Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The advantage of doubt is that you are motivated to find a measure to quantify how confident you are that a particular hypothesis is true. If you only have the certainty of faith, you will never improve your knowledge and will be destined to repeating your mistakes.
We must agree to disagree I suppose, since our differences are due to perspective. I find that curiosity motivates me to investigate new ideas, whereas doubt only motivates me to reject old ones. Perhaps such is not the case for you.
Personally, doubt serves to make me double check the things I have already done to make sure they are correct and that I didn't make any mistakes or false assumptions. I do not want to immediately reject it simply because I doubt my findings. I only want to confirm my finding are correct before I continue my investigation.
How is curiosity possible if you are certain about everything?
I haven't said we are certain about everything. Curiosity seeks what we do not yet know, doubts question what we already do.
Doubt can just as readily apply to those things we do not have an answer to.
@John 61X Breezy: "would you consider alchemy to be a science?"
Alchemy, like astrology, was a protoscience. It was flawed by preconceived notions about the existence of things like the philosopher's stone and the elixir of youth. Science should be open-minded. But it also produced real discoveries and valuable methodologies. I should add that alchemists also discovered a highly effective method of securing research grants. Find a king and tell him you can change lead into gold or make him young again.
@John: "I don't consider accidental discoveries to have been discovered scientifically."
Does that include Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and Bequerel's discovery of radiation? How about cornflakes?
If being flawed by preconceived notions disqualifies something as a science, then should Newtonian physics be treated as a protoscience?
I would consider the discovery of X-rays scientific, because despite being unexpected, it was the result of experimentation. Not sure how Bequerel's or Cornflakes came about. But I do know Cornflakes were created by a Seventh-Day Adventist working for one of our hospitals.
@John 61X Breezy: "should Newtonian physics be treated as a protoscience?"
You tell me. Was he right to assume that the universe is like a great clockwork motor created and regulated by god?
I obviously don't think he was wrong that the universe was created, but clearly the methods by which it is regulated are not entirely like clockwork, time and space are better understood when unified, and light is more complex than a simple particle.
Science is based on the observable and on testable hypotheses. Whether or not something can be labeled a protoscience is likely to be an arbitrary exercise.
Can you demonstrate any evidence for anything supernatural?
People here are arguing for religion by talking about morality lol. Name a genocide that has not been influenced by religion lol. I'll wait.
HI Sheldon
Here is what I think about your OP.
Comparing science and religion is like comparing apples and oranges. Many people think that the two are on a collision path… rather they two belong to very different orbits and do not interfere with one another.
At a very fundamental level science deals with facts and religion deals with values. Science is interested in finding out whether the earth is flat or round. But religion is concerned about how you live a morally upright life on earth, irrespective of whether it’s spherical or flat.
Take for example the one of the points you have raised. Fighting Disease. Yes, science gave us the penicillin and other life-saving drugs. But why do we have all the scams going on in the pharma industry? Why are pharma companies indulging in unethical means to increase profits? Because ethics belongs to another realm where science can’t show us the way. That’s where religion kicks in.
Hi ROYISM, religion does claim to deal in facts? Are you sure? I'd have to disagree sorry. As for morals do humans make better moral choices when they know more, or less? Do think cavemen spent time and angst wondering if their wives, daughters and sisters should have equal rights? When we examined moral dichotomies on here such as abortion we see AB using the worst kind of blinkered bigoted hyperbole and rhetoric based on religious beliefs and claims to absolutes, and refusing to even acknowledge scientific facts exist, how is that helping inform his morals?
Large bodies of research show that atheists are every bit as moral as theists, so if religion helps inform morality why is that?
If religions are separate from factual claims and science why do creationists keep using lies and propaganda to try and indoctrinate children using public education to dishonestly teach them religious creation myths that have no basis in fact, and pretend they're offering science?
Why are large companies avaricious? I'm not sure that needs an expansive answer, but it clearly has nothing to do with science per se. If the general public were better informed on scientific matters would be easier or harder for large pharmaceutical companies to mislead them?
