rather always existed? I'm afraid by now, I have to call your avoidance of this question "dishonest".

    So, at least we now know that to you, the possibility that God exists is somewhat higher than the possibility to me that the Easter Bunny exists.

    In the "God as Alpha" sense, yes. As "Yaweh" or "Allah" or "Vishnu" or whatever, I'm afraid I see them like the Easter Bunny. In other words, if there's a "creator of the universe", I'm as sure as I can be that It doesn't match the descriptions in any of the religious I've run looked at.

    And by the way, it may surprise you to learn that I didn't pick the 'time travel' example at random. (It shouldn't surprise you, since I mentioned it in the very first email I ever sent you, but that's as may be. Oddly enough, in your email response you called time travel "pure hokum" and "pseudo-scientific". Is that the sense that you believe in God, too?)

    Oh, and it's another example of you only being willing to parse words carefully when it's to your perceived rhetorical benefit – "time travel" in this context obviously means, "travel backward in time".

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 15, 2009

98. >You're very careful to parse "God" (in the Alpha sense) differently from "God" (in the sense used in Christianity or paganism).

    *** Actually, I’d say anal rather than careful, since it’s been part of virtually every critique I’ve made on your conflating the two.

    >I assume you're capable of understanding that I mean something different from the usual.

    ** Oh yeah. What you say is tends not to be readily comprehensible if you simply apply common sense logic and definitions of terms to it. For example:

    Oxford English Dictionary: “atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

    Raymond the atheist: "I don't believe in God"

    Phil the non-atheist: “I believe in God”

    Oxford English Dictionary: “a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

    Raymond the agnostic: "I lack belief that God's impossible"

    Phil the agnostic: “I believe in God, but not necessarily Jesus as God, Jehovah as God, Allah as God, etc. And, I definitely don’t believe in the Easter Bunny.”

    >The Easter Bunny is a pretty specific concept compared to "whatever created the Universe"

    *** No. The Easter Bunny is my “Alpha”. And, for the umteenth time, the Easter Bunny is not a religious symbol. It’s a secular contrivance. (There is no St. Easter Bunny). Festivus occurs during the same time that Christmas does. (There is no St. Festivus.) Not everything that happen at the same time a religious holiday occurs is “religious”.

    Religions are man’s attempt to give actual voice to the word of God. They may be divinely inspired, completely off the wall, right or wrong in their details. But they are not God. God isn’t defined by religion. God existed before religion arose.

    >If you don’t believe God exists, you have to account (at least conceptually) for how something came into existence from nothing.I have raised this question numerous times, and you have always completely ignored it: What if the universe didn't come from nothing – didn't have an origin at all – but rather always existed? I'm afraid by now, I have to call your avoidance of this question "dishonest".

    *** Yeah, that's exactly why I said "dishonest". There’s nothing in the laws of physics or science in general that allows for a non-God, always-existed explanation. You’ve raised not a real possibility, but a straw man. There’s no foundation in science for believing that something always existed — apart from the way Einstein formulated the issue, which implicitly recognizes God. Again, not Jesus, Jehovah, etc., but “God” (an actual word he used).

    >In the "God as Alpha" sense, yes.

    *** Which means you BELIEVE IN GOD, as long as you don’t call God “GOD”. This is not the same thing as atheist Raymond’s "I don't believe in God", or agnostic Raymond’s "I lack belief that God's impossible".
    But, you won’t say I believe in God because — and I though this will be a shock to those who have never heard me express this thought before — you continue to conflate “God” and “religion”.

    Which is why you can only write “In the ‘God as Alpha. sense, yes.”, if it is followed by the disclaimer “As ‘Yaweh’ or ‘Allah’ or ‘Vishnu’ or whatever, I'm afraid I see them like the Easter Bunny.”

    WE ALL KNOW THIS, RAYMOND! You just kept refusing to say “I believe in God” because you didn’t want us to think you believed in Allah or the Easter Bunny. We all understand that. It’s getting YOU to understand it that’s been the obstacle.

    If you will now allow for “Alpha God” to exist, even though you won't allow Alpha God to be named “God God” , then we can have an interesting conversation — because no one is asking you to believe that Alpha God or God God is Jesus God, Allah God, or anyone other religious characterization o God.

    Granted, some others may actually believe that God God is Jesus God, but they’re willing to de-anthropomorphise Jesus God and call him God God to get to the meat of the debate. Which isn’t ‘if there's a creator of the universe’, what would he look like or tell us to do?’

    Like you, I personally believe that God will probably not match the descriptions in any of the religious I've run looked at, and that no religion on Earth literally speaks for God. [Some may tap into God-given principles like the UMC better than others, and thus their teachings reflect God-given morality, but that's another discussion --- and in no way negates our joint belief that God is probably very, very different from what we all think. But he still exists as the creator of the universe, and that's the point on the table].

    The question is, how can science logically propose that the universe has always existed, thus obviating the need for God the Creator — unless one wants to say that the universe itself is “God”, which would be an interesting secondary philosophical discussion. But we can’t get to that issue (if it is anyone’s position) until we’re clear on whether both the following options are equally plausible:

    1. God (whoever/whatever that is) created the Universe, or

    2. No God (God God, Alpha God or Any God) is needed to explain the existence of the universe, since it just exists, period, end of discussion.

    Yes I know there is no scientifically-conclusive evidence to support #1 or #2. My question is simply, is #2 a “real” option, or just the opposite of option #1.

    This is why I inserted the Easter Bunny into the calculation. If the option doesn’t have to be remotely real to be considered, then why not offer the EB as the potential reason for the Universe’s existence as well? We don’t because it’s a counter-intuitive, stupid option. Just like option #2 is.

    And so, if we can all now agree on proposition #1 — God (whoever/whatever that is) created the Universe — the religious people can have their religious discussions about why we’re here, and scientists can help me understand as much as is humanly possible about how God did it.

    “Science” and “God” are not incompatible. In fact, as you’ve now helped explain, Science can legitimately refer to God God (or Alpha God if you prefer, or just plain Alpha [understood God]) as the Creator of the Universe (or whatever precise word you want to substitute for “create”.
    And none of this discussion has to do with Jesus, the Bible, Allah or any other religious manifestation of the concept of God.

    >Oh, and it's another example of you only being willing to parse words carefully when it's to your perceived rhetorical benefit – "time travel" in this context obviously means, "travel backward in time".

    ** That was an old joke. I guess atheists/agnostics have no sense of humor.

    Hey, did you hear about the non-dyslexic atheist who believed in (not dog (God))?

    Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

    This has actually been a great discussion.

    Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

99. Dr. Jackson – Oy. Even when you're quoting dictionaries, you don't read them. As you note, an agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God." That's not me. I believe that, so far, nothing is known, not that nothing can be known. We may well have enough information eventually to decide. As I said, I'd call myself a "non-gnostic".

    And, for the umteenth time, the Easter Bunny is not a religious symbol.

    I know that, same as Santa Claus (as opposed to St. Nicholas). But if you propose it as "the thing that created the universe", it becomes a religious symbol – by the very way you've defined 'religion'.

    There’s nothing in the laws of physics or science in general that allows for a non-God, always-existed explanation.

    Sure there is. Are you ever going to read "http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce"? A lot of people have been trying, but no one's ever observed a violation of the principle of conservation of energy. We've never seen energy created or destroyed. What evidence do you have that energy is not eternal?

    …it’s a counter-intuitive, stupid option. Just like option #2 is.

    But both of those options about origins of time and universes – #1 and #2 – are counterintuitive. We trace things back in time. Either we come to a stop, or we don't.

    If we come to a stop, our intuition immediately asks, "What happened before that?" ("If God created the universe, what created God?") If we don't ever come to a stop, if it goes back 'forever' with no endpoints… our intuition similarly fails.

    We don't know. I think that's probably a sign that we're looking at it the wrong way, asking the question the wrong way, and there's an insight nobody's had yet that'll clarify things. In any case, you may find "counter-intuitive" to be a damning accusation, but as I said before "basically nothing about the universe has proven to be intuitive once we've wandered out of the savannahs of Africa". Heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, Evolution, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics – all frightfully counterintuitive. Frankly, I pretty much expect the 'big answers' to be counterintuitive.

    As to "stupid"… well, you can have your opinion about that. After this exchange I'm even less concerned about that opinion than I've ever been, though.

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 15, 2009

100. >("If God created the universe, what created God?")

     God has always existed. That's the operational definition of God. Define God as the Universe, or as Energy, or as Alpha, or as God, whatever floats your boat. Nothing cannot give rise to something.

     This is only hard to grasp when someone doesn't want to grasp it.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

101. Dr. Jackson – Sorry, no, the operational definition you proposed was that "God is the creator of the Universe" or "who created it all", not 'God is whatever's always existed'. Since I'm not sure there even was a 'creation', perhaps you can understand my reluctance to get behind that.

     I can't go fully along with Spinoza or Einstein, either. Even the picture you paint of Einstein is incomplete – he wasn't sure that the order in the universe was a sign of intelligence. As he put it, "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" It's not at all clear the physical laws and such could be different.

     If you want to change it up now, and make it, "God is either the creator of the Universe, or else the Universe", then I'm fine with saying that so far as we know, the universe may be God. That says rather less than you seem to want it to, though.

     Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 15, 2009

102. Raymond, comment 97: "the closest word to my position is 'agnostic'"

     Phil gives the definition of agnostic, to which Raymond say, No no, wait. Did I say agnostic? What I really said was "As I said, I'd call myself a "non-gnostic".

     Raymond Comment 99: "But if you propose it as 'the thing that created the universe', it becomes a religious symbol – by the very way you've defined 'religion'.

     Huh? I guess I haven't said it enough that God (whether you call him God, Alpha, Alpha God, Mr. X, or whatever you want) is the Creator of the Universe. And this is not a religious statement. Jesus (around whom an actual religion is built) is a religious figure. If there was a St. Easter Bunny, it would potentially be a religious allusion, thus allowing for Raymond (and apparently only Raymond's) confusion, except that Raymond says he knows that EB is not a religious symbol.

     So ladies and gentlemen, we have again the elements that make this a great discussion. Raymond, having by his own words now accepted that Alpha God can exist but God God (who is identical to Alpha God) cannot, because someone might think it's Jesus, now can't figure out whether he's agnostic, non-gnostic, atheist, or God knows what (pardon the pun). And oh, by the way, everything about God is religion, dontcha know.

