So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

[Londoner]

Londoner

Not sure the chair comparison works, as we can agree a definition of what constitutes a chair (and then agree if we both see something fitting the definition of a chair in front of us).

The chair in front of us could not exactly 'fit' the definition; if it did then the definition would only relate to that specific chair. Rather, the definition would name some particular feature of all chairs which we would both agree was present in the object in front of us. You would think that would be easy, but it turns out not to be. There is no general physical feature of a chair that will not be shared by other objects, and if we try to be too specific we will be excluding things that we want to include. Or, we will end up with something circular; 'chairs are things used as chairs'. It appears that words do not refer in that way, that the meaning of 'chair' is not contained in a definition but rather in the use we are making of it when we communicate.

For example, in this post 'chair' has nothing to do with any piece of furniture, 'chair' is simply serving as an example of a certain sort of word. I understand that, you understand that, but our use of the word 'chair' would not be part of any definition of that word.

Defining 'God' is much trickier, as many people have their own, sometimes idiosyncratic, sometimes not very-well defined, sometimes very obscurely defined, idea of what 'God' is. You can pretty much call anything 'God', and define it how you want. A bit like conceptual art - point to it and call it 'Art' and it's 'Art'. In a sense, everyone creates their own made-to-measure 'God', as I did myself at one time - a God just right for me.

I think the problem is that we understand things by putting them in groups; 'a chair is a type of furniture'. But God (in monotheistic religion) is not a type of anything; unlike 'chair' the word 'God' only refers to one thing. And I think religious language reflects this; that God cannot be defined but only spoken about through metaphor, that none of the words we use can be understood in their normal sense. For example, God 'exists' - but not in the sense that material objects exist.

This would seem to be putting 'God' in a special category, so an atheist might simply say they see no reason to accept that category. But - as shown with discussion of 'chair' - it turns out that the categories are not cleanly divided. That we cannot make a clean division of language into (on one side) ordinary sensible words, that refer in a straightforward way to material objects and (on the other) of all the weird language used about God. It turns out that all language is weird.

It is the same point I was making before about the metaphysical concepts that are necessary to underpin physical science. We want to find some sort of a rule, a definition, so that we can explain our atheism. So we can say: 'these ideas pass the test of being sensible, material etc. And those don't, so that is why I don't believe in them'. But we cannot formulate such a rule, because if we apply it consistently we do not just rule out God, we rule out all knowledge. Or, if we make an exception for certain areas, on the grounds that some ideas just intuitively feel right to us humans, that they help us make sense of the world, why can't the theist ask the same, for the same reasons?

-- Updated August 25th, 2017, 4:50 am to add the following --

Well, if you were a divine superintelligence, then you would be able to communicate with a fly. Or a person. How to do it? I'm not sure, but I expect something like a message embedded in DNA that could be decoded, or something similar; something that could be replicated under laboratory conditions, and that couldn't be faked. One would have to be very careful though, as we know that human beings are easily fooled, and we must be especially skeptical about hypotheses that we wish to be true.

But if the message was embodied in something material, then it could not be evidence of a non-material God.

Suppose the theist argued that life was already just the communication you describe. That we can look at what is and use it to infer the existence of a supernatural creator. If we do not think we can do this now, I cannot see what extra fact about the world would enable us to do it.

Suppose the clouds parted and a voice said 'Know that I am God'. Science would simply adjust to take that new fact in. It might hypothesise that humans were subject to collective hallucinations, or that an alien life form had arrived, or whatever. After all, many people have claimed they did hear such a voice - but we do not accept their accounts as evidence of God. In a way, we could say that an event like a voice from the sky is fairly straightforward, in that it is just an extrapolation of things we are already familiar with (beings communicating with sound, 'hearing voices' etc.). So maybe God should make himself known by creating something that entirely contradicts all our existing notions of how the universe works? How about 'black holes'? But science simply adjusts to take account of them. How about 'quantum entanglement'? How weird is that! But once again, science simply absorbs it and moves on.