Do your morals consider it better to reduce physical and emotional suffering? If so then wouldn't facts backed by scientific research be the best way to know how to go about this? How does it help me make a moral decision to have AB demonising gay people because it is in the bible? Or to read that the bible endorses slavery, and Jesus is claimed to have said "slaves obey your masters"? Then see people like Breezy spend page after page pretending it doesn't make these claims at all.
Hi Sheldon
BTW I am Valiya S Sajjad and this is my new ID.
You said: Hi ROYISM, religion does claim to deal in facts? Are you sure? I'd have to disagree sorry.
Can you give me some examples of how religion deals with facts… just so that I get a better hang of your argument?
You said: “As for morals do humans make better moral choices when they know more, or less?”
I think you are confusing empirical assessments with value judgements. Yes, science has factually shown us that an atom bomb can kill hundreds of thousands in one stroke. But it doesn’t tell us if it is right to use it or not. You can find scientists agreeing on the formula for the bomb, but not all of them will have the same opinion about how and when to use it. That’s because the second one is a value judgement.
You said: “Do think cavemen spent time and angst wondering if their wives, daughters and sisters should have equal rights?”
Firstly, your assumption about cavemen is just that… an assumption. There is really no historical record to prove with certainty that cavemen did not care for their wives etc. Secondly, are you saying that the idea of human equality is a scientifically proven hypothesis or something of that sort? Sorry. What about eugenics? Some would argue that it has more scientific backing than the idea of equality.
Regarding AB’s positions, I can’t talk for others. I can only defend my positions.
You said: “Large bodies of research show that atheists are every bit as moral as theists, so if religion helps inform morality why is that?”
How can you claim atheists are more moral, when you are yet to define what morality is?
You said: “If religions are separate from factual claims and science why do creationists keep using lies and propaganda to try and indoctrinate children using public education to dishonestly teach them religious creation myths that have no basis in fact, and pretend they're offering science?”
Once again, I can only talk for Islam here. But yes, Islam does teach creationism. However, we make it absolutely clear that creationism belongs to the realm of the supernatural. It is not taught as science, which only deals with material reality. Religion has no issues with the scientific hypothesis or theories such as the big bang and so on. It only attributes a supernatural agency as an ontological cause, which purely belongs to the realm of philosophy/faith, and does not in any way intervene with the scientific methods. That’s the reason that we have good, eminent scientists who are theists… there really is no conflict between the two.
You said: “Why are large companies avaricious? I'm not sure that needs an expansive answer, but it clearly has nothing to do with science per se.”
That’s exactly what I am saying. The fact that pharma companies cheat has nothing to do with science. Because science can’t give you measurements on values or moral precepts. Science can give you the formula to produce a medicine. But it can’t give you a formula to tell you that profiteering out of it is wrong.
You said: “If the general public were better informed on scientific matters would be easier or harder for large pharmaceutical companies to mislead them?”
That’s not the issue at heart. We are not discussing the best ways to stop criminals from cheating us. We are discussing something even more fundamental. How do we decide that cheating is immoral? What are the standards we have at hand to make these decisions? You are saying that it’s scientific, and I am saying it’s not. So, what you have to show me is the scientific method by which you can arrive at that conclusion. How you stop frauds comes next.
You said: “Do your morals consider it better to reduce physical and emotional suffering? If so then wouldn't facts backed by scientific research be the best way to know how to go about this?”
The problem is that it all sounds nice to make broad, sweeping statements like these. Yes, it’s better to reduce suffering. But whose suffering? Let’s say somebody comes claiming that all my wealth belongs to him because my father had willed it to him. I can let him go to the court, in which case I will lose all my wealth and become a pauper, or simply decide to kill him. Yes, he will suffer when I kill him, but I care more for my suffering that would come as a result of my impoverishment. Do you get the drift? Can science tell me objectively why I should care for his suffering more than mine?