     Let someone talk long enough, and you understand exactly who and what they are, and the motivations behind what they say.

     This is why it's a great conversation.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

103. Raymond. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying half the time as you change definitions and descriptions and even your basic positions.

     We'll just leave it that you're a weak atheist agnostic non-gnostic who doesn't believe in God but allows for God to exist as long as we call him Alpha but not something else because the Easter Bunny is a religious symbol and maybe God was coerced into creating the universe, if in fact there is a God because Einstein didn't get it quite right.

     That about sums it up.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

104. Oh, and that something (like the universe) has always existed (thus never created), but it's implausable to think that something has always existed (like God) who in turn created the universe.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

105. Phil,

     #104 is brilliant. There is no real difference between eternal matter and eternal God.

     The reason for this dichotomy is impersonal eternality is safe and non-threatening, while sentient eternality brings up the possibility of having to personally respond to a personal Being.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 15, 2009

106. MM. Bingo.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

107. FROM Dr. Jackson:

     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ozzie — to the valid question you raise:
     >I would imagine that the first alternative explanation someone would raise to 'God-given' universal morality would be hard-wired, evolutionarily-selected behavioral tendencies (reinforced and elaborated by social/cultural transmission, of course).
     ** hard wired, except for 50 million elective abortions in the US. And, often as not societies inhibit the expression of morality (Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea), as “reinforce and elaborate” morality. That is, unless you simply define morality as human consensus, in which case the UN is the fountainhead of morality.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

     Dr. Jackson, I don’t define morality at all, actually, because I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable in the area. I want to be clear on that. I just propose that there are perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for ALL of our seemingly innate behaviors. Natural selection over millions of years would seem most likely. And additionally, the extremely heavy contribution of our societies and cultures, which (more or less) universally condemn the murder of innocent children, providing additional social control (and cognitive explanation) for those who need them.

     Societies all behave that way because they couldn’t survive or thrive without certain behavioral limits being imposed on the members. It’s adaptive for societies to behave in that way.

     You say that as often as not, societies inhibit the expression of morality. Agreed. Some societies are corrupt and sick. It’s just evidence that some societies develop norms and ideologies that over-ride our innate behavioral tendency to avoid harming the young.

     Abortion is a perfect example. As you point out, those who favor abortion rights do not cognitively define the early fetus as a child. I can see why: the fetus is not visible, and so many of the cues that trigger the revulsion we would ordinarily feel are not there: the fetus doesn’t look like a child, act like a child, scream like a child, or beg for mercy like a child (visibly from outside the womb, at least). I’m not arguing that that SHOULD be the case, but it is. As you and I both agree, humans have ingenious methods of disarming our innate ‘moral’ tendencies. I just don’t find it to be evidence of anything one way or the other, regarding the origin of the moral code. We have at least some innate moral behaviors (probably), AND, we blithely disregard them or become confused about their proper application. That’s the sorry tale of human history, if you ask me.

     The fact that humans abort fetuses does not argue against evolution. Regardless of abortion, there still exists a powerful behavioral tendency of mothers to protect and nurture their children (and thus pass on their genes). The fact that depressives kill themselves doesn’t mean that humans lack a powerful drive toward self-preservation. These extremes of behavior are evidence that humans are complex, difficult to predict, and highly varied in our responses, even if we have some fundamental commonalities.

     RE Comment #86. I made an effort to absorb your text concerning the alleged ‘right’ to abortion, and the hypothetical society and assumptions underlying it. I must apologize, I just don’t understand what you’re driving at very well. I had numerous objections as I read it—for example, about the drives and motives underlying abortion—but I don’t know how to respond because I don’t grasp the larger point of those paragraphs. Maybe if I printed it out and pored over it I would get it.

     I know it is not particularly responsive, but I am just going to pick out a couple of lines and see if I have hit upon anything like the central arguments.

     You say:
     >>>>>>[Note: This is a reference to a central question I pose about the existence of a UMC: “If there is no objective ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ just equally valid differing opinions, then under what conditions would you say that raping and murdering a five-year old child isn’t wrong?”>>>>>

     No, as far as I am aware, there is no objective right or wrong. Right and wrong are shared ideas, albeit powerful and fundamental ones. But all opinions on the concepts of ‘right and wrong’ and certainly NOT equally valid (and nobody claims they are, as far as I know). Some of them are kooky, some of them are impractical, some are ‘evil’. Most of those ‘differing opinions’ ultimately are not widely adopted because they are flawed. The idea that it is wrong to kill children turns out to be universally accepted in human societies. That would seem to be because: 1) it makes logical sense to most everyone; 2) our form of society would be crippled if child murder were viewed as an acceptable option, therefore the proscription is functional and adaptive; and 3) I suspect it corresponds well to our innate, biologically based behavioral tendency to protect and nurture our young.

     You say:
     >>>>>>>>>So I ask again. If the future of mankind is not at stake, why won’t some society, somewhere, sometime in human history, condone child rape and murder as an acceptable practice?<<<<<<<<<<<<

     I don’t know how else to say it. It is because all societies, in all time, have believed child murder to be a really, really bad idea. All societies have established norms against it. And all (healthy) humans, I suspect, have a biologically based emotional complex that leads to a tendency to protect and nurture our young, rather than kill them.

     By the way, I’m not an historian, but haven’t some cultures sanctioned sacrificing (murdering) children as a way to appease the Gods? I suspect those societies also possessed the general proscription against child murder, but their leaders believed that under the circumstances it was a valid and appropriate choice. It just shows that humans can be pretty ‘flexible’, even about the most basic shared principles.

     I just don’t see how anything here leads one to the conclusion that there is a universal moral code (by which is meant, something that is objective, immutable and provided directly by God).

     Languages all seem to have similar ‘deep structure’ that we are predisposed to effortlessly integrate. Does that mean God provided a Universal Language Code?

     Children all over the world will laugh at the same childish physical humor. Does that mean God provided a Universal Humor Code? No, we’re just all wired together in similar ways, and our societies eventually devise similar solutions to reoccurring internal and external problems.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

108. Ronald says this in #89:

     >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no scientific evidence for a God or a God-given moral code, other than the fact that Godless societies have suppressed human liberty and have by far committed the greatest mass-murder compared to societies which keep a sense of God's moral code. >>>>>>>>

     And then Ronald quotes statistics showing that Godless societies (Russia and China) killed many more than have Western Christianized societies.

     My Response to that:

     Ronald, the fact that Godless societies have committed more heinous acts is not proof of God or a God-given moral code. You may have provided some preliminary support for the idea that God-fearing people are less violent. I don’t think the totality of evidence supports that, not really, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument. All that means is that religion improves people’s behavior. Doesn’t mean that religion is true. I’m not saying the world would be a better place without religion. It might be worse. Don’t know. But the fact that it is a useful, rewarding, and pacifying influence doesn’t make it literally true.

     I’ll throw in a quibble about those numbers, by the way, although I’m not terribly convinced it makes any difference. It looks to me like the carnage associated with the Christian and Western traditions is all 19th century or before.

     These were smaller, often agrarian societies, with less-advanced technology, weaponry, communication, and lower population. The Chinese and Russians had advanced technologies and massive populations at their disposal, in totalitarian states with iron control of the military and general population. I don’t know if they were much more murderous than the Crusaders, really. Perhaps just more equipped to carry out their deranged ideologies on a massive scale.

     Ronald also linked a lot of quotes from the Founding Fathers, suggesting (superficially at least) that they were pretty religious. I think the subtext is, if the geniuses who founded America can be religious, isn’t it unwise and terribly presumptuous to differ with them? No, I don’t think so, and it doesn’t trouble me at all. They were towering geniuses, men of courage and conviction (infinitely more so that Ozzie_M), but I know just as much about these eternal questions as they did. Which is to say, I know nothing at all, and neither did they.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

109. Raymond says:

     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ozzie – I already tried to make a very similar case to Dr. Jackson here. Best of luck.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

     Thanks Raymond. Do I detect a note of pessimism? :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

110. >the fetus is not visible, and so many of the cues that trigger the revulsion we would ordinarily feel are not there: the fetus doesn’t look like a child, act like a child, scream like a child, or beg for mercy like a child (visibly from outside the womb, at least). I’m not arguing that that SHOULD be the case, but it is.

     *** From my “What kind of car …” essay. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/

     When I look at a newborn baby girl I don’t see anything that resembles a thirty-year old woman. The head and limbs are not in the same size or proportion, and its body shape is completely different. It doesn’t communicate the same way, or have any appreciation at all for its surroundings. I’d be just as justified calling it “proto-Mary” as I would be to call the adult woman “Mary” if I based my criteria on the same distorted logic that abortionists use to distinguish between a 19- and 20-week old fetus.

     “Creating human life” is just that. Creation does not mean that life can’t develop, and that in developing life cannot change appearance, often radically. A caterpillar bears no resemblance at all to a butterfly, but still represents the same life — just at a different stage in development. As 30-year old Mary continues to age (or “develop”) her external features and internal organs will change too. Change is what defines life. Without it we’re dead. So why should change be used to deny life to a developing human being, instead of indicate absolute proof of it?
     You can take a trillion human sperm and a thousand human eggs and place them in two separate containers. As long as they do not mix, human life is impossible. But allow a single sperm and a single egg to unite inside a woman’s body, and human life has begun. One sentence, identifying the precise moment in time when the status of each constituent element fundamentally changes, is all that is needed to supplement this statement with the logic to support it. Find me the same parsimony in words to justify an elective abortion at week 19, 30, 22, 15, or any point in between, and I’ll support the wisdom of that choice instead of labeling it what it really is, a rationalization disguised as a thoughtful choice to advance a political agenda.

     >I made an effort to absorb your text concerning the alleged ‘right’ to abortion, and the hypothetical society and assumptions underlying it. I must apologize, I just don’t understand what you’re driving at very well.

     *** Ozzie, It’s understandable when you read it in the context of the entire article I wrote. I’m giving you a moral relativist’s rationalization of why women abort their fetuses but don’t kill their 3 year old kids. It really doesn’t make any sense, but this is the only way to reconcile that rationalization — thus showing how absurd it is.

     >Right and wrong are shared ideas, albeit powerful and fundamental ones.