So what is God to do?

[Scribbler60]

Well, if you were a divine superintelligence, then you would be able to communicate with a fly. Or a person. How to do it? I'm not sure, but I expect something like a message embedded in DNA that could be decoded, or something similar; something that could be replicated under laboratory conditions, and that couldn't be faked. One would have to be very careful though, as we know that human beings are easily fooled, and we must be especially skeptical about hypotheses that we wish to be true.

But if the message was embodied in something material, then it could not be evidence of a non-material God.

Suppose the theist argued that life was already just the communication you describe. That we can look at what is and use it to infer the existence of a supernatural creator. If we do not think we can do this now, I cannot see what extra fact about the world would enable us to do it.

Suppose the clouds parted and a voice said 'Know that I am God'. Science would simply adjust to take that new fact in. It might hypothesise that humans were subject to collective hallucinations, or that an alien life form had arrived, or whatever. After all, many people have claimed they did hear such a voice - but we do not accept their accounts as evidence of God. In a way, we could say that an event like a voice from the sky is fairly straightforward, in that it is just an extrapolation of things we are already familiar with (beings communicating with sound, 'hearing voices' etc.). So maybe God should make himself known by creating something that entirely contradicts all our existing notions of how the universe works? How about 'black holes'? But science simply adjusts to take account of them. How about 'quantum entanglement'? How weird is that! But once again, science simply absorbs it and moves on.

So what is God to do?

Well, human beings aren't wired to make sense of quantum entanglement or black holes and the like. We are evolutionarily wired to pass on our genes, not get eaten by lions, avoid snakes, etc. etc. We are not evolutionary wired to understand quantum entanglement, which is why it seems so bizarre.

Even if one were to prove that quantum entanglement or black holes or other peculiar (to us) phenomena were evidence of a God, that still goes nowhere in describing a God that is interested and involved in human beings, one that sent Jesus to be crucified, had him raised from the dead, etc etc. It might explain deism but it goes nowhere in explaining theism.

I'm not sure why something that's material could not be evidence of a non-material God. (And what does non-material mean, anyway?) If human beings cannot perceive a non-material entity, and God is non-material and cannot make itself known to human beings, that limits God. But God is supposed to be omnipotent, limitless, etc etc. Suddenly this God is constrained by external forces; not so omnipotent or powerful after all.

Besides, I think the material/non-material argument has long since been refuted, starting with the letters between Rene Descartes and Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia back in the 17th century. Descarte's dualism postulated, essentially, that our minds did not exist in our brains but rather in some sort of ethereal non-material substrate (Rupert Sheldrake seems to think the same thing, paralleling Jung's idea of collective unconscious, even though there is no evidence for it). Princess Elizabeth tried to pin down Descartes on how something immaterial could affect something material. What was the mechanism by which this immaterial force could act on our material bodies or brains?

Descartes was never able to come up with an explanation.

More here - it's a private blog (not mine) but it outlines the discussion pretty well: http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/ ... s-and.html

So what is a God to do?

A God that's omnipotent and infinite would be able to make itself known by methods that humans could understand. If a God cannot do that, then clearly it's not God.

[Londoner]

Well, human beings aren't wired to make sense of quantum entanglement or black holes and the like. We are evolutionarily wired to pass on our genes, not get eaten by lions, avoid snakes, etc. etc. We are not evolutionary wired to understand quantum entanglement, which is why it seems so bizarre.

Even if one were to prove that quantum entanglement or black holes or other peculiar (to us) phenomena were evidence of a God, that still goes nowhere in describing a God that is interested and involved in human beings, one that sent Jesus to be crucified, had him raised from the dead, etc etc. It might explain deism but it goes nowhere in explaining theism.

I'm not sure why something that's material could not be evidence of a non-material God. (And what does non-material mean, anyway?) If human beings cannot perceive a non-material entity, and God is non-material and cannot make itself known to human beings, that limits God. But God is supposed to be omnipotent, limitless, etc etc. Suddenly this God is constrained by external forces; not so omnipotent or powerful after all.

