[[Given that there is no way to ascertain the objective truth of one religion over another, to base an absolute morality on one specific religion is a logical fallacy.]]

There is no formal logical fallacy of “basing an absolute morality on a religion whose objective truth can’t be proved.” Have you ever studied any formal logic? I was asking if my conclusions failed to follow from my premises, which is something you have yet to address.

[[Religion has almost no net effect on how people act. ]]

A lot of sociologists would disagree with you.

[[I think the whole Theist - Atheist rant you expressed was a little irrational.]]

Again, what logical fallacies did I commit?

[[ I’m not sure who you are preaching to, or for what purpose. If it is just to get a reaction out of people, I don’t really think you are succeeding. If it is a “Divine Mission” to convert the lost, I don’t think you will win many converts here. ]]

Actually, it’s just a reaction to the spate of anti-Christian and anti-theist comments that follow any mention, however peripheral, of religion-related subjects here. My purpose in coming here, originally, was to comment on solar effects of global warming, though I had been lurking for a long time before that to enjoy debunking of pseudoscience.

I have never been fool enough to try to convert confirmed ideological atheists. In general I have to know someone fairly well before I’ll talk about Jesus with him or her. But of course when Jesus, his people, or theists in general are attacked, I’ll respond.

I didn’t know about his Physics of Christianity. Since I am not a Christian, I doubt that I have an interest in this book.

I thought that once it was shown that the Universe won’t end in a big crunch that pretty much killed his Omega Point theory.

I did like his discussion of multiple histories and the good / evil debate.

kid cool

Since writing that book it appears Tipler has converted to Christianity since his latest book The Physics of Christianity goes completely overboard from interesting Sci Fi to complete lunacy.

Where, precisely, was I irrational, Michael? Please identify the logical fallacies I committed.

1. The strawman argument in your first comment;

2. Given that there is no way to ascertain the objective truth of one religion over another, to base an absolute morality on one specific religion is a logical fallacy. You did not mention absolute morality explicitly, but it was there in your indiscriminate use of the word “should”.

Ba-da-boom!

I’m not sure I accept all his premises, but it was an interesting read on this subject.

“I have an instinct to self-preservation and an instinct toward altruism, but it isn’t science that tells me when I should suppress one and encourage the other.”

No science does not do that. Human nature, along with societal conditioning and consideration of the circumstances does that. We have many impulses, almost always below the threshold of consciousness, that pull us in different ways.

As an example, consider the mallard duck I once flushed off of her nest. She flew a short way, turned around and approached me, and when she got as close as she dared she began preening. What was happening is that she had two very strong impulses- to drive me away from her nest, and to escape harm herself. When both conflicting impulses were equally strong, she did what is called a displacement behavior- she groomed herself. Neither “science” nor religion told her she “should” do it; it was the the way her brain works.

We are not ducks, but the same principal applies. Our brains process impulses at an unconscious level. When those impulses become strong enough, we are conscious of them.

If you find an object of some value, do you keep it or try to return it to its owner? If most people try to return things, then we are all at less risk of permanent loss of valuable objects. But if you “cheat” you get a short term reward. What do you do? It depends on your conditioning, your experiences with loss, and a bunch of other things of which we are not even aware. What “should” you do? It depends on the outcome you want. Will you feel guilty for keeping the object? Many people wouldn’t. If you would, you are more likely to return it.

Religion has almost no net effect on how people act. Religious people still cheat on their spouses, still rob and murder, still do any other kind of destructive act. Religious fear provides one kind of hypothetical consequence to acting badly, but it appears not to be very effective.

As I said before, “should” only makes sense when there is a goal. It is not an absolute thing. “Should” I turn left? Depends on where I want to go.

[[Religion is based on fear of death.]]

Then how do you explain the fact that early Judaism didn’t believe in an afterlife (see Psalms 6 and 88)? Or the fact that, in Buddhism, the wheel of reincarnation is viewed as a terror and the ultimate goal is to get off the wheel, stop being reincarnated, and extinguish one’s self altogether? (“Nirvana” comes from a Sanskrit word meaning what happens to a candle flame when it is snuffed out. The image is used 28 times in the Lotus Sutra alone.)

[[Barton, (with apologies for any offense) has proven once again the irrationality of faith.]]

Where, precisely, was I irrational, Michael? Please identify the logical fallacies I committed.

[[I would love to hear your tortuous explanation of how a being that we should call our “Father” could simultaneously love us and burn us in a lake of fire, for eternity no less, for the unpardonable offense of not believing that he came down to earth two thousand years ago to get hung on a big stick so his blood could expunge the “original sin” that we inherited from the first humans that ate a piece of “forbidden” fruit.]]

Have you ever met someone who pursued their self-interest at all costs, Lance, no matter how many people they had to run over to do it? If you have — and I have, I used to study multiple murderers — then you know that such people are consumed by an urge to dominate, to control others. You see it in wife abusers and child abusers, the urge to completely control another person, to turn them into, at best, a tool.

In Hell they will no longer be able to do that. And that prohibition will feel to them like eternal, fiery torment. They will rail forever about how cruel God is for not letting them go on torturing others.

In the end, I believe everybody gets what they want. Given the choice between following God and following self, some will choose self. They will be given what they want. And they will find that that is Hell.

I’m not particular about the flames. The Bible uses a lot of symbolic language (and yes, they knew it was symbolic when it was written). But as a symbol of torment, flames convey the idea very well right away. Jesus knew what he was doing when he used that image.

[[And that individual variance is the summation of their brain structure, experience, and personal attributes… all of which lead to why they make the choice whether or not to commit self-sacrifice.

As I said, the more you learn about “how”, the more you learn about “why”. That’s what science does.]]

Maybe I was unclear in the point I was trying to make. Given that altruism was programmed into us (although I, for one, am very dubious about sociobiology), knowing that would not prove that it was right to obey that instinct. That is a question science can’t answer.

Science can tell us where the instinct comes from.

Science cannot tell us whether it’s right to obey the instinct.

I have an instinct to have sex, and it leads me to want to have it with a lot of the women I meet and some of the guys. That doesn’t mean I should give that instinct free reign. I have an instinct to self-preservation and an instinct toward altruism, but it isn’t science that tells me when I should suppress one and encourage the other.

You might want to have the C2C webmaster update your profile. It still has you working at Sonoma State.

- Jack

“Why is the sky blue?” should be “How do we see the sky as blue?” and “How is blue light being emitted by the air molecules?” etc…

“Why do I feel murder is wrong?” should be “How do moral feelings of right and wrong arise in a brain?” or “How did those particular brain ‘circuits’ develop?”

So really, science can (in principle) get to the answer of any “why” question if you first break it down into the appropriate how questions.

I wrote most of this comment off the top of my head based on the memory of the Peter Atkins quote. So I am curious, can anyone think of a “why” question that can’t be broken down into “how” questions? Of course this exercise must assume no supernatural causes.

thanks!

Science \rightarrow How \rightarrow why!!

That’s why I am such a fan of yours.

Religion is based on fear of death. We need
to vastly extend our lifespans, and then this
fear will decrease. That is why, the religious
right is so afraid of stem cells etc. They know where their power comes from.

My experience has been quite the opposite — that it’s the extreme religious types who seem least interested in preserving the species, since they assume we’re approaching the end times anyway. Quite a few seem positively eager to bring on the rapture as soon as possible — witness the strange bedfellows of millennial Christians and certain Jewish sects.

Thanks to those with voices of reason. Barton, (with apologies for any offense) has proven once again the irrationality of faith.