     *** You really have to read the article I wrote. Cherry picking certain things I wrote won’t answer all your questions, while the article will.

     >haven’t some cultures sanctioned sacrificing (murdering) children as a way to appease the Gods?

     *** From my “True nature of Morality” essay: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

     It all has to do with arbitrarily defining away humanity or innocence to rationalize an immoral act.

     Even in primitive societies, people didn’t go around killing little children as frequently as they killed chickens, pigs, goats or wild game. In fact, they didn’t go around killing them at all, unless it was their enemies’ children (who were seen as “less than human” and/or shared in their parents' or race’s collective guilt, and thus were killed along with the adults), or the child was physically deformed (and therefore considered to be less than a true human), or the wrong sex (as in China today where girls are not valued equally with human males), or were killed in ritual sacrifice — where instead of devaluing the child, he/she was elevated to the status of a demigod who, through their innocent/pure/untainted life, had a special ability to commune with the gods.

     In this last example, a child’s humanity isn’t redefined to deny it, but rather it is redefined to make him more than human. These societies didn’t sacrifice ordinary children, but instead a child of “high value” whose humanity was re-defined to make him/her an extra-human emissary to the gods. This allowed the child to be treated by a different set of moral rules — or so the rationalization went. He/she wasn’t being killed because they were not seen as anything different from a common barnyard animal. The young boy or girl, because of their presumed special purity and innocence, was being ritually sacrificed to carry a message to the gods. The child, therefore, was no longer an ordinary human being, but instead a spiritual vessel capable of carrying a message to the gods. By contrast, the sacrifice of captured prisoners and criminals was not to celebrate their innocence, but to show respect and pay homage to the gods. These individuals had their humanity stripped away, and were just an extension of sheep, goats, or other sacrificial animals who served a similar purpose.

     ***

     Again, you raise good points, but see how I address them in the whole context of the issue, rather than just one or two representative paragraphs I pull out.

     One note of caution, though. In my response to Raymond's critique of my "What Kind of car" essay http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/ you'll see that raymond keeps arguing against believing that religion creates morality, which is a position I reject.

     Morality comes from God, not from man's creation (religion).

     I'm still hoping that someday some will actually critique what I said, rather than critiquing a position I reject and assuming it's mine because they think any reference to God is an automatic reference to religion.

     Final note: I'm donating a collection I have to a museum tomorrow, and will be unavailable most of the day. If you have any questions about my writings on the UMC, I invite you to contact me again after you've read my papers. The questions you raise are valid, but I address them in great detail, and excerpts of what I wrote only go so far.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

111. Ozzie_M,

     You say, "…there is no objective right or wrong. Right and wrong are shared ideas, albeit powerful and fundamental ones. But all opinions on the concepts of ‘right and wrong’ and certainly NOT equally valid…"

     How do you know there is no objective right or wrong? On what basis have you decided this? If there is no objective right or wrong, then your statement of this cannot be evaluated. Your statement contradicts itself.

     How do you know that all opinions are not equally valid? You gave away the farm with the first phrase, but want to pass moral judgment with the second.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 15, 2009

112. Well, to be a little pedantic, because I am fussy about precision, I said there is not objective right or wrong, "as far as I am aware". Just as I say of Dr. Jackson's UMC and the God of Abraham. They don't exist, *as far as I am aware*. I'm open to the possibility that evidence could come over the transom tomorrow, and will revise my views accordingly.

     There could, for example, be a God who has created an objective and universal set of moral principles. Principles that exist outside of our realm of ordinary perception and exist independently of our beliefs, values, and judgments. This is what Dr. Jackson proposes, I think. But I'm 'not aware' of any evidence that this is so.

     Therefore, I cling to the default assumption that seems most reasonable: that 'right and wrong' are ideas that people have and share, they are value judgments imposed upon certain behaviors, and they are, to some extent, culturally dependent. Although, as I belabored at length, most cultures share in common certain fundamental ideas of right and wrong, for various complex reasons. There is no eye in the sky that has yet told us which versions of right and wrong are eternally correct, which is what I assume is meant by 'objective'. Correct me if I seem to have misunderstood the term.

     I'm sorry, Mountain Man, but as far as I can tell the farm is still firmly in my possession. How do I know that all opinions are not equally valid? In numerous ways, most of which I would think are self-evident.

     Some opinions are more logical than others. Some opinions seem blatantly based upon delusion, misinformation, or lack of education. Some opinions have been tested in the crucible of experience, and have been empirically demonstrated as failures. If someone proposed that we organize our military and intelligence apparatus around the threat of witches, so that we can more effectively detect and burn them, I'd say they have an opinion that is less valid than many others.

     We – meaning people – evaluate things. We reach consensus. We all see through the glass darkly, and science is nothing but a candle in the dark (to quote Sagan), but surely we can evaluate things and reach conclusions, can't we? The fact that we can't know all things doesn't mean we can't reach confident, provisional conclusions about the things we see and hear and touch.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

113. Ozzie. You gotta read my essay. Then answer the question, if there is no objective right or wrong, then exactly when is it "right" to rape and kill a five year old child?

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2009

114. I guess I should back up. What exactly do you mean by 'objective', in this context. I may not be understanding your usage of it.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

115. Can you please give the link to the essay again? I've lost track of exactly which essay you are referring to.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

116. OK, I guess you mean the Jesus Driving thing. Found it. Pasted it to Word.

     Jeez, Doc. 69 pages, 50,000 words. That's a novella, man :-) Not sure I got the attention span. I'll see what I can do.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

117. Ozzie: "if the geniuses who founded America can be religious, isn’t it unwise and terribly presumptuous to differ with them? No, I don’t think so, and it doesn’t trouble me at all."

     Ozzie, I've decded to be presumptuous enough to differ with you, and agree with George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln; and that doesn't trouble me at all.

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 15, 2009

118. Ozzie,
     Neither I nor anyone else can prove the existence of God or God-based morality by the scientific method. The super-natural simply cannot be approached by science which only addresses the natural world that can be physically observed.

     The personal consequences of this are, well, personal; but the affect on a nation of 300,000,000 people is the issue, and that is not just a personal matter. I believe that an atheist can be a good person, mainly because most atheists choose to live by a moral code which is very similar to that of the Judeo-Christian religious – no problem. It appears to me, however, that when nations reject God and the Judeo-Christian moral code tyranny follows. This is what our founders believed, and I believe the twentieth century bears it out. Individual atheists generally do not act like animals, but Godless nations are usually lead by animals like Hitler or Stalin; and those nations then, like a predatory animal, become the enemy of human life and human liberty.

     Friedrich Nietzsche articulated a godless philosophy which gave strength and underpinning to the ideology of Nazi Germany – the atheistic philosophy of raw animal "will to power." As Nietzsche demonstrated, atheist philosophy, at least on a national scale, is the law of the jungle.

     “An important element of Nietzsche's philosophical outlook is the "will to power", which provides a basis for understanding motivation in human behavior. But this concept may have wider application, as Nietzsche, in a number of places, also suggests that the will to power is a more important element than pressure for adaptation or survival. In its later forms Nietzsche's concept of the will to power applies to all living things, suggesting that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, less important than the desire to expand one’s power.”

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

     Here is an essay on this subject; one which does not attempt to prove the existence of God, but which addresses the societal consequences.

     http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/19/if_there_is_no_god?page=full&comments=true

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 15, 2009

119. No problem, Ronald. I just hope you don't agree with George Washington about the value of bloodletting in treating respiratory infections. You'll live longer :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 15, 2009

120. Hey Oz, I'm with you on that one.

     By the way, leaches are effective in promoting increased blood circulation and wound healing in amputated fingers, toes, etc.

     RC

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 15, 2009

121. See, here's why this is pointless. Dr. Jackson quotes me in comment 97, where I say that I'm 'close to agnostic', and then claims that I said I was agnostic and then changed what I'd said.

     Let's look all the way back to comment 19: 'I would call myself "agnostic" on this point, except that "agnostic" has the connotation of being unable to ever know, that the question is undecidable. I think that we might eventually have enough data to test various hypotheses, including "universe was created" and "universe always existed". I think we just don't know yet.'

     Even in the part he quoted, I didn't say I was agnostic, just "close"… and when he quotes the dictionary at me, I reiterate the difference between agnosticism and my position. My explanation is evidence that I'm not explaining.

     Dr. Jackson, I don't grasp why you don't want to grasp what I'm saying. So far as I can tell, you have things all neatly categorized in your head, and when you run into a position that doesn't fit your scheme, you refuse to attempt to come to grips with it, and assume your failure to comprehend it is due to malice.

     (Oh, and re: comment 104 – It's a shame that William of Ockham didn't realize all the consequences of the principle he'd formulated.)

     Like I said, Ozzie, best of luck.

     Comment by Raymond Ingles | January 16, 2009

122. Ray – good effort. But like I said before, you change who and what you are to fit the argument you’re making.

     In Comment 32 you say “I actively disbelieve in the Gods of the various religions I've encountered. By some definitions, that makes me an atheist.” But you reject being called an atheist, because “At most, I've said that we exist in a universe that may or may not have been created, I'm not sure and haven't seen anything that can be used to decide the issue yet. I've even said that the closest word to my position is ‘agnostic’. (comment 25), and again 'the closest word to my position is "agnostic" (Comment 97). But that’s not really accurate because you’re really a “weak atheist” (Comment 25), who simply describes himself as an “atheist” on his own website (“A set of reasons why I'm an atheist.”
     http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/index.html,) but may actually be a "non-gnostic" and an atheist (comment 25) because it’s impossible for Raymond to engage in a discussion of God with thinking about Jesus.

     By the way, as a side note for a sometimes non-gnostic/agnostic/atheist/weak atheist who “[doesn’t] believe Gods exist. But that's not the same thing as believing that no type of God whatsoever might exist (There is no God, period, end of discussion),” [Comment 32] except when you say “No, I don't believe in God,” which is not really the same as “I do not proclaim definitively that there is no God” (Comment 44), unless of course we’re discussing Alpha or X but definitely not the Easter Bunny as a religious symbol, Raymond spends more time thinking about religion than the Apostles did.

     So, while Raymond has “problems [with] all the propositions I've seen so far (religions), so I can be 'atheist' with respect to them. On the general notion of existence of God(s), I'm not agnostic, but sort of "non-gnostic" (comment 25).

