Church for Skeptics - Episode 54 - Part 1 of 3

Church for Skeptics - Episode 54 - Part 1 of 3

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• apologetic
• church
• skeptic
• atheism
• jesus

[darsenault]

When we say "prove", we are trying to raise the bar to an unrealistic level. Certainly, science cannot prove the supernatural, but so what. It is still reasonable to believe in a metaphysical cause for the universe, since it could not cause itself, being physical. Reason can point to the limits of science and to the necessity of faith in any discipline. We cannot prove that the universe is a reality, but it is reasonable to assume that it is.

[tkd4zgqg]

Loveyour Show.Makes you think. Thank you!

[stenchinator]

"We cannot prove that the universe is a reality, but it is reasonable to assume that it is."

This is because we as humans can engage in the universe, and demonstrate this to other humans. Can you demonstrate a supernatural act to others? Prayer is supposedly a major force in the world, according to the religious. If so, they should be able to demonstrate the power of prayer scientifically (by that, I mean show that any outcome is determined by prayer alone, not natural forces).

[homerthompsonman]

No, not that nothing can be shown. What I have argued is that supernatural things are beyond the reach of science or regular investigation. By definition supernatural things are beyond the natural world, and therefore beyond any reach of science.

So if you want to believe in supernatural things, go right ahead. But don't think you will find any proof in the natural world.

[huxypoo]

So what you have shown is that nothing can be shown? Does your statement have meaning? If so, is it only an artificially imposed one, or does it have meaning because it relates to some reality which cannot be known? Actually, I think "proof" is too strong. My goal is to show rationality, or justified belief. If you don't want to, as you say, fly at it.

[homerthompsonman]

So, as they say, we are dialectic agreement: If there is a god, then there can be meaning (according to the learned Steven B. Cowan).

And since there is no way to show/experience/prove the super-natural, then there is no way to show or prove there is meaning.

If you want to believe, fly at it. But don't think you will make any headway by trying to prove what cannot be proved or shown.

Or you can make a career out of wasting your time.

Good luck with that.

[macrosman]

As humans become increasingly complex in their thoughts, we may seek to ever more so base our behaviors and beliefs on things which can be proven by logic, or at the very least, empirically - but there is no reason why it should be necessary to abandon the contingent behaviors or beliefs which we have absorbed over millennia of human development - except where they may blatantly contradict reality as we perceive it.

[macrosman]

You might then groan and say "oh - but then everything is permitted" - but it's not, because we say it's not!

If everyone went around killing each other willy nilly, then no one would be around anymore. Evolution does not favor this behavior. Biological evolution generally encourages organisms with similar genes to co-operate - or at the very least, to not interfere with each other, since to do so would be to lessen their ability to replicate.

[macrosman]

Whatever you think "objective morals" are, the world is what it is.

Without someone to enforce your "objective morals", all that exists are the actual behaviors that people exhibit, and how people who are alive consider those behaviors.

The words "wrong" and "right" may be subjective, in this case - but we are all subjective beings - so why should this pose a dilemma?

[macrosman]

That's the thing - morals don't and maybe even can't be "proven" as mathematical proofs. There need be no "axiomatic system of morals".

Since our morals are based on pragmatism, the justification for particular morals is based on how certain behaviors help us to achieve what we want.

I'm a libertarian, and I desire to live in a libertarian society. Therefore, the justification for the morals I choose are that they will help achieve a libertarian society.

This is not circular reasoning.