God is not physical, so how could physical evidence be evidence of God?

Our inability to do something, like understand God, is not an external force. If I cannot get my head around quantum mechanics, that isn't because some 'failure to understand force' is acting on my mind, to prevent it. (Nor would it follow that quantum mechanics cannot be true).

(I think we have to be careful with 'omnipotent' and not use it to mean 'can do self-contradictory things'. )

Besides, I think the material/non-material argument has long since been refuted, starting with the letters between Rene Descartes and Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia back in the 17th century. Descarte's dualism postulated, essentially, that our minds did not exist in our brains but rather in some sort of ethereal non-material substrate (Rupert Sheldrake seems to think the same thing, paralleling Jung's idea of collective unconscious, even though there is no evidence for it). Princess Elizabeth tried to pin down Descartes on how something immaterial could affect something material. What was the mechanism by which this immaterial force could act on our material bodies or brains?

Descartes was never able to come up with an explanation.

More here - it's a private blog (not mine) but it outlines the discussion pretty well: http://missiontotransition.blogspot.ca/ ... s-and.html

That was interesting, but I do not think God is supposed to be non-material in the sense that the mind is. After all, nobody disputes that the mind arises from the brain; the brain is prior to the mind. No brain? Then no mind! But God is supposed to be prior to matter (including brains).

(You understand, I'm not trying to convince you God exists. My contention is that God is neither provable nor disprovable. )

A God that's omnipotent and infinite would be able to make itself known by methods that humans could understand. If a God cannot do that, then clearly it's not God.

Again, I do not see how. Surely the only thing that could know God in his totality would be God; only an infinite mind can understand the infinite. Us poor humans cannot even comprehend the finite universe we inhabit as a totality - because we are inside it. (I do not see that last as being a theological point. )

[Scribbler60]

(You understand, I'm not trying to convince you God exists. My contention is that God is neither provable nor disprovable.)

Given that it's logically impossible to completely disprove anything, the disprovable argument really doesn't wash.

That said, I get your point.

And I think we've never really defined our terms. Is God some supernatural "man in the sky" that doles out favours based on how well you worship or how hard you pray? Is God the fundamental structure of the universe? Is God a conscious being? Is God the "divine" nature of mathematics, something that is unconscious but ever-present? Was God the "spark" that triggered the Big Bang and just let things run naturally?

I don't know. I don't see any evidence for any such entity; certainly not an anthropormorphized being that fulfills wishes and answers prayers. Maybe I don't see it because I'm too limited as a human being to see it. But that in itself generates a new problem: if the fate of my eternal soul is predicated on my knowledge of God, and God created me without the ability to perceive God, then I'm behind the proverbial 8-ball due to forces entirely beyond my control. Doesn't seem very God-like to me.

These things give me a headache.

I'm going fishing.

[Gertie]

Londoner

Gertie wrote:Londoner

Not sure the chair comparison works, as we can agree a definition of what constitutes a chair (and then agree if we both see something fitting the definition of a chair in front of us).

The chair in front of us could not exactly 'fit' the definition; if it did then the definition would only relate to that specific chair. Rather, the definition would name some particular feature of all chairs which we would both agree was present in the object in front of us. You would think that would be easy, but it turns out not to be. There is no general physical feature of a chair that will not be shared by other objects, and if we try to be too specific we will be excluding things that we want to include. Or, we will end up with something circular; 'chairs are things used as chairs'. It appears that words do not refer in that way, that the meaning of 'chair' is not contained in a definition but rather in the use we are making of it when we communicate.

Fair points, categories and definitions tend to have a prototype at the centre and radiate out to fuzzy edges. You and I might disagree at the fuzzy edges. So a quick google definition of Chair settles around this - 'A seat for one person with a back and usually 4 legs'. It will be an exceptional fuzzy boundary case where that definition doesn't do its job for us.