You said: “Is religion really concerned with morals? It seems to me that blind adherence to divine diktat is as far removed from morality as can be, and would make one a mere automaton.”
No. The decision to act morally is always going to be in our hands. To that extent we are not automatons. But religion only provides the ontological reasons for us to be able to make value judgements with a clear mind. I can choose to tell lies or speak the truth. It’s a conscious choice that I make based on the strong ontological foundation that tells me clearly why lying is undesirable.
Value judgements are impossible if you you are ignorant of what you are assessing, you stated on here you thought it was fine for a 40+ year old man to marry and rape a nine year old girl. This suggest your moral compass isn't working. Value judgements are not going to work or be much use if they are based on ignorance, or wilful ignorance that denies scientific facts in favour of ancient archaic dogma.
"we make it absolutely clear that creationism belongs to the realm of the supernatural. "
Most fictions do.
"That’s the reason that we have good, eminent scientists who are theists… there really is no conflict between the two."
No evidence either, and and you really making the asinine claim that creationism does not conflict with scientific facts? Humans were not created in their current form, they evolved slowly over billions of years, please quote the verses in the koran that accept that.
" Science can give you the formula to produce a medicine. But it can’t give you a formula to tell you that profiteering out of it is wrong."
Or right, and since I never made either claim you've created a neat straw man argument, yet again. Just because knowledge helps us make more informed decisions does mean science grantees better morals, which is what you are dishonestly implying I have claimed. However making moral judgements based archaic myths purported as divine diktat is how people like you can arrive at the point where you coolly and calmly justify the marriage and rape of a nine year old child by a 40+ year old man.
"You said: “If the general public were better informed on scientific matters would be easier or harder for large pharmaceutical companies to mislead them?”
That’s not the issue at heart. We are not discussing the best ways to stop criminals from cheating us. We are discussing something even more fundamental. How do we decide that cheating is immoral?"
The usual ways, we use our reason, if an act is pernicious, if it would create suffering, then it is less likely to be moral, relatively speaking.
"What are the standards we have at hand to make these decisions? You are saying that it’s scientific, and I am saying it’s not."
No that's not what I said, and it's tedious to watch you either misunderstand what I said or blatantly misrepresent it, so you can simply things to the point where you can insist we need to believe in an iron age deity in order to know rape and murder are immoral, but still insist it's moral for a 40+ year old man to marry and have sex with a none year old girl.
ONE MORE TIME, AND FYI, science can help us make more informed decision, and since science removes subjectivity by helping us test the validity of claims, these are objective truths. Morality is impossible without knowledge, that's why rocks aren't moral, and slugs don't cogitate on the rights of other slugs.
"The problem is that it all sounds nice to make broad, sweeping statements like these."
I made no broad sweeping statements. You are the one doing that by claiming morals are only possible with the delusion that a deity exists, and that you know what it wants. I made very specific statements. Do you think a world where we care nothing about the suffering of others would be better than a world where we did care and tried to avoid and reduce the suffering of others.
"Let’s say somebody comes claiming that all my wealth belongs to him because my father had willed it to him. I can let him go to the court, in which case I will lose all my wealth and become a pauper, or simply decide to kill him. Yes, he will suffer when I kill him, but I care more for my suffering that would come as a result of my impoverishment. Do you get the drift? "
Well yes, thought it's absurdly moronic scenario, we can all see that you make no mention of whether the claim is true for a start, we can also see that you put your own avarice ahead of the truth and even the murder of another human being.
"Can science tell me objectively why I should care for his suffering more than mine?"
No, nor did I ever claim it could, how can you mangle every thread so completely, surely you can see that statement that science can help us make more informed decisions in no way claims it is an answer to every aspect of morality? This is tedious and moronic.
"You said: “Is religion really concerned with morals? It seems to me that blind adherence to divine diktat is as far removed from morality as can be, and would make one a mere automaton.”
No. The decision to act morally is always going to be in our hands. To that extent we are not automatons."