     And for that, Raymond wonders why “Dr. Jackson, I don't grasp why you don't want to grasp what I'm saying.”

     Out for the rest of the day. Phil

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

123. C'mon, Ozzie_M. We aren't talking about generic opinions, or errors in logic or fact. We are talking about morality.

     On one hand you say there isn't objective truth (which as I said is internally contradictory), and then in the same breath pronounce moral judgments.

     There is no way to know, according to your assertions, whether something is moral or not. Consensus changes, consensus is routinely violated, and the mantra we always here is that we have no right to judge.

     And this is the moral system you favor? Morality evolves, all right. Downward.

     Fact is, atheist morality is hand-me-down morality, derived from someone else's morality, usually Christian in origin.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 16, 2009

124. Igor Shafarevich, Sergi Bulgakov and Alexander Solzhenitsyn witnessed the unjust and tyrannical system of government which is a direct result of institutuional and governmental atheism. We have been warned.

     "For socialism nowadays emerges not only as a natural area of social policy but usually also as a religion, one based on atheism and the deification of man and man's labor and on recognition of the elemental forces of Nature and social life, and as the only meaningful principle of history." Sergi Bulgakov

     “It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world (its destruction or alteration) or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism's attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term "atheism" is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of "atheists" but of "God-haters," not of "atheism" but of "theophobia." Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich

     “We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism's peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove that man exists only as a manifestation of non-individual features, such as production or class interest.” Igor Shafarevich

     “World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity…. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

     http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 16, 2009

125. Mountain Man says:

     >>>>>>>>>>C'mon, Ozzie_M. We aren't talking about generic opinions, or errors in logic or fact. We are talking about morality.

     On one hand you say there isn't objective truth (which as I said is internally contradictory), and then in the same breath pronounce moral judgments.

     There is no way to know, according to your assertions, whether something is moral or not. Consensus changes, consensus is routinely violated, and the mantra we always here is that we have no right to judge.

     And this is the moral system you favor? Morality evolves, all right. Downward.

     Fact is, atheist morality is hand-me-down morality, derived from someone else's morality, usually Christian in origin.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 16, 2009<<<<<<<<

     Well, first of all, I'm going to need someone to give me a definition of what they mean by 'objective' truth and 'objective' morality. I'm not being fussy, I'm just not sure what you guys mean by that. I THINK I know, but I'd rather be sure before I pontificate about it any more. Then I can assess your claim that I am contradicting myself.

     Plus, I'd like to remind you again, that when discussing such things, I usually say, "I'm NOT AWARE of any evidence of objective truth," rather than "There IS NO objective truth. If I neglected to add those qualifiers anywhere in this thread, it was due to haste or carelessness. Maybe there is evidence, I just haven't seen it yet.

     Consensus does change, thankfully. And, our conceptions of what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, change as well, thankfully. That's okay, isn't it? Our viewpoints SHOULD change as more information becomes available. Therefore, our concepts of morality may change.

     There are aspects of mental illness, for example, that were once considered 'moral' problems, that are now firmly and decisively known to be rooted in neurological or psychiatric dysfunction. I think that's a good thing.

     You seem invested in distinguishing errors in 'logic and fact' from 'morality', as though they exist in isolation from one another. You'll have to tell me more about why, because it seems inappropriate to me to make that distinction. We really ought to base morality on logic and fact, I would think. Surely you'd not propose we base it on illogic and misinformation, should we? Logic and facts inform morality, I hope, although they are not always decisive because disagreements sometimes remain about even the basic facts.

     Although I tend to be forgetful, I don't recall saying that I 'favor' any particular moral system, let alone an 'atheistic' one. Perhaps I implied it, but I didn't mean to. I have nowhere said that a moral system based on purely secular reasoning is going to be more effective and helpful than one based on (putative) universal God-given moral constructs. It might be worse, actually. Society might decline. It could be that religion plays a crucial and irreplaceable role in keeping homo sapiens from killing each other off. I doubt it, but it could be.

     That doesn't mean that the objects of religious thinking have any truth value. That's all I'm saying.

     I also don't see any evidence that secular forms of morality inevitably trend downwards. Maybe they do, though, I don't know. I think the evidence is conflicting, and it's probably premature to draw a firm conclusion.

     I would think it to be utterly obvious and implicit in everything I've said, but maybe not. So I'll just say it for the record–I think that systems of morality, systems of right and wrong, are best judged by their results (here in the real world)–their tendency to be stable, just, productive, logical, and workable for the greatest number of people, while inflicting injustice on the fewest number. Who decides? Well, we do. I don't see any other source of evaluation right now. We just do the best we can, by consensus and thoughtful observation and continuous refinement. Man is in fact the measure of these things, as far as I am aware.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 16, 2009

126. > I'm going to need someone to give me a definition of what they mean by 'objective' truth and 'objective' morality. I'm not being fussy, I'm just not sure what you guys mean by that.

     Ozzie: I do just that in my essay. Morality is more than "doing good". It must have concrete terms associated with it that transcend one historical moment in time, or one geographic location, or one political system. Otherwise, it's just one person's (or one society's) opinion/consensus. I define it as "it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human being", where I discuss in concrete terms what "deliberate harm", "innocent", and "human being" mean.

     Again, all your questions are on point. Insofar as my position is concerned, you can judge how well I lay the issue out, examine potental alternative explanations, and support my conclusions.

     Phil

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

127. Ozzie_M,

     Looks to me like you were the first person in quite some time to use the term. So why don't you define it?

     "…our concepts of morality may change." If morality can change at whim, it isn't morality. Implicit in morality is that certain things are wrong and others are right. If this is not true, then everything "moral" is changeable. Murder might be ok. Stealing might be fine. Genocide could be acceptable.

     So, let's say someone happens to believe that it is fine to have sex with children. After all, what happens between two consenting people is no one's business. Upon what basis would you impose your morality and say this person was wrong?

     "We really ought to base morality on logic and fact, I would think." Oh, really? Logic is based on morality, not the other way around. Otherwise, how would you evaluate the logic of a statement without making value judgments? It requires a finely honed sense of morality to think logically.

     Apparently this is not a high priority for you, since you do not see the inherent contradiction of suggesting that there is no objective morality (whether you are aware of it or not is irrelevent). You make an objective statement to define a subjectivity.

     "…I don't recall saying that I 'favor' any particular moral system…" Everyone has a moral "system." Every one of your statements carries a moral component, and many of them are judgmental. So it hardly matters that you haven't said such a thing, since clearly you have one in operation.

     Of course there is no evidence that "secular forms of morality inevitably trend[s] downwards." This is probably the most ridiculous thing you have written. You just finished telling us how morality does and ought to change. So the fact that does change means the change is accepted. There is no downward trend, and in fact, the change is viewed as an improvement.

     Morality is judged by results? Who judges? Based on what, money, good feelings, happiness? So what happens when your good feelings come at the expense of someone else? What happens when your morality changes and what was good is now bad?

     Is the value of altruism discernible by results? How about self-sacrifice? What about "if someone asks for your coat, give them your cloak too?"

     I wonder if you have really thought this through.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 16, 2009

128. Dr. Jackson, I got about 10-15 pages into your essay so far (of 60 or so when it is printed out). My impression is that it represents a prodigious amount of effort on your part, and you are an engaging writer. Besides, in my book, anybody who writes SciFi can't be all bad ;-)

     I find myself, so far, very curious about what is the *content* of this supposed universal moral code. Presumably that is spelled out later. My worry is that although child murder is admittedly a pretty universal source of revulsion, beyond a couple of more crimes (like stealing), I doubt you can identify many other aspects of morality that are nearly as well agreed upon cross-culturally and across time. After murder, things go downhill fast, in terms of selling the concept that they are 'universal'. And if the Code has little that is truly universal, what is the point of it? I'm not sure you can demonstrate that it guides us much in some of the more nettlesome moral arguments of our day.

     But I will soldier on, and when the essay fleshes out the content of this code, I will see if I am right.

     Have a fine, moral evening. :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 16, 2009

129. Mountain:

     >>>>>>>>>>>>>So, let's say someone happens to believe that it is fine to have sex with children. After all, what happens between two consenting people is no one's business. Upon what basis would you impose your morality and say this person was wrong?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

     Children cannot meaningfully consent. But in connection with that, the idea of consent is a good example of a moral and legal construct that has developed and been refined in our society over time, and that is a good thing. For example, now people must competently consent to be the subject of research, or to undergo medical procedures. These new innovations in moral reasoning (capacity to consent to XYZ, and proxy consent processes for the incompetent) are in response to the ever-increasing complexity of society. The Declaration of Independence, and the Bible, are silent on those issues, other than the general injunction to 'do unto others…'

     I don't propose that lasting moral judgments are made up on a whim. Like professional ethics, they should be the subject of study and consideration. Those that seem to pass the test of reasonableness and utility will probably be enshrined in law, if necessary, but it requires quite a lot of deliberation and consensus to do so, which is also a good thing. So, one fool's deluded moral judgment that having sex with children is okay is highly unlikely to be widely adopted. And said fool, regardless of whether he thinks he is acting morally, will find no agreement and he will be locked up for the good of the herd. And long may he rot.

     I'm baffled by your contention that logic is ultimately based upon morality, rather than vice-versa. Can you give an example of why you think that is so?

     My understanding of logic is that it is a cognitive activity, the use of sound and reasonable thought processes to reach reliable conclusions, regardless of morality, ethics, or whatever.

     If you complete a geometric proof, and do it well, you are using logic, I think. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Logic is relatively value-free, much as mathematics is. You know, 'If-A, and Not-B, then C'. In fact, a man's behavior can be very logical, but utterly immoral. Many of Hitler's actions were perfectly logical, although they proceeded from distorted and sick assumptions. Many serial killers are exceptionally logical–it is why they escape detection for so long.

     So in contradiction to your statement, I don't think it requires the slightest shred of morality to think logically. I'm surprised you would think it does, and it makes me suspect that perhaps we have different definitions of the word 'logical'. Could be, and maybe yours is more accurate than mine.

     I'm afraid that I disagree with something in nearly every sentence of your post. But I have other commitments, and can't take them all on just now. Maybe I'll come back to them another time.