What core features of the following can be used to create a useful definition?

One of the Superbeings sitting atop Olympus toying with my fate, the sun, an elephant, Jesus, the entire universe, the essence of being, love, the creative force - and literally a thousand other things people have pointed at and called 'God'

Is this really a fuzzy boundary problem?

Defining 'God' is much trickier, as many people have their own, sometimes idiosyncratic, sometimes not very-well defined, sometimes very obscurely defined, idea of what 'God' is. You can pretty much call anything 'God', and define it how you want. A bit like conceptual art – point to it and call it 'Art' and it's 'Art'. In a sense, everyone creates their own made-to-measure 'God', as I did myself at one time – a God just right for me.

I think the problem is that we understand things by putting them in groups; 'a chair is a type of furniture'. But God (in monotheistic religion) is not a type of anything; unlike 'chair' the word 'God' only refers to one thing. And I think religious language reflects this; that God cannot be defined but only spoken about through metaphor, that none of the words we use can be understood in their normal sense. For example, God 'exists' - but not in the sense that material objects exist.

Note how already you're excluding the types of gods billions of people have believed in, and still do. There have probably been more polytheists than theists throughout our history, and many well-defined. And I don't think monotheism means only metaphor can be used as description - think of people who worshipped the sun, believing only one sun existed. Think of Yahweh. You're really talking about a particular type of theism, which imo gets more obscure as a result of previous ideas becoming more difficult to see as credible. So now obscurity, metaphor and faith are the types tools required to credibly (to some) sustain belief. There seems to be a trend, that god concepts evolve, and the bases for belief evolve, to suit the needs of believers over time.



That doesn't mean that any one of the thousands of gods which have been claimed could be on the right track. But it means there is a plausible explanation for such beliefs, which doesn't require the existence of a god.

It is the same point I was making before about the metaphysical concepts that are necessary to underpin physical science. We want to find some sort of a rule, a definition, so that we can explain our atheism. So we can say: 'these ideas pass the test of being sensible, material etc. And those don't, so that is why I don't believe in them'.

Well some atheists might, and each will have their own reasons, but no reason or rule is required.

But we cannot formulate such a rule, because if we apply it consistently we do not just rule out God, we rule out all knowledge. Or, if we make an exception for certain areas, on the grounds that some ideas just intuitively feel right to us humans, that they help us make sense of the world, why can't the theist ask the same, for the same reasons?

This is a bit of a jump from definitions and categories. So lets think it through


I'd say all I can know for certain exists is my own conscious experiencing, idealism. So if I stop there and say I can't know anything but that exists, then god doesn't exist. Unless it's Me

But I can infer from the nature of those experiences that they refer to something real beyond them, something 'out there' with its own independent existence. A world of stuff and other people, which my experiences are representations of.

I call that our Shared World, where we can make shared/objective knowledge claims - where I can point to a chair and you can say yes, you see it too. Where we can agree things we call chairs exist, and if we drop them they fall because something we call gravity exists. The testable and predictable empirical world which seems to follow certain patterns/rules, science.

And we can agree that this world of stuff and rules tells us our senses and cognitive abilities are not only limited and flawed, they evolved for utility, not Universal Truth Identifying.



So where does that leave us, when someone claims knowledge of something beyond our limited and flawed ways of agreeing on Shared Knowledge?


It leaves me asking - How do you know? How can you know?

[Hereandnow]

Scribbler60:
For example, if you see an elephant wearing a tutu, you can safely say that's an atypical elephant. Atypical = non-typical.
If you had a cold and a sneeze, and then your cold ended and your sneeze went away, you can say you are asymptomatic. Asymptomatic = without symptoms
If you see a basketball with a bulge on one side, you can say that the basketball is asymmetrical. Asymmetrical = not symmetrical

Therefore, if one has no beliefs in a divine superintelligence (call it god if you wish), one is an atheist. Atheist = not a theist

That's all it means. Being an atheist simply refers to being someone that is not a theist. It says nothing about one's intelligence, social standing, political inclinations, driving ability or hair colour.

