Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

You're right; it could be a coincidence that every atom in the universe behaves as if it is attracted to every other.

You are still talking about "attraction" between atoms - so weird. Einstein is rolling in his grave.

And then - all this talk about (co)incidence. It's like you want to believe Newton on metaphysics having no place in empiricism, but then... you just can't help yourself.

[Will Bouwman]

It's like you want to believe Newton on metaphysics having no place in empiricism, but then... you just can't help yourself.

Try again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

[Harbal]

Is it all atheists, most atheists, just some atheists, a few atheists, or only the very rare type of atheist such as Dawkins, or Hitchens?

It depends. If there were silent Atheists, nobody would know about them. But there are a lot of Atheists, even on this forum, who are far from silent about their beliefs, and far from shy about saying that other people have no right to believe what they themselves refuse to believe.

It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if all the atheists here were silent; you would have no one to talk to. I have never heard anyone say that people have no right to believe whatever religious thing they want to. And why do you say "refuse" to believe? When you find something to be unbelievable, you have no choice but not to believe it.

Did you not also say, "Your religious dogma does not come with any evidence that is strong enough to convince anybody, as can be seen day after day on this forum." If you were being non-evangelizing, you'd have said something more modest, surely, like "I have not yet seen evidence that convinces me."

My pointing out that what you consider compelling evidence of something isn't strong enough to convince anyone, does not remotely resemble evangelizing. I can't imagine in what way you think it does.

and that, for Atheists, is the real problem: a personal confession of ignorance is not a powerful statement against Theism. And that's clearly what they prefer to make, for obvious reasons.

I daresay that you have not yet seen evidence that pixies exist, but I doubt that you would consider it a personal confession of ignorance to say so.

I don't also think Dawkins and Hitchens are "rare" in any important sense: rather, they've been celebrated, invited to speak around, and got plenty of headlines, to say nothing of having their own books. Somebody's backing them, and it's probably not the Theists.

Most atheists, I'm sure, are people who don't get celebrated, are not invited to speak around, do not get any headlines, or write books, so I wouldn't really call that kind of atheist common. There must be lots of famous atheists, but very few are famous for being atheists.

[Dontaskme]

The problem with Atheists is that they want you not to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and not a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of Atheism's ideological nature.

The problem with adult theists is that they want you to notice that their commitment is a faith-step, an ideology, a personal choice, and a rational necessity. So the capital serves to remind us of theism's ideological nature, without you noticing the ideology is a well disguised fallacy. The necessity was born out of past childhood neediness.

[Skepdick]

It's like you want to believe Newton on metaphysics having no place in empiricism, but then... you just can't help yourself.

Try again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

You don't seem to udnerstand the contents of that video...

Quite ironic.

[Will Bouwman]

It's like you want to believe Newton on metaphysics having no place in empiricism, but then... you just can't help yourself.

Try again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

You don't seem to udnerstand the contents of that video...

Quite ironic.

Very well; explain it to me.

[Skepdick]

Try again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

You don't seem to udnerstand the contents of that video...

Quite ironic.

Very well; explain it to me.

I've done so a bunch of times and in a bunch of different ways.

But (as I keep saying) I can't understand the explanations for you.

[Will Bouwman]

You don't seem to udnerstand the contents of that video...

Quite ironic.

Very well; explain it to me.

I've done so a bunch of times and in a bunch of different ways.

But (as I keep saying) I can't understand the explanations for you.

Bollocks. Either you haven't watched it, or you haven't understood it.

[Skepdick]

Bollocks. Either you haven't watched it, or you haven't understood it.

You left out the third option. You haven't understood it.

The perspective Feynman advocates for in that video directly conflicts with this perspective...

“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”[/i] If that is not absolutely clear, what Newton said is that God has no place in science.

Any theoretical construct (even God!) has a place in science. If it helps you improve upon your theory.

At the very least, it could be a simplifying assumption. An axiom that eases cognitive load elsewhere in the overal theory.

[Will Bouwman]

Bollocks. Either you haven't watched it, or you haven't understood it.

You left out the third option. You haven't understood it.

The perspective Feynman advocates for in that video directly conflicts with this perspective...

“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.”[/i] If that is not absolutely clear, what Newton said is that God has no place in science.

You idiot. That is Newton's perspective.

Any theoretical construct (even God!) has a place in science. If it helps you improve upon your theory.

Oh? And what metric are you using for improve?

[Skepdick]

You idiot. That is Newton's perspective.

You idiot. Newton's perspective clashes with how science is actually conducted.

If you are going to "inform" us on what Newton said, the least you can do is also inform us on the fact that he was wrong.

Your omision is profoundly misleading.

Oh? And what metric are you using for improve?

Once again... I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

At the very least, it could be a simplifying assumption. An axiom that eases cognitive load elsewhere in the overal theory.

Would you like an example? Very well. Have you heard the expression Thought-terminating cliché?.

So when you ask "Why do apples fall from trees and onto the ground?" The answer "gravity" is a thought-terminating cliche.

It tells you absolutely nothing, but it feels like a profound answer and it makes you stop thinking/questioning.

[Will Bouwman]

What Newton claimed was more modest...
He wasn't banning God from all science.

As it happens, Newton didn't believe his own theory of gravity could maintain the solar system. As he said in the General Scholium: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." So yes, God very much had a role in Newton's universe, but not in science, which to Newton was what we mortals could study. If God decides to perform a miracle, that's not science.

Francis Bacon...was a committed Anglican, he was clear that attributes of God could not be discovered experimentally, but only through divine revelation.

You should read Bacon's famous essay, "Of Truth." You can find it online. Just read his opening line, and you'll find he was an ardent Theist. He was as vigorous in his interest in theology as in scientific method.

I am well aware of Bacon's interest in theology. That's what 'he was a committed Anglican' means.

...here's the latest discovery of a way in which Evolutionary propaganda has gone wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zignS602-f8

What that fails to acknowledge is that simpler organisms are found in lower strata, as we would expect were evolution the case; a single deluge would have mixed them all up. What it fails to explain is how enough material to compress organisms with the force of an hydraulic press, such that it forms solid rock, could have eroded in a few thousand years so that fossils can appear on the surface. You really do have to want to believe it.

And to get personal confirmations of your own, you'd have to take those two steps God always requires: to believe in at least the possibility He exists, and to be willing to believe that He could reward you for an honest search.

Absent those things, you're never going on any kind of search anyway, so they seem pretty modest expectations, wouldn't you say?

Both those things I am still willing to entertain, despite what I considered honest searches. However modest God's expectations, He apparently wasn't impressed with my efforts. This, I am told, is my fault:
“Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of a lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis fails to become a Christian because of a lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with god.”
William Lane Craig

[Will Bouwman]

You idiot. That is Newton's perspective.

You idiot. Newton's perspective clashes with how science is actually conducted.

I know; I wrote an article on it: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

[Skepdick]

You idiot. That is Newton's perspective.

You idiot. Newton's perspective clashes with how science is actually conducted.

I know; I wrote an article on it: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Oh goodie!

So if you know that Newton's perspective clashes with the way science is done; do you then agree or disagree with Newton that "God has no place in science" ?

[Will Bouwman]

So if you know that Newton's perspective clashes with the way science is done; do you then agree or disagree with Newton that "God has no place in science" ?

As I have just said to Immanuel Can:

As it happens, Newton didn't believe his own theory of gravity could maintain the solar system. As he said in the General Scholium: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." So yes, God very much had a role in Newton's universe, but not in science, which to Newton was what we mortals could study. If God decides to perform a miracle, that's not science.