     In answer to your suspicion that I haven't 'thought this through', you are probably correct. In fact, there is a lot of truth to it. I am making it up as I go along. Perhaps I will find myself eventually cornered by your superior analysis. I just feel that so far, I have managed to wiggle free.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 16, 2009

130. Ozzie: "Well, first of all, I'm going to need someone to give me a definition of what they mean by 'objective' truth and 'objective' morality."

     My definition of objective truth is simply scientific truth – truth which can be ascertained through the scientific method of observation and testing, and reason. Reason is simply the ability to see and understand self-evident truth at the end of the observation and testing process.

     I believe objective morality consist of the laws or rules which come from an authority higher than man, i.e.: God's law or God's rules. For me that can be distilled down to the ten commandments of the Hebrew Bible, the golden rule of the New Testament, and the command to love your neighbor as yourself – which comes from both. Even my atheist friends adhere to most of these rules as far as I can tell. There are also some religious rules for sexual morality, and I believe that is where most of the animosity toward religion comes in. In my opinion the Judeo-Christian religious rules, i.e.: objective morality, tend to elevate man or woman to a level higher than that of the animals – it helps to develop a man or woman into a child of God.

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 16, 2009

131. Ozzie

     I have been reading all this, but I’ve refrained from commenting until now. I would like to correct your idea about logic as it applies to mathematics and probably morality also. The whole basis of math is logic and it’s application. Most of the basic rules have been known for 6,000 years or more. Each rule following the basic ones is built on a previous rule. There is also truth and falsehood in math. I remember learning the proof for one does not equal zero as a freshman. That is where we get in trouble when we say things like “Many of Hitler's actions were perfectly logical, although they proceeded from distorted and sick assumptions.” Nothing moral, or true, can proceed from false assumptions.

     Consensus is a weak device for determining morality. Hitler was supported by consensus as were the flat earth proponents 500 years ago. No one is saying this stuff is easy, otherwise we would not have 6,000 years of writing and debate on these subjects.

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 16, 2009

132. >My worry is that although child murder is admittedly a pretty universal source of revulsion, beyond a couple of more crimes (like stealing), I doubt you can identify many other aspects of morality that are nearly as well agreed upon cross-culturally and across time.

     Ozzie, it only takes one example to demonstrate a "universal". And, if it is universal (that is, not dependent on society, education, genetics, consensus, etc.), then the question arises — what is the source of that universality?

     By the way, if the UMC ("it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human being" is true, then there are far more implications for how one should live a moral life than avoiding child rape and mirder. "Deliberate harm" to another human being of any kind (mental or physical) would be immoral. Deliberate harm to an "innocent" would be immoral (think of the legal system's implication regarding genuine due process vs. kangaroo courts, and law making implications where class distinctions and other deliberate favorings for venal purposes would be universally acknowledged as immoral). And recognizing that defining human life is not the result of a legal consensus would have great implications as well, not only in opposing elective abortion, but in NOT assigning "moral" status to plants and animals (i.e. contrary to what they think in San Francisco, I'm not immoral for eating meat).

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

133. Ozzie, one more thing — when you say "I doubt you can identify many other aspects of morality that are nearly as well agreed upon cross-culturally and across time,", if by agree you mean simple human consensus, you've missed the point. If by agree you mean agree with the position I lay out for the reasons I do, then that's a different statement.

     The only way people can rationalize immoral acts is to arbitrarily or legally define away an individual's "innocense" or "humanity".

     This is why everyone can intuitively recognize that child murder violates a universal moral code, but say that elective abortion or terrorism doesn't — because to commit abortion or terrorism, one must first deny that human being's "humanity" or "innocense".

     Deciding that a 19 week old fetus is not human is a rationalization, albeit one derived from a legal compromise. It is still a historical-legal concensus, not a fact. Calling a cow a tree doesn't make the cow a tree. Ity's still a cow.

     Additionally, deciding that all Jews deserve to die because they are Jews doesn't strip away their innocense. Innocence (or not) depends on what an individual does. Thus a murderer can be executed for his actions after a just and fair trial, but you can't just kill your neighbor because you hate blondes or Albanians.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

134. It would also be helpful if I could actually spell "Innocence"

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

135. Phil

     I agree that we have a problem with abortion, but I’ve never been completely comfortable with the “Conception” answer given by John McCain and others. Tonight I saw a TV show about the Dogs and Cats in utero. I learned that there are several stages I hadn’t known about before. A. Sperm bores into egg. B. Egg shell hardens to prevent other sperm entering. C. Egg becomes a zygote with two cells. D. Cell division begins with 2 becoming 4, 4 becoming 8, and so on. E. The zygote implants in the uterine wall and becomes a blastocyst or embryo. F. At some point in time, approx. 8 weeks in humans, the cells begin to differentiate into organs and become a fetus.

     My question is: Would it not be advantageous to the pro-life cause to compromise on banning the killing of a fetus and leave the first 8 weeks to the woman and doctors? This would not take the father’s right into account, but it would be progress.

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 16, 2009

136. Ivan: Human life is human life, and can't be re-defined by man based on arbitrary opinion, consensus or legalistic criteria. The only legitimate separation is a fundamental one, not one based on compromise (however it is justified, or however well intended). It isn't up to man to decide who is human and who isn't.

     Viability isn't a legitimate issue. If I'm on a respirator, or in a coma, I can't feed or care for myself any more than a developing fetus. Does being in a coma make me non-human?

     Brain activity isn't either. If so, retarded people, Alzheimers patients, or other brain defective people could be assigned less-than-fully-human or subhuman status.

     It's a slippery slope when others get to decide when I actually became a human being. So, what makes a human human? What is the fundamental dividing point below which it cannot possibly be a human being? Why does not looking like a human being (arms, legs, eyes, etc.) allow us to decide it isn't human, based on its appearance?

     My position is this (from my "What Kind of car …" essay):

     When I look at a newborn baby girl I don’t see anything that resembles a thirty-year old woman. The head and limbs are not in the same size or proportion, and its body shape is completely different. It doesn’t communicate the same way, or have any appreciation at all for its surroundings. I’d be just as justified calling it “proto-Mary” as I would be to call the adult woman “Mary” if I based my criteria on the same distorted logic that abortionists use to distinguish between a 19- and 20-week old fetus.

     “Creating human life” is just that. Creation does not mean that life can’t develop, and that in developing life cannot change appearance, often radically. A caterpillar bears no resemblance at all to a butterfly, but still represents the same life — just at a different stage in development. As 30-year old Mary continues to age (or “develop”) her external features and internal organs will change too. Change is what defines life. Without it we’re dead. So why should change be used to deny life to a developing human being, instead of indicate absolute proof of it?

     You can take a trillion human sperm and a thousand human eggs and place them in two separate containers. As long as they do not mix, human life is impossible. But allow a single sperm and a single egg to unite inside a woman’s body, and human life has begun. One sentence, identifying the precise moment in time when the status of each constituent element fundamentally changes, is all that is needed to supplement this statement with the logic to support it.

     Find me the same parsimony in words to justify an elective abortion at week 19, 30, 22, 15, or any point in between, and I’ll support the wisdom of that choice instead of labeling it what it really is, a rationalization disguised as a thoughtful choice to advance a political agenda.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

137. Ozzie — One other point I need to make for you, when you say "I'm not sure you can demonstrate that it guides us …"

     The UMC is not a guide, in the sense that it compells anything. It doesn't. It's a measuring stick that allows each individual to intuitively understand what is right (moral), and what is wrong (immoral).

     If you allow yourself to access your God-given UMC (through honest thought/inquiry/evaluations to seek the truth whatever it might be, rather than rationalize one's wishes/desires/political beliefs), it can certainly influence your actions by "pushing" you to make moral choices. But, knowing what the UMC is doesn't compell moral behavior. I'm sure a woman aborting her child can rationalize that it's not an immoral act. She knows she ended the existence of something, but has arbitrarily defined away it's "human" status, so she allows herself to think it's no different than removing a tumor.

     But, if she was forced to honestly confront whether she had the right to arbitrarily define-away that developing child's humanity (just because it's legal doesn't make it right; slavery was once legal), and admit that it's not really like a tumor after all, but a developing human being, she'd have to confront the fact that she'd be ending a human life. That life may only be 2 days old, but left unmolested it would become a fully developed child, unlike a tumor which will always be a tumor.

     Now, acknowledging its humanity, I don't think she'd terminate the pregnancy. No one has forced her to change her mind. The only difference is that once she stops arbitrarily rationalizing away its humanity, the immorality of her act is apparant, and that acknowledgment alone will stop her if she wishes to lead a moral life.

     People have to choose to act morally (free will). The issue is honestly and objectively determining what is moral, and resisting the effort to rationalize one's desires to "make" them moral.

     Moreover, people who are otherwise attuned to the UMC ("it is immoral to harm an innocent human being"), but choose to arbitrarily define away humanity and innocence, do not "get rid" of the UMC. It's still there, just repressed or buried through rationalizations — sometimes with the help of society (US abortion law/rationalizations about when human life status is assigned by the courts), education (teaching that relativism is good, that all opinions are equal, that there is no good or bad), religion (Islamo fascist terrorism against Infidels), and so on.

     This search for the UMC has to be done with intellectual honesty, which is one reason I concluded (to the chagrin of many) that voluntary prostitution among consentiong adults is not per se immoral. Where is the deliberate harm to innocent human life if both parties consent?

     Many religions view prostitution as immoral, but this is a religious tenet. Many religious tenents are in sinc with the UMC, since many religions strive for true morality. But it is the UMC that informs the religion, not the other way around. And just as every action does not necessarily involve a moral issue (coke vs. pepsi is not a moral question — unless the coke is made by slaves or child labor), some religious tenants are just man's law (like, Church on Sunday, Synagogue on Saturday, etc.)

     The onus, in this case, is to be sure that it is a legitimate adult consent, and not a bargain between two parties where one is mentally disturbed, forced into prostitution through economic or social coercion, etc. But if it is a genuine bargain, I can't condemn it on moral grounds [though the law could certainly regulate or restrict it for non-moral reasons, like public health concerns].

     Intellectual honesty is paramount to seeking the truth.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

138. Ivan: One caveat I left out about a functioning brain not determining human status.

     Consider the case of a human being who, through injury or disease, has all brain funtions cease. The brain is "dead". I could see a legitimate reason to terminate that life without calling it murder (or, if the society or family chose, keep the person alive artificially). Brain death doesn't automatically call for either outcome. Morally, both are acceptable.