If it were that simple, then there would be an entirely different conversation in the public sphere about religion. That is, if the denial of of the personified god were all there was to the religious conditions of humans, then we could drop it here and now and could move on. This is the way atheists treat the matter: Religion is about god, god is absurd, therefore religion is absurd. But any inquirer worth her ink knows that this is just a foolish reductionism, as if the whole matter were just a myth about an anthropomorphized deity. Really, who cares if it is not the case that such a thing doesn't exist? Sure, if you're arguing some political point about how such a thing is a danger to common sense morality, or the like, then by all means; but not here, not in philosophical analysis. a-theism, as you put it, literally becomes just as trivial as atypical elephantism. But the human religious issue is far more interesting and deeply profound.

That's exactly right. It's not meant to explain anything.

Meant by whom? Look, there is a reason Christians are so upset by liberal atheism, which is that through cold analysis it reveals that there is little support for this person-god they believe in. do you really think that here the whole thing goes away? It doesn't because the affair goes much deeper: it is about death and suffering and the horrors that range freely unchecked by redemption. Of course, Christians will *say* that the matter rests with Jesus, God and Biblical authority but our analysis here tries to get beneath the skin of this to what is really there, in the "giveness" of the world. Atheism is not acknowledged as the denial of a myth; rather, it is attack on the foundation of what gives hope buoyancy in a world of unspeakable misery. This is not only how Christians and the rest take it, but to atheists like Richard Dawkins it is the intended effect.

What would that proof be? Well, a divine superintelligence would know what would change my mind.

Superintelligence? But you have fallen into the trap of making god a person. Where did this idea get its justification? I discussed this earlier: The moment you put forth an intelligence, that thinks and acts and judges; is in possession of super human cognition; that can will things into existence in creative acts: all you've done is but toss an image of yourself into the cosmos and say how absurd it is to believe in this. It is a straw-person argument. If you want to understand Raskolnikov's world at the level of basic questions and assumptions (where philosophy is supposed to be), ask a logically prior question: what is the possibility of his nightmare doing within the framework of human *being here* in the first place? This is where religion begins. This takes you to the originary grounding of meaningful theory.

-- Updated September 2nd, 2017, 5:04 pm to add the following --

I wrote, "who cares if it is not the case that such a thing doesn't exist." Should have been "if it IS the case." I never proofread till it's too late.

[Scribbler60]

Look, there is a reason Christians are so upset by liberal atheism, which is that through cold analysis it reveals that there is little support for this person-god they believe in. do you really think that here the whole thing goes away? It doesn't because the affair goes much deeper: it is about death and suffering and the horrors that range freely unchecked by redemption. Of course, Christians will *say* that the matter rests with Jesus, God and Biblical authority but our analysis here tries to get beneath the skin of this to what is really there, in the "giveness" of the world. Atheism is not acknowledged as the denial of a myth; rather, it is attack on the foundation of what gives hope buoyancy in a world of unspeakable misery. This is not only how Christians and the rest take it, but to atheists like Richard Dawkins it is the intended effect.

Very good point.

This analysis may point at the utility of religion and religious observance - that is, such thought and observance can make people feel better and help them get through their existential angst - but it goes nowhere in asserting whether religion is true. Useful, perhaps. True? Well, there's no evidence for it.

As far as atheism being an attack, well, I suppose that's dependent upon the person receiving the offence. One can say, "There is no god," and most around where I live wouldn't give it a second thought. Say the same thing in the deep south, or in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, and you could end up beaten up or beheaded.

Offence is something that's taken, not given. But perhaps that's another discussion altogether...

... you have fallen into the trap of making god a person. Where did this idea get its justification? I discussed this earlier: The moment you put forth an intelligence, that thinks and acts and judges; is in possession of super human cognition; that can will things into existence in creative acts: all you've done is but toss an image of yourself into the cosmos and say how absurd it is to believe in this. It is a straw-person argument...