So you're not an automaton, you are choosing to be one, and relinquish your reason. Lets test your choice shall we, is it always morally unconscionable for a 40 year old to marry and have sex with a nine year child? Or do you think there are circumstances when a child of 9 can consent to marriage and sex with an adult.
"I can choose to tell lies or speak the truth. It’s a conscious choice that I make based on the strong ontological foundation that tells me clearly why lying is undesirable."
So you can't tell lying is immoral without being told by your religion? So how do you know what your religion is telling you is immoral? either you can assess this yourself, or you can't, if you can then you don't need archaic scripture and dogma, if you can't then you have no way of assessing it's moral value anyway, and you become a moral automaton by relinquishing your reason in blind adherence to it.
HI Sheldon
You said: “Value judgements are impossible if you you are ignorant of what you are assessing,”
That’s true of not just value judgements, but anything at all in life. But I don’t understand what point you are trying make.
You said: “…you stated on here you thought it was fine for a 40+ year old man to marry and rape a nine year old girl. This suggest your moral compass isn't working.”
This was a subject we had dealt with at some length in our previous debate. But there you failed to tell me what your objective standard to assess the correct age of marriage was. You said it was 16 based on UK standard, and I showed you how it was not objective as there are countries that have varying age limits ranging between 12 and 18… and there is really no way to gauge which one is more right.
You said: “Value judgements are not going to work or be much use if they are based on ignorance, or wilful ignorance that denies scientific facts in favour of ancient archaic dogma.”
If you are referring to the age of marriage, then tell me based on what scientific fact do you propose 16 as your standard (as you suggested in our previous debate). You are dressing up a social norm of our times as scientific… but it’s not any more scientific than the social norm of another people in the past, who might have had age limits way below 16.
You said: “… and you really making the asinine claim that creationism does not conflict with scientific facts? Humans were not created in their current form, they evolved slowly over billions of years, please quote the verses in the koran that accept that.”
Yes… creationism does not conflict with scientific facts. But it really depends on what you mean by facts. I don’t think evolution (as argued by dawkins) is fact. It’s more of a dogma. We can have a separate debate on this if you are interested.
You said: “However making moral judgements based archaic myths purported as divine diktat is how people like you can arrive at the point where you coolly and calmly justify the marriage and rape of a nine year old child by a 40+ year old man.”
Two things: as you are yet to establish the soundness of your moral standard, I think it’s premature to critique other standards. Secondly, repeating a baseless characterization of a social norm typical of a period in history as rape does not improve your argument in any way.
And then, to my question on how do we decide that cheating is immoral, you said: “The usual ways, we use our reason, if an act is pernicious, if it would create suffering, then it is less likely to be moral, relatively speaking.”
Pernicious for who? When I cheat you, it’s pernicious for you, but beneficial for me. So, why should I not indulge in it?
You said: “ONE MORE TIME, AND FYI, science can help us make more informed decision, and since science removes subjectivity by helping us test the validity of claims, these are objective truths.”
Yes, science can help us make more informed decisions related to factual matters, but NOT value judgements. Science helped us produce better weapons. We have advanced from the times of swords and spears and now have nuclear bombs. Thanks to science and the informed decisions we took. But science has not helped us appreciate the value of human life any more than what it was during the medieval times.
You said: “Morality is impossible without knowledge, that's why rocks aren't moral, and slugs don't cogitate on the rights of other slugs.”
Knowledge becomes helpful only after the moral decision is made. Once we realize that human life is valuable (morality), then we apply science to find ways to save lives. So morality precedes science, and not the other way round.
You said: “Do you think a world where we care nothing about the suffering of others would be better than a world where we did care and tried to avoid and reduce the suffering of others.”
Can you objectively explain to a poor man why he should bother about the world more than his own suffering? A poor man decides to steal a rich man. From his perspective, this will save him from poverty and reduce his suffering. Will it make it moral, because it has reduced his suffering?