     In my case, if I'm brain dead I would want to stop all efforts to mechanically prolong my life. I have a DNR on file to this effect if it happens to me. Note to file: Comas, Alzheimers, and less than fatal brain injuries do not constitute "brain death." My quality of life may be less than what it is now, but we don't justify killing people because they're old and useless, retarded, or we ourselves wouldn't want to live that way so they definitely won't be allowed to. Man should always resist playing God with our life (suicide) or other's life by assigning arbitrary criteria for one's humanity. A dead brain, by contrast, is not an arbitrary state. There's no chance for further development or recovery.

     Contrast this with killing a developing child who hasn't grown a functioning brain yet because it's still a zygote. Left unmolested, the brain WILL appear. But if a brain dead person is left unmollested, the brain will not re-start.

     Neither the zygote nor the brain-dead person has a functioning brain. But in the case of the developing child, it WILL grow one unless we arbitrarily stop it. And denying it human status because we deliberately arrested it's development is a rationalization, not an honestly- reasoned distinction between it and the developed brain dead person.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

139. It's been a long day, sorry for the multiple entrys, but I don't want to be unintentionally misunderstood on this.

     When I say "Consider the case of a human being who, through injury or disease, has all brain funtions cease. The brain is 'dead'. I could see a legitimate reason to terminate that life without calling it murder", by "terminate" I mean end mechanical/artificial methods to sustain life, not inject some drug into the brain dead person to kill him/her. That's an execution, not simply allowing a brain dead person's body to die from natural causes as well.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2009

140. Neither the State nor the physician has the moral authority to end mechanical/artificial methods to sustain life in the brain dead or otherwise hopeless case. Only the patient him/herself thorugh current or prior verbal or written communication; or failing that the next of kin, has that moral authority.

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

141. Ronald: On this we both agree, which is why I personally have legal document expressing my wishes on this subject.

     My main distinction here is that allowing a brain dead person to die because life can only be sustained by mechanical means is not the same thing as justifying an elective abortion because the zygote doesn't have a brain … yet.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

142. Phillip, I agree with your basic moral argument against abortion. I believe the law should stay out of abortion until the fetus acquires a state of independent viability which occurs around 28 or 29 weeks gestation, and at that point he/she should be called a baby rather than fetus. At that point the baby is able to live outside the mother's uterus and therefore his/her right to life trumps the mothers right to privacy – at that point the baby becomes his/her sole custodian of life. I'm not saying the mother's right to privacy is higher than the baby's right to life prior to 28-29 weeks, I'm just saying she should only answer to God. After 28-29 weeks gestation abortion becomes maternal murder.

     The right to human life is always the paramount human right, but the case of pregnancy is special. God gave the woman a custodial responsibility for the life of her fetus/baby. The mother commits a sin by killing her fetus prior to 28-29 weeks gestation, but she commits murder by killing her baby after that point.

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

143. RC writes: "Only the patient him/herself thorugh current or prior verbal or written communication; or failing that the next of kin, has that moral authority."

     A. A verbal contract is NOT worth the paper it's written on.

     B. Elderly spouses are often under tremendous strain after watching there husband or wife suffer for months and are easily persuaded to "let them die". I would not call this "moral authority", but legal authority.

     C. Roe V Wade also gives only legal authority only.

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 17, 2009

144. Ivan Ivanovich,
     You think and write like a lawyer, and that is why you should not have a license to practice medicine in the United States. When a patient, particularly with his/her family beside them, tells the physician that he/she is ready for the termination of mechanical life support; there is simply no need for "legal authority", written contract, lawyers or judges – that would only be necessary in a Communist society where "legal authority" trumps individual free will and individual moral authority. When a patient is incapacitated the elderly spouse, even under strain or stress, is the moral and legal authority whether you like it or not; and that includes verbal communication directly to the physician – no need for a lawyer, judge or commissar here. The patient or their next of kin are morally empowered to change written contracts on the spot.

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

145. Ozzie_M,

     You write, "Children cannot meaningfully consent." That is a legal position, not a moral one. There was a time in history when it was illegal to engage in homosexual relations. This is no longer the case. Since laws can be changed, you'll have to show me why your morality proscribes sex between adults and consenting children.

     Phil says, "The UMC is not a guide, in the sense that it compells anything. It doesn't. It's a measuring stick that allows each individual to intuitively understand what is right (moral), and what is wrong (immoral)." This is the crux of the matter. There is no way to tell what is moral without an unchangeable standard to compare with.

     Consider the length of a meter. A meter is the international standard unit of length, the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. This is a non-changing, objective standard. We can always know what a meter is because of this.

     However, consensus is fluid. Pragmatism is too. Opinion changes. We cannot know what is moral under these circumstances. Relationships cannot be built, society cannot function without an unchanging moral code.

     "I am making it up as I go along." Well, that is helpful, isn't it? You have your conclusions formed first, and hope that your cobbled-together arguments will hold together? Well, isn't that special?

     "I have managed to wiggle free." Hardly. If I noticed that you haven't thought it through, then how can this be?

     You know, your presence here is an insult.

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 17, 2009

146. Mountain Man:

     >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the crux of the matter. There is no way to tell what is moral without an unchangeable standard to compare with.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>However, consensus is fluid. Pragmatism is too. Opinion changes. We cannot know what is moral under these circumstances. Relationships cannot be built, society cannot function without an unchanging moral code.>>>>>>>>

     I think we can. We can not know to utter certainty what the best moral code is, because like other human ideas (governmental structure, education of the young, economics, international law, rules of war, etc) these are all human concepts arising from imperfect, barely civilized, biased human minds. So of course it's fluid. That makes it a real challenge, and I don't know if it will all work out or not. But we seem to be on our own, so we'd best do all we can to make moral codes thoughtful and fair.

     My view is that the very existence of functional societies today contradicts your claim that societies cannot function without an unchanging moral code (presumably God-given, although I'm not sure that is what you mean). Because there IS none, that I know of, and they DO function.

     I am aware that my presence here is an insult. In my opinion, my presence ANYWHERE is an affront to all that is good and right and beautiful. I'm sorry you have to endure me. Maybe at the next IC council meeting, I can be voted off the island, or in some other way severely punished. I think that would be the decent thing to do.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

147. OK, I accidentally deleted some text before that last post. This was supposed to be the first paragraph.

     Mountain Man:

     >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the crux of the matter. There is no way to tell what is moral without an unchangeable standard to compare with.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

     But there is. We CAN. We DO, and as far as I know, we always have. Now, I'd like to hasten to say that I agree with Dr. Jackson that there are (relatively) unchangeable standard, in some areas (ie, the need to nurture and protect the young). In other areas as well, such as theft and unjustified violence, just about every society gravitates towards some standards that do in fact seem nearly unchangeable. As far as I can tell, that is because *they work*, and probably there is some component of innate behavioral tendency brought forth by evolution.

     My quibble is that I see no evidence these common 'moral perceptions' are God given.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

148. Ronald:

     My view on this has nothing to do with religion or sin. To me, whether Action X is a sin or not is irrelevant. My focus is on right or wrong based on a universal moral code.

     Whether electively aborting a fetus is a sin or murder matters little to the object in question (the human being). It's just as dead whether it's a zygote or 9 month old partial birth abortion, or whether we look at the result through the prism of religion or basic science. Aborting it as a zygote because it's viable, but doesn't "look" human, is a rationalization as I discussed above, just as placing less value on it simply because it was deliberately killed after 2 days rather than 20-plus weeks.

     The only time abortion becomes a legitimate option is when the mother's actual life (not mental health) is at stake. I spend a long time discussing this in my essay. No one is morally required to die, though they may choose to potentially give their life to save another (just as soldiers do in wartime). But, that's their free will choice, not a moral mandate.

     Where this issue becomes deliberately confused is when people argue that a woman's sadness, discomfort, shame, or supposed limitations on her career, etc. justify deliberately harming innocent life. I even argue in my paper that rape or incest alone is not enough to justify elective abortion. As horrible as it would be to give birth to such a child then place it up for adoption, it's time we also focused on the life of the child being aborted.

     What did that developing child actually do to deserve death? If we say it deserves death because of the way it was conceived, they we've just rationalized that not all humans have the same right to life because of the way they were conceived (through violence or deception), look at a moment in time (a zygote), or because of their particular genetic composition (incest). If that's a fundamentally defensible principle, then why shouldn't this same less-than-full protection to life occur after birth. What's so magic about moving through a birth canal that a rape victim's birth now deserves equal rights to life with a non-rape birth? Is it because they can breathe on their own? Okay, wait until they get older and lapse into a coma or become physically incapable of caring for themselves, then kill them. It's a basic extension of the same principle that the child conceived through rape or incest has no basic right to life, other than what another person grants it.

     I have a severely retarded brother in law. As I write in my essay, even though he couldn't speak, walk or care for himself, he taught me more about life than many of my professors. I didn't value him less because he was "unviable" or the product of a genetic defect (which is how some people rationalize potential problems from incest, even though it took 20 generations of incest among Egyptian pharos for real genetic problems to arise — and even then they were still full human beings despite their genetic problems).

     It's a slippery slope when we begin to rationalize. The only certain thing is the dividing line between it cannot possibly be human (sperm and eggs that remain separate), and when conception occurs (where the sum of the whole is more than just it's constituent parts, because that union begins the developmental process).

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

149. How do you do italics in these posts? I have moral objections to USING CAPS, but I don't know how else to provide the emphasis my words deserve… :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

150. Ozzie. Read the full essay. You are mixing moral issues with issues that may not involve morality.

     Regarding "theft", in Cuba it's defined as owning private property. The word means different things in different cultures and societies, because it's a consensus term that hasn't been analyzed or examined as a fundamental principle. You have to get beyond historical or social examples of something that represent a basic principle, and look at the basic principle itself. Sometimes they coincide, some times they don't.

     It's why saying "I agree with Dr. Jackson that there are (relatively) unchangeable standard, in some areas (ie, the need to nurture and protect the young)," doesn't advance the argument. These "standards" are consensus, not morality. We've killed 50 million fetuses in the US by simply defining away their humanity so we can rationalize that we protect "children".