I simply used the term divine superintelligence to try and de-anthropomorphize the idea of a god; to take the concept out of the realm of a bearded old man in the sky that doles out favours depending upon how hard you pray, who you sleep with, that sent his son to be crucified, etc etc. (the standardized xtian god that seems to be the favourite among evangelicals) and make it more something akin to deism. Perhaps I should use another metaphor.

I wrote, "who cares if it is not the case that such a thing doesn't exist." Should have been "if it IS the case." I never proofread till it's too late.

Ya, I get it. An edit function here would be nice. If there is one, I can't seem to find it.

[Count Lucanor]

Now, I saw somewhere in these 80+ responses that the tired, old "there's no morality without a supernatural touchstone" argument dragged out. I see that often. Usually there's an inclusion of that Dostoevsky quote — 'Without God all things are permitted,' which I take to mean that if there is no moral absolute then people will degenerate into chaos, misery, cruelty and mayhem.

Sadly, the reverse of the Dostoevsky quote also seems to be true: when you believe you have a God on your side, you can rationalize pretty much anything. Murder, suicide-bombing, war crimes, genocide, child rape, etc etc... all manner of nastiness has been done in the name of a God/Allah/Yaweh/pick a god, any god, any god at all.

My I add the contradiction in the theist argument which seeks to justify the belief in a god on the moral premise that "without God all things are permitted", while ignoring that explaining the universe as a manifestation of god's will, implies that with god all things are permitted and everything would behave arbitrarily, obeying no laws other than the capricious desires of the deity.

[Sy Borg]

Sophisticated believers (let's avoid "theist" here because plenty of believers will not subscribe to a doctrine) tend to posit God as being the ground of being. There is no judgement or permission etc - that's anthropomorphic stuff. The sophisticated theist notion of "God" is quite similar to "Universe", with all things in the universe being part expression of the deity and part chaos.

From there we can perhaps call on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point in suggesting that increasingly the universe will more express the nature of the underlying deity and less express chaos over time, which is actually not miles from the maturing process of any entity, ie. the notion is not incompatible with naturalism.

[-1-]

increasingly the universe will more express the nature of the underlying deity and less express chaos over time

... which further suggests that the underlying entity is a dead, long-slumbering, never ending numbness and unchanging reality, a.k.a. entropy.

The sophisticated theists are like the Bible: they state something that they strongly believe in, then an atheist scientist chimes in and tells them what is impossible in their thesis, and then they quickly rearrange the dogma to suit the educor of the times.

The unsophisticated theist cherry-picks the Bible; the sophisticated theist cherry-picks reality.

[Hereandnow]

Scribbler60:

This analysis may point at the utility of religion and religious observance - that is, such thought and observance can make people feel better and help them get through their existential angst - but it goes nowhere in asserting whether religion is true. Useful, perhaps. True? Well, there's no evidence for it.

But what you seek is embedded in the utility. For every problem that ideas that have utility address possesses the originary circumstance: Problems are about an original, and I mean logically original, condition that needs relief; that is, without the ouch!, the ugh! and so forth (an the oohs and ahhs), there is no problematic for utility to arise in the first place; utility presupposes suffering, value. The Real that is the "evidence" at the basis of, if you will, a kind of existential theism, theism grounded in "existence," lies here in the suffering itself; for suffering is not only real: it possesses, I would argue, more reality than our scientific paradigms can contain (for what, after all, is the measure of what is real, if not the existential impact, the *strength* of the *signal* we receive?) This is what is given. Suffering is not an institution around which we build theory (though, clearly, we cannot acknowledge suffering free of language and logic). It is part and parcel of the Isness of things.
This is where my position becomes too strong for most to endorse. I hold that suffering is sui generis in Being; it is not part of any continuity from any taxonomic table or language lexicon. 'Suffering and value' is completely Other, completely alien to human understanding that is empirically grounded. From here we move in Kantian fashion, if you will, to extrapolate from what is before us, in plain sight, to what must be the case in order to explain it, account for it, make sense of it.
'God' becomes simplified to the radical, transcendent Other, the ineffable Other (think apophatic theology: not this, not that) that redeems suffering.
Now you can argue that suffering needs no redemption, but that is a manifest absurdity, I argue. More on this if you like.

