That seems fair. But I wonder, anyway, why being right or wrong needs to be considered an issue? Again, if it's about something that genuinely poses a threat to physical well-being, then the point is taken. But if not, is it really an issue?
Sapere aude
- Thread starter Naturalist
- Start date
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on your definition of "physical well-being"...it's easier to get ripped off financially if you can't analyze a product or service well.That seems fair. But I wonder, anyway, why being right or wrong needs to be considered an issue? Again, if it's about something that genuinely poses a threat to physical well-being, then the point is taken. But if not, is it really an issue?
If a person invests, one wants to be right about the investments.
If you have children or pets, one wants to be right about THEIR care.
The list goes on....it's really the basis for public education...more education means a better society.
There you go! Common ground.
All it takes is to see the question in its proper context.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
The god of the gaps scenario is a logical fallacy. If one only commits that fallacy, it's not very important.
There aren't many people who just commit a single fallacy, and that one being the only one.
If someone is prone to fallacious thinking, then it can affect them in more important ways as previously described.
There aren't many people who just commit a single fallacy, and that one being the only one.
If someone is prone to fallacious thinking, then it can affect them in more important ways as previously described.
Ok, so the God of the gaps is automatically a logical fallacy, yes? So is your argument that all religion and belief must be illogical/fallacious and require correction?
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
No. Not all religious people employ the fallacy. They just say "I don't know".
That's interesting. That sounds more like an agnostic than a religious person to me. But maybe I'm interpreting your reply in a more generalised way.
The God of the gaps is a logical fallacy, but the God of 'I don't know' isn't? Or are we working with different notions of the God of the gaps? I think that's likely with your notion presenting a much more absolute position (which is probably closer to the definition of God of the gaps, I'll grant you).
..so these drivers are all "programmed", and are not free to make decisions about moving the steering wheel etc. ?
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
The thing about religion is, it's so nebulous. It's not science, not history, not philosophy, not math, etc.
It is whatever you want it to be.
So, plenty of religious people, understand the fallacy, and to avoid insulting God, don't use the fallacy. If they use "God", and then an alternate, natural explanation is developed, God gets smaller and smaller.
So typically what they'll do is just believe God is over everything, and he makes the natural world work the way it does. They avoid focusing on some narrow aspect of the natural world.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
They feel like they're free, there's no doubt that feeling exists. But they're not free.
Good point. I'd worried for a moment that you'd end up adopting an almost evangelical zeal for 'correcting' people. But that would be my projection on the matter, and perhaps even when correcting people, you would do so with kindness and diplomacy.
If they are not free, then how can you say that "the drivers" are actually driving the cars?
Makes no sense .. either the drivers are responsible for the decisions, or something else is.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
I much more prefer to be corrected over correcting others. That's how I learn. I don't learn anything correcting others.Good point. I'd worried for a moment that you'd end up adopting an almost evangelical zeal for 'correcting' people. But that would be my projection on the matter, and perhaps even when correcting people, you would do so with kindness and diplomacy.
As far as religion goes, logical fallacies are just one type of mistake some religious people make, there are plenty others. Non-religious people also employ logical fallacies as well as plenty others.
In essence, the more detailed a religion purports to be, the more it opens itself up to criticism.
The more nebulous it is, there isn't much substance to criticize.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
You and I have different authorities on which we stand. I stand on the authority of God's word. I believe it's inerrant and supports science. You stand on the authority of science and you believe it disproves the bible. If you aren't willing to be corrected by God's Word how can you expect me to be corrected by science based theology. They are all theories.
It amazes me that people who hold science above all can not see a creator as much as Science reveals a designer. You cannot accept something that you cannot reasonably explain but much of science you cannot reasonably explain. How can you explain moral right from wrong we inherently have? Or the part of us that makes us who we are? We have a body with a brain that functions like a computer but how do you explain consciousness?
You think you are a very smart man but my Bible tells me a fool says there is no God. So I feel sorry for you to have the knowledge of the truth so close but won't allow yourself to acknowledge it.
Faith is a powerful thing. We believe in consequences for our actions. We believe we answer to a higher authority than our own. Your attempts at correction will fall on deaf ears. You can try though.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
Free will goes back to mind-body duality. That there is the mind, which is separate from the body. Somehow the mind interacts with the body, and causes the body to act.
The mind, being non-physical, has free will. It can choose as it pleases, unencumbered by the physical world.
We know that isn't true. Our mind is a manifestation of our brain, and our brain is physical.
There is no free will.
The drivers will use their brains to make their decisions, but those decisions are based on past physical occurrences. The choice a person makes will be based on that past. They are not free to make another choice.
Naturalist
Well-Known Member
You need to understand the difference between a scientific theory and conjecture.You and I have different authorities on which we stand. I stand on the authority of God's word. I believe it's inerrant and supports science. You stand on the authority of science and you believe it disproves the bible. If you aren't willing to be corrected by God's Word how can you expect me to be corrected by science based theology. They are all theories.
It amazes me that people who hold science above all can not see a creator as much as Science reveals a designer. You cannot accept something that you cannot reasonably explain but much of science you cannot reasonably explain. How can you explain moral right from wrong we inherently have? Or the part of us that makes us who we are? We have a body with a brain that functions like a computer but how do you explain consciousness?
You think you are a very smart man but my Bible tells me a fool says there is no God. So I feel sorry for you to have the knowledge of the truth so close but won't allow yourself to acknowledge it.
Faith is a powerful thing. We believe in consequences for our actions. We believe we answer to a higher authority than our own. Your attempts at correction will fall on deaf ears. You can try though.
Is it morally okay to own slaves? I say no, the Bible says yes. Who is correct and how do you know?
If you only follow a book, written by uneducated people in the Iron Age who didn't even know the Earth revolves around the Sun, then you have some catching up to do.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
This is a normal atheistic answer to the question of morality. Slavery.
God never said slavery is ok but culturally it was accepted. I believe we are all in slavery today. I work every day to pay off debt. I do not work for myself. If I want things I have to have credit and with that credit comes interest. I pay taxes on the money I earn and pay taxes when I spend that money. This is slavery and it's cultural.
But I know that it's wrong to murder or steal I know what's right and wrong. I feel bad if I hurt someone or to see injustice. We can turn on the news and see the decline of morality every day. We say what is wrong with everyone why is there is much evil in the world. That's morality.
God never said slavery is ok but culturally it was accepted. I believe we are all in slavery today. I work every day to pay off debt. I do not work for myself. If I want things I have to have credit and with that credit comes interest. I pay taxes on the money I earn and pay taxes when I spend that money. This is slavery and it's cultural.
But I know that it's wrong to murder or steal I know what's right and wrong. I feel bad if I hurt someone or to see injustice. We can turn on the news and see the decline of morality every day. We say what is wrong with everyone why is there is much evil in the world. That's morality.
Or even the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory....and maybe how we use the word 'theory' colloquially.
The materialist hypothesis:
The non-materialist hypothesis:
We don't know this at all -- because we don't know what exists outside of the timespace limits of nature
The non-materialist hypothesis:
"Light is the shadow of God"