     The fact is humanity doesn't routinely nurture and protect the young. Too often it rationalizes different ways to kill them, from elective abortion to genocide. The UMC does not prohibit bad behavior. What it forces us to do is get bast the consensus-driven BS and look at the fundamental aspects of the action (does it deliberately harm innocent human life), where we don't play games with words. We don't arbitrarily define away humanity, or rationalize an action so that terror-killing people you dislike somehow becomes a nobel cause.

     100% of the world could agree on a standard or action, and that consensus doesn't make it moral. The UMC will guide a real search for right and wrong that transcends what people rationalize/wish for/decide upon, etc. and then pronounce as "moral".

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

151. IVAN IVANOVICH:
     >>>>>>>>>>>>>Consensus is a weak device for determining morality. Hitler was supported by consensus as were the flat earth proponents 500 years ago. No one is saying this stuff is easy, otherwise we would not have 6,000 years of writing and debate on these subjects.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>That is where we get in trouble when we say things like “Many of Hitler's actions were perfectly logical, although they proceeded from distorted and sick assumptions.” Nothing moral, or true, can proceed from false assumptions<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

     I don't understand. Of course, if your assumption is that 'might makes right', then nothing very moral is likely to come of that. But if your assumption is 'might makes right' you can proceed in a very logical fashion to implement plans and schemes that will work very effectively (for you). You are logical, though bad and wrong in your fundamental orientation towards others.

     As an example, there's an old story about criminal logic…a guy goes to a funeral, meets a woman he really likes, but doesn't get her name or phone number. The next day he goes out and kills the brother of the original dead guy. Why? Because he knows the same woman will probably show up at the brother's funeral. That's LOGICAL. It is of course morally bankrupt, and proceeding from repulsive assumptions, but it is totally logical.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

152. >>>>>>>>The fact is humanity doesn't routinely nurture and protect the young. Too often it rationalizes different ways to kill them, from elective abortion to genocide.>>>>>>

     Dr. Jackson, that sounds completely erroneous. There are 6 billion people in our world, and the vast, overwhelming majority of them WERE nurtured and protected by adults, primarily their parents (assuming the society had the means to do so – not starving, etc). Isn't that the very definition of 'routinely'? When you say abortion is done 'too often' (I sense that even ONE would be too often in your view), that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the young are and always have been nurtured and protected by their parents and their communities. Routinely.

     I never said that any moral code prevents bad behavior. It's beyond obvious that it doesn't, because there's plenty of bad behavior everywhere, even though we seem to have innate tendencies against some of it, and even though many profess to powerfully believe in a particular moral code. Nothing, really, prevents bad behavior.

     You say that 100% agreement on a moral code (full consensus) doesn't make it 'moral'. Of course. Whole societies can go dangerously insane. Usually they don't because such insanities often lead to unstable societies that don't survive, or societies that must change to survive. What's to disagree about there?

     Consensus morality is imperfect. But we all do seem to reach roughly similar conclusions over time, as Dr. Jackson's essay states. I just don't see any reason to invoke anything supernatural to explain that fact. It seems to me that better, more parsimonious hypotheses abound.

     I keep hearing how we CAN'T form moral judgments, and we CAN'T have a functional society, without a supernaturally-provided, eternal, universal, objective moral code. But as far as I can tell, that's what we've BEEN doing, all along. And it seems to work reasonably well, in many cases. If the religious overtones of the moral code were removed, maybe they wouldn't be as effective, but that's just a pragmatic argument, not an ontological one (if I've used that word correctly).

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

153. Just an idea: Why don't we take this sort of conversation over to the IC Social Network rather than taking up all this bandwidth on Alan's entry?

     I had to laugh when Ozzie said "you sound like a lawyer" because I dislike lawyers very much but I did learn from them and acted as my own lawyer in court a few times. I didn't know if I should feel insulted or complemented. I'm also not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

     I'm not insulted by your presence, but I disagree with you often. I don't understand what you don't understand. I was certainly NOT defending Hitler, although I do think that "Might makes Right" is basically the same as consensus and neither one is moral.

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 17, 2009

154. DR. JACKSON:

     >>>>>>>>>>>>>Regarding "theft", in Cuba it's defined as owning private property. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

     See, but you are confusing me here. I don't see how that argues for your point. It seems to support mine. I was giving this 'universal' moral code thing the benefit of the doubt, by observing that at least a couple of moral judgments see pretty universal. Yes, child rape and murder is one. Then I said, probably theft as well.

     You respond that No, theft is not part of the universal moral code. Okay, so that's just one less thing that is universal. It supports my contention that this seemingly universal,inborn moral code that you posit apparently has very limited content. You point out that there is a universal revulsion against child rape/murder, and it seems that you then conclude there exists something stable, fundamental, God-given, and universal in our morality. But there doesn't seem to be much in this code, and I suspect what IS there, may well have entirely naturalistic origins. Until I see otherwise.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

155. IVAN, there's been a further miscommunication:

     I didn't make the comment about sounding like a lawyer, that was someone else.

     I understand completely that you were not defending Hitler. Of course not. I'm just saying that Hitler could employ excellent logic. Previously it was asserted that logic is somehow based on morality, and I said they were just different things. That's all I mean.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

156. I sense there are numerous posts and points above that I've not responded to, and I may not be able to. Got other stuff on my plate. Didn't really intend that this would morph into all this. I'm starting to feel I am just repeating myself, anyway. I will still try to read Dr. Jackson's interesting essay, and see whether I think at the end that he has strongly supported the notion that there exists an unchanging, 'objective' moral code *that is God-given*.

     The *God-given* part is the kicker for me. Just don't see why it would necessarily come from that source, when so many other factors that are more prosaic could explain it. It seems to reasonable position is that we must convincingly rule out the other possible origins I have proposed, before we would proceed to the conclusion that the source must be supernatural.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

157. Ozzie, sorry, it was R. Cherry. Anyway, I laughed. I agree that logic and morality are not the same.

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 17, 2009

158. >There are 6 billion people in our world, and the vast, overwhelming majority of them WERE nurtured and protected by adults, primarily their parents (assuming the society had the means to do so – not starving, etc). Isn't that the very definition of 'routinely'?

     Ozzie.

     These are word games. Yes, the majority of people do not abort children or commit genocide. But abortions are not “rare” (50 million in the US, many more in China and Europe). Genocide is not rare (Stalin, Hitler, present day third world atrocities). Terrorism isn’t rare (it may not be as successful as Stalin and Hitler, but it isn’t for lack of trying).

     So I say “not rare”, you say “routine”, and we’re both superficially right. But I make the further point that all these efforts have ONE thing in common. To do it, the perpetrators had to first rationalize away the innocence or humanity of the person they were harming to justify the act. That’s why a woman who is otherwise loving to her already-born child can kill a fetus in her own body. The fact that she has three living kids and one dead fetus is irrelevant, as is that “only” 42 million babies are aborted worldwide each year in a population of 6 billion http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html, or that “only” 203,000,000 people were slaughtered in war or genocide during the 20th http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm . Yes, most people don’t kill innocent human beings. BUT WHEN THEY DO, they rationalize it by expressly denying the UMC (which helps demonstrate that there IS a UMC, which is the first step in the process of answering the related question: where did it come from?).

     If you truly want a discussion on this subject, rather than simply a forum to state your own opinions, I’m going to say this one last time.

     I spent a long time addressing each and every point you’ve been making. I did my part. Yes, it’s a long essay, but some explanations are when you need justify what you say instead of simply telling people what you feel. I did my part. I laid out my arguments in detail.

     You’ve read 10-15 pages, haven’t found an “answer” yet, stopped reading, and now repeat your opinion that “We can not know to utter certainty what the best moral code is, because like other human ideas (governmental structure, education of the young, economics, international law, rules of war, etc) these are all human concepts arising from imperfect, barely civilized, biased human minds.” You haven’t demonstrated this through a compelling argument, through historical evidence, through a thorough definition of terms, or any other method. In short, you just keep telling us what you feel.

     I’ve challenged people the same way who talk about religion providing the basis for morality, so I’m not singling you out for your personal feelings on the subject. You say you want to know how there can possibly be a UMC. Well, read what I actually wrote and tell me where I’m wrong. Then we can have a discussion.

     But saying “But we seem to be on our own, so we'd best do all we can to make moral codes thoughtful and fair,” is simple opinion and conjecture on your part, particularly when someone in this discussion (me) has actually addressed those issues in detail. I outline not just what I believe, but why I believe it to be true. I’ve given you and the rest of the world a perfect opportunity to showcase the stupidity of my positions. But simply repeating your opinion doesn’t answer the challenge. And in a real discussion, when one party lays it out, if the other party wants to debate rather than opine, they need to address the substance of what the other party has said.

     Real discussions are advanced through intellectually honest debate, not by everyone telling us how they feel. Show me exactly where I’m wrong. But if you really want to do this and therefore have a real discussion on the subject, look at what I said first (not 10% of it) before you conclude I haven’t made my case.

     As for the view put forward by others about morality and a “functional” society, you are correct if you look at the surface trapping of society. The Soviet Union was a functional society (at least for a period of time, until internal contradictions caused its collapse), as was Nazi Germany (until internal contradictions and George S. Patton and the Red Army hastened its collapse). And the USA is today, but as I think the comment was intended to convey, legitimizing things like consensus-morality and 50 million abortions is sewing the seeds of our society’s destruction. Maybe we’ll muddle through okay as a nation. But building a social compact on rationalizations instead of “God-given inalienable rights” makes me bet against it in the long run.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

159. Ozzie: Your comment #156 showed up after I posted my last comment.

     I encourage you to wade through what I wrote, then contact me and I can call you off line if you want so we don't spend a lot of additional time typing.

     Just remember that "God" is not "religion", which is why I was disappointed in Raymond's critique of my work http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/

     I don't believe that religion creates morality, so one can't "disprove" my thesis by showing that religion doesn't create morality.

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

160. Ozzie: "The *God-given* part is the kicker for me. Just don't see why it would necessarily come from that source, when so many other factors that are more prosaic could explain it. It seems to reasonable position is that we must convincingly rule out the other possible origins I have proposed, before we would proceed to the conclusion that the source must be supernatural."

     In my mind the definition of Universal Morality, or the UMC, is the same as God-given morality – a Biblically revealed supernatural source – the Ten Commandments, the golden rule, the rule to love your neighbor as yourself, etc. While these rules are very pragmatic, that pragmatism in and of its self does not argue against a supernatural source. I draw a distinction between human ethics and God-given moral code; the former is subject to human evil and error, whereas the latter is not.