-- Updated September 3rd, 2017, 10:20 am to add the following --

Greta:

From there we can perhaps call on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point in suggesting that increasingly the universe will more express the nature of the underlying deity and less express chaos over time, which is actually not miles from the maturing process of any entity, ie. the notion is not incompatible with naturalism

Haven't read this in a while, but I do recall the apparent contradiction in, on the one hand, seeing human redemption at an evolutionary omega point, and, on the other, finding God's grace in the present.

Perhaps, and I actually think this is true, though it is certainly not dismiss evolutionary moral trajectories, but perhaps, omega point is here and now (my moniker). What really is going on with love and bliss? It is just as problematic as suffering: here, part of the given of things, more real than real if our touchstone for this is empirical science, which is abstracted from the real experience (note that the existential grounding of any observation, whether it be through a telescope or at a computer monitor, is abstracted from an experience that was, in the moment of recording data, interested, anxious, perhaps worried about a relationship, perhaps anticipating a promotion or despising Donald Trump. This is the Real, Kierkegaard's real, Descartes' real, I would argue: subjectivity is the ground of all reals).

Buddhists say this omega point is immanence itself (considering that what is not immanent is "apart" from us, that is, empirical science.)

'Naturalism' is such an odd term. Question begging through and through. I never know what people are talking about outside of some philosopher's personal application.

-- Updated September 3rd, 2017, 10:37 am to add the following --

-1-:
The sophisticated theists are like the Bible: they state something that they strongly believe in, then an atheist scientist chimes in and tells them what is impossible in their thesis, and then they quickly rearrange the dogma to suit the educor of the times.

The unsophisticated theist cherry-picks the Bible; the sophisticated theist cherry-picks reality.

Well said. But, there are cherries and then there are cherries. Science cherry picks. And this is, frankly, what it means to think at all. A philosophical theory cherry picks at the broadest level, pulling away from particulars to the structural features of all things, or of things in general without exclusion. I would make the point that in this line of inquiry, it is remiss to, and this obviously applies to all fields, simply dismiss anomalies because they don't fit theory. If such anomalies are present, clear, part of the world, then they must be confronted and accounted for.

Science cannot touch value, suffering and joy and all they present to us, that is; this is why scientists don't come out telling the public about their research in this. There is none. They leave it up to religion explain suffering for they are mute on the matter of why we are born to suffer and die. Evolution is a fine theory, but completely incommensurate with moral value.

[Dmanz1]

Ethics do not need to be underpinned by something absolute. Ethics and morality can be adequately explained through the phenomenon of communal evolution. Of course, self-preservation is the crux of Darwinian evolution. However, at "higher" biological levels, which includes humans, ants, wolves and other social animals, self-preservation also means extending the concern of survival to those around you: Those in your clan or tribe etc. Humans must live in communities to survive at all, and the chance of communal survival is increased if their are some basic understandings and rules that the community must follow. Due to survival of the fittest, the communities which possessed these social ground rules survived and became part of "human nature". Darwin observed that these social rules can be reduced to the "golden rule": Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Darwin further described how this social necessity was further evolved into a "social instinct" where individuals can "intuitively" differentiate between "right" and wrong". This process underpins our ethical values instead of, as you claim, God or Plato's FOG

[Dmanz1]