You said: “…we can also see that you put your own avarice ahead of the truth and even the murder of another human being.”
SO you have assumed that avarice and murder are immoral. Based on what did you arrive at that conclusion.
You said: “…surely you can see that statement that science can help us make more informed decisions in no way claims it is an answer to every aspect of morality?”
If not every aspect of morality, then can you tell me which aspects of morality that science offers answers for. Can you explain clearly how science helps us in making moral decisions, with an example if possible?
.
You said: “Lets test your choice shall we, is it always morally unconscionable for a 40 year old to marry and have sex with a nine year child?”
No it’s not immoral. If you disagree with my view, I would like to hear what your age of consent is and how you know it to be the right age?
You said: “So you can't tell lying is immoral without being told by your religion?”
That’s right. If you have any other means of objectively showing that lying is immoral please explain.
You said: So how do you know what your religion is telling you is immoral?”
I don’t assess the moral teachings of the religion. I study the objectively verifiable facts in the religion such as historical, scientific and other information. This convinces me about its divine origin and so I accept even those things like morality that comes from the same source.
no scientist wonders if the earth is flat or round, it is spherical and that is a fact.
only the intellectually devoid would consider it flat.
why does religion need to be concerned with morals? surely this can be achieved with modern philosophy.
@LucyAustralopithecus
You said: “no scientist wonders if the earth is flat or round, it is spherical and that is a fact.
only the intellectually devoid would consider it flat.”
Oh come on. I didn’t mean to say there is a debate going on between scientists regarding the shape of the earth. I just meant that scientists are concerned with factual details such as the shape of the earth and stuff like that.
You said: “why does religion need to be concerned with morals? surely this can be achieved with modern philosophy.”
So, do you agree that science can’t deal with morality???
Is religion really concerned with morals? It seems to me that blind adherence to divine diktat is as far removed from morality as can be, and would make one a mere automaton.The alternative is a subjective interpretation of the bible or koran, but if we are capable of making moral judgements and assessing right and wrong behaviours why would we need theism anyway?
that is fine, just that particular topic is never discussed, that is all I meant.
believe science can deal morality, given that I believe morality to be a social construct that has evolved since the dawn of mankind.
for example, consider pre-historic man(a caveman if you will) they would begin to hunt alone but the moment kin work together, they can a group is better for the collective.
from there one could propose that the group could have one member kill another, this could harm the group via success in hunting or defending land, and therefore decide killing is not allowed.
many scenarios are possible.
however, I know people don't like science there, so I reply well philosophy is adequate.
@LucyAustralopithecus
How can a social construct be scientific? Can you explain a bit more? From the caveman example you gave, it looks like you are insinuating that what benefits the collective is moral. Is that right?
If the young earth model was true then religion being the start point for morality would make sense... the fact humanity of some sort has lived for far longer then 6,000 years to times when cultures may have flourished with no concept of a god would lead one to believe it's a cultural phenomena.
Science is a gift from God. Just not evolutionary science. Evolution has done nothing for the betterment of mankind. The only way evolution could look good is by stealing from those other sciences the Christians believe in. Medical, genetic, agricultural etc. Nothing wrong with science
@Yellow Post
Troll
"Science is a gift from God."
No it isn't, Hitchens's razor applied - slash.
"Just not evolutionary science. "
Hilarious, you claim superstition gifts us a method to avoid relying on superstition, then deny the overwhelming evidence derived from that method, because it contradiicts part of that archaic superstition. That's as hilarious as it is stupid.
"The only way evolution could look good is by stealing from those other sciences the Christians believe in."
Could you explain how "christian science" differs from other science? Also could you name 3 scientific facts you dispute and why, that do not in any way contradict your religions superstitious myths?
Evolution has more evidentiary support/proof then even the historical figure known as Jesus.
Evolution also has more evidence and data than gravity does. Yet, they don't seem to want to argue about the existence of gravity.
I don't think you understand what you're saying, Locke. Can you explain?
Pages