     This is a matter of faith – whether morality is man-made (ethics only) or God-given; it is not a matter which can be decided by the scientific method. It appears to me however that society after society has turned to tyranny as they reject God and God-given morality. Man-made ethics just isn't good enough to maintain a just society which secures human life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness. In this matter I am in the company of our founding fathers; so, Ozzie, I'm with the founders and not with you on this.

     “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

     "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." John Adams

     “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

     “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Thomas Jefferson

     “With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” Abraham Lincoln

     "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

161. Well, I agree on both counts. Religious traditions certainly *try* to tell us what is right and wrong, but I'm not convinced that they 'create morality', or if they do, they are not the only source of it. I can't recall that I personally contended anything about that issue, but maybe you are referring to Raymond.

     I don't think God and religion are the same either, not necessarily, although I think some of your ideas related to the UMC seem to veer close to religion. Actually, I had the impression that Raymond also understood that distinction, but I could be wrong. I frankly couldn't follow all of that stuff without printing it out and really focusing, and I'm too lazy for that.

     I don't think religion creates morality, but I'm also not convinced that God, as you describe him in relation to the UMC, creates morality. I think the UMC arises from much less exotic origins, such as natural selection and common sociocultural experiences and problems. Plus, I don't really see any evidence that there IS an UMC, as I have so far understood it. And if there is one, I don't see evidence that there is much of a content in it, beyond the (mostly) universal revulsion against killing the innocent.

     But perhaps the essay will shed more light on it. I will read it, but I'm not sure when, exactly. I'll let you know in some fashion after reading it what I thought.

     I'm not trying to get in the last word, I just wanted to summarize :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

162. Phillip: "Just remember that "God" is not "religion"

     I agree completely. Our founding fathers placed God (not the church or official state religion) into American government and national life by declaring that our human equality is God-given; and by declaring that our sacred rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness are also God-given. This sacredness of human equality, i.e.: equality before the law – not the government-forced economic equality of a low order for the masses as per Karl Marx – and human rights is part of the unchangeable and universal God-given moral code; and it is the highest law of our land. The Declaration of Independence is the unchangeable moral law of the United States; and it temporally preceded and morally trumps the laws of our Constitution – something Abraham Lincoln understood very well.

     “The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.” Abraham Lincoln

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

163. Ronald:

     >>>>>>>>>>While these rules are very pragmatic, that pragmatism in and of its self does not argue against a supernatural source<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

     Agreed, but nothing I can see argues FOR a supernatural source, either. The whole point, for agnostics, is that they don't have to prove there ISN'T a supernatural source. The burden is on the *believer in the supernatural* to support that contention with something tangible (or at least highly persuasive). Otherwise, we would stick to default position that really nothing is really known about the contentions you make.

     <<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

     If a God-given moral code in fact exists, you've made a useful distinction. I'm just not convinced it does. The perspectives on 'right and wrong' that exist, for me, are closer to just rules of living that societies develop. Some are laws, some are not. Some are religiously-derived, some are not. Some are powerful and nearly universal, and some are like Jack Parrot said of the Pirates Code: "they're more *guidelines*, actually…"

     There is a whole range or continuum of beliefs concerning right and wrong, and calling them 'morals' may sometimes shed more heat than light, frankly. But it is a common word, oft-used, so there it is.

     >>>>>>>>>>>>“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington……>>>>>>>>>>>>>

     I have nothing but respect for Mr. Washington. I agree with his 'caution' that morality can be maintained without religion. That is why, despite having seen no particular reason to be a believer, I'm not one of those trying to chase religion out of American life. I just think that is a vast uncontrolled experiment, and I'm not sure it will turn out for the best. But again, that's about pragmatics and social control rather than literal belief.

     That said, there is ample evidence from the social science literature that non-believers are generally just as well-behaved and well-adjusted as believers. At the societal level, I'm not sure, because it is not possible to experiment and the the number of cases is too small to draw conclusions. But I note there there are countries in the world who are both fairly secular and also fairly successful and well-behaved.

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

164. I don't know why half that post ended up italicized. I don't understand how the formatting works here.

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

165. >The Declaration of Independence is the unchangeable moral law of the United States; and it temporally preceded and morally trumps the laws of our Constitution – something Abraham Lincoln understood very well.

     Ozzie — I frame it this way in comment 1 above, taken from http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/ [FYI my Ph.D. is in political science.]

     Let’s look at the relationship between the Declaration of Independence — which invokes God-given rights as the foundation for creating our government — and the US Constitution, which provides the direct, legal-political framework for all laws made within the United States.
     What is important here is the fact that the Founding Fathers credited God with bestowing inalienable rights in all man, and these rights in turn justified rebellion against established authority. Therefore, in creating policy or passing laws from this Constitutional basis, the debate isn’t whether to have a God-based morality insert itself into our law-making process. It’s already there. The question is how to do this so that one specific religion does not gain an unfair institutional advantage over other religions. And, furthermore, how to recognize the appropriate limits of this God-based morality when making our laws.

     Limiting the practical application of a God-based morality in political life is not the same thing as denying any role for it in political decisions. This confusion arises because of the relativistic justifications all sides of this debate have brought into the political arena. Atheists want to deny a role for a God-based morality at any point in the law-making process, while Christian activists want to insert God (or more specifically, their concept of religion and the tenets of their faith) into our public institutions.

     … The initially confusing thing … is that these relativists are indeed right about not imposing a private morality on the public no matter how odious the issue. This even applies to situations where this private morality and universal moral code are identical (such as abortion), but the law allows this immoral activity to continue. Morality — even the “right” morality — cannot be imposed in a constitutional republic. It must be willingly embraced by the country through its institutions and practices, or the unintended consequences may far outweigh any short-term good. Efforts to promote prayer in public schools, regardless of how pure the motives of its advocates may have been, led directly to the success of moral Relativists in establishing abortion on demand as a national “right.”

     What has allowed elective abortion to supplant slavery as a national indignation is a combination of factors such as self-interest, rationalization, hidden agendas — but something else too. Those who took the “moral high ground” in sparking this debate had their own set of vested interests and hidden agendas. Beginning with prayer in public schools and other public institutions, they took key provisions of the Declaration of Independence and substituted their own religious preferences for “God” so that paying homage to “Jesus,” not following a God-given moral code, became the focus of their efforts.

     Because of this approach, moral Relativists were able to seize the debate and frame their core issues in a deceitful way. Since Religion A claims to speak for God, and the Constitution forbids the state to establish an official religion, then both Religion A and the God it speaks for must be completely removed from the secular world. This logic prevailed because the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence, and drawing inspiration and support from God is not the same thing as making laws that reflect God’s rules as expressed by a particular religion. It didn’t matter if what Christians believed perfectly matched 95% of the beliefs of every other religion. The Constitution, though inspired by God-given rights, was still man’s law. And man’s law did not permit the establishment of an official state religion.

     By hijacking God and linking Him to a battle to promote their values, not only did the Christian community lose their fight, it allowed the notion of “God” — the basis for their claim — to be wiped out with it. This then led to an even more determined fight to infuse “politics with religion.” Relativists became even more relative to prevent their opponent’s success, and as the Relativists carried the fight to its relativistic extreme, atrocities like abortion on demand became the law of the land.

     This, ultimately, explains why a concept like abortion could take hold and flourish in a society that condemns human right abuses, and even passes laws against cruelty to animals, but it will allow a healthy 20-month old developing child to be killed without the same level of due process it demands for suspected mass murders and captured terrorists.

     Again, all this flows from my essay …

     This passage is not to denegrate those with strong religious beliefs, but to separate discussions of "Jesus"/religion from discussions of "God", and to look at how rebellion was justified and the US government was structured based on this justification, placing "God" in the proper role with regard to policy making (i.e. laws should reflect fundamental, universal God-given moral values, but laws are not based on religious tenants).

     And so the question arises, what exactly are these universal moral values/codes, and where do they come from?

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

166. Sorry, I meant Ronald, not Ozzie. Force of habit :)

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

167. Ozzie,
     I've debated with atheists and agnostics before and most of them were closed-minded and often bigoted – you are not one of them. I have an inside track on atheist/agnostic thinking because I was once an atheist myself. Belief in God and belief in a supernaturally derived moral code requires faith, but non-belief in God and a God-given moral code also requires faith of the opposite quality. It boils down to choosing one faith over the other; it is not a choice between faith and non-faith. There is no such thing as non-faith.

     “Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason, are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason has nothing to do.“ John Locke

     http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

     "The doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." Albert Einstein

     http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_einstein.php3

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

168. Phillip: "And so the question arises, what exactly are these universal moral values/codes, and where do they come from?"

     Our American moral values/codes come from our own human reason in combination with a revealed supernatural source, i.e.: the Bible.

     http://fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=1386407

     Comment by Ronald Cherry | January 17, 2009

169. Yeah well, like I said …

     Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 17, 2009

170. "I am making it up as I go along."

     No one with any integrity would say such a thing and then assert that he has seen nothing here that would change his mind. That is vapid. That's why I'm insulted.

     You come to this site to spout uniformed bilge and we are supposed to engage you rationally and intellectually? Whatever pops into your mind is fine for you, but then you're unconvinced?

     What are you, a seventh grader?

     Comment by Mountain Man | January 17, 2009

171. Please don't feel singled out, Mountain Man. I spout uninformed bilge everywhere I go, not just here. :-)

     Oz

     Comment by Ozzie_M | January 17, 2009

172. I just found this at IMAO and thought it was relevant to this article:

     "If you’re belief is that there is “probably no God”, then that’s probably not something to obsess over and buy ad space on buses. If you’re sure there is no God, I can see you getting worked up over it, but if you’re uncertain about it it doesn’t seem like a subject to spend much time on. That’s like reading lots of books on cryptozoology because you’re convinced there probably isn’t a Loch Ness monster.

     I agree with the religious leaders in Britain who consider the ads a net positive since it will get God discussed in a country where there isn’t much discussion about religion anymore. If you’re trying to offend people (which it sounds like Dawkins wanted to do — that guy is not a model for the cheerful atheist), they probably should have picked a more religious nation. Or make sure the buses go through the Muslim parts of town. That would be fun."

     Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 18, 2009

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.