Ethics do not need to be underpinned by something absolute. Ethics and morality can be adequately explained through the phenomenon of communal evolution. Of course, self-preservation is the crux of Darwinian evolution. However, at "higher" biological levels, which includes humans, ants, wolves and other social animals, self-preservation also means extending the concern of survival to those around you: Those in your clan or tribe etc. Humans must live in communities to survive at all, and the chance of communal survival is increased if their are some basic understandings and rules that the community must follow. Due to survival of the fittest, the communities which possessed these social ground rules survived and became part of "human nature". Darwin observed that these social rules can be reduced to the "golden rule": Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Darwin further described how this social necessity was further evolved into a "social instinct" where individuals can "intuitively" differentiate between "right" and wrong". This process underpins our ethical values instead of, as you claim, God or Plato's FOG

[Hereandnow]

Dmanz1:
Ethics do not need to be underpinned by something absolute. Ethics and morality can be adequately explained through the phenomenon of communal evolution. Of course, self-preservation is the crux of Darwinian evolution. However, at "higher" biological levels, which includes humans, ants, wolves and other social animals, self-preservation also means extending the concern of survival to those around you: Those in your clan or tribe etc. Humans must live in communities to survive at all, and the chance of communal survival is increased if their are some basic understandings and rules that the community must follow. Due to survival of the fittest, the communities which possessed these social ground rules survived and became part of "human nature". Darwin observed that these social rules can be reduced to the "golden rule": Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Darwin further described how this social necessity was further evolved into a "social instinct" where individuals can "intuitively" differentiate between "right" and wrong". This process underpins our ethical values instead of, as you claim, God or Plato's FOG

But Dmanz1, this is all very early on in the game. If this business really interests you, please read the preceding posts which respond abundantly to the points you make. Just read my response to Scribbler and others. Not to put you off, but i really can't just write it all out yet again.

[-1-]

Science cannot touch value, suffering and joy and all they present to us, that is; this is why scientists don't come out telling the public about their research in this. There is none. They leave it up to religion explain suffering for they are mute on the matter of why we are born to suffer and die. Evolution is a fine theory, but completely incommensurate with moral value.

This what you said is absolutely off the mark. Sociology and psychology both deal heavily with what you deny science deals with. Those two are social sciences. They apply scientific methods in their investigation.

Also, psychiatry, which is part of the medical sciences.

This is old hat, that science is cold-hearted, calculating, machine-like. Not the least bit. Social sciences deal EXACTLY with what you deny they deal with.

-- Updated 2017 September 3rd, 3:27 pm to add the following --

Evolution is a fine theory, but completely incommensurate with moral value.

What you said here is so wrong. Personal morals are coded into every human being, to different extent, slightly or wholly.

To say that evolution and morality are incommensurate with each other, is a clear indication that you don't understand morality or evolution.

I said that you don't understand evolution, because to be commensurate, means to be proportional; and evolution is not something that you can assign a progress to, be it mathematical or geometrical or anything else. Any being alive today has ancestry going back to the primordeal soup, so we are equally successful at survival. That man has a brain, and a bean stalk does not, makes no ranking in their standing, as if one living thing alive today would be superior to another living thing.

Why do you keep bringing up evolution? It is so obvious to any thinking being that religious fanatics and religious moderates too, have no insight whatsoever into how evolution works, although it is so simple as an apple falling off a tree.

So you are wrong on both accounts: science does take emotion, intellect, and mood and social dynamics and studies them and even points at solutions and remedies in cases of mental or emotional illnesses, or in cases of social maladies. (Such as in couple therapy or family therapy.) And evolution and morals go hand-in-hand, but you're right, there is proportionality; not because we are higher or lower than other forms of life, but because we are NOT higher or lower than other forms of life, from evolutionary standpoint.

The religious point was that man is the crown of creation. Ask Greta why it was smeared on atheist scientists that Jane Goodall's early work was dismissed... and tell Greta for sure about the ranking of living things, as commensurateness as you expect it, can only be measured in a ranked system, so you must believe in it.

-- Updated 2017 September 3rd, 3:31 pm to add the following --

Correction: in this post of mine, "And evolution and morals go hand-in-hand, but you're right, there is proportionality;" I should have written, "And evolution and morals go hand-in-hand, but you're right, there is no proportionality;".

I regret the error.