No, I don’t think it means that. I believe that rationality and relationships are more primary and fundamental than Volkswagens. Volkswagens are one of many products of there first being intelligence and relationships.
Perhaps God is known, not through the scrutiny of our finite minds, but in our hearts through humility and faith. Religious texts tend to say God is known only through the heart, and that pride and disbelief are obstacles to such knowing.
Also, God is described in various religious as immaterial (due to being unlimited; matter infers limits).
I think that the credibility of religion is greatly compromised by scrutiny-evasive, excuse-making claims of that sort. And it is certainly the case that if you actually believe that, you should never, ever ask for or look for scientific evidence in support of or against that sort of belief. It can’t be done, in either direction.
Lots of things, of course, are phenomena rather than matter. That doesn’t stop them from being scrutinized. The flow of electrons is not a “thing” in the sense of being the presence of some physical object, but it is a phenomenon with measurable effects. If you assert that gods exist, but have no effect upon the world, then that’s theoretically possible but practically quite worthless. If, instead, you assert that gods have had or do have an effect upon the world, then this notion that they’re inscrutable is out the window, as is any notion that they can only be scrutinized by methods so incapable of scrutiny as “humility and faith.”
Now, for one’s own pleasure, one might, if one is the sort of person who can choose what to believe, choose to believe in a god scrutable only by such means. But it should be obvious that the explanatory and convincing power of such notions is nil.
5 Likes
So, for Dawkins, or for the materialist that concurs with him, that,
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
forced to concede, that there is nothing objectively good about love, and nothing objectively evil about hate?
I would suggest that you are misinterpreting Dawkins. He appears to be saying that the universe itself contains no inherent purpose, good, evil, etc. That does not mean that we cannot create our own purpose, etc. I don’t think even those who disagree with him would claim that Dawkins acts without purpose – whether you find his purpose to be admirable or not.
5 Likes
Euthyphro!
3 Likes
That is you disagreeing with Dawkins?
So, what exactly have I misunderstood?
That is incorrect.
If someone is in a state with no brain activity, they are permanently dead, and they will not be waking up to tell people what they were experiencing while dead. Dualists commonly make this mistake. Brain death and clinical death are two very different things.
During NDE’s and general anaesthesia, there is still lots of brain activity going on.
5 Likes
Have you identified any big Dawkins fans here, Sam?
If not, why bring him up instead of having an actual discussion with the people here?
2 Likes
Too subtle? My understanding is that you were trying to skewer Dawkins with his own words. I was disagreeing with your disagreement. It’s not just true for “the materialist that concurs with him”; it’s true for anyone who thinks clearly on the subject. But what do you think is objectively good or evil, and why is it?
2 Likes
Sorry, on closer examination, my problems with your original statement are:
-
The assumption that believing that objective morality does not exist is something that one is “forced to concede”, as though it is something embarrassing – rather than a position one would actively avow (as many atheists do).
-
The claim that love is per se good (let alone objectively good) – when that word encompasses obsessive love, love of the Nazi Party (and its agenda), etc, etc.
-
That any of this has anything to do with @faded_Glory’s point that “‘Love’ is an abstraction, a label that we humans assign”.
It would appear that you have simply (i) assumed the existence of objective morality and (ii) assumed that its existence in some way undercuts @faded_Glory’s point.
3 Likes
Science can detect endorphins, which might be a proxy marker for love. While this is not ideal, there are plenty of clinical trials using proxy markers for outcomes that are difficult to observe directly (it is inconvenient to wait around for all your cancer patients to die, and some of them are so inconsiderate as to die of something else. Dark humor intended.).
We can also construct latent variable models for hypothesized latent variables that Connor be directly observed.
We can measure love scientifically in this way, admittedly within limits of subjective definitions. It is NOT entirely objective, but there are many examples of things we try to measure with this same problem. Love may not be a rigorously objective concept, but that does not exclude all forms of scientific observation. There are limits, yes, but we accept similar limits in other examples.
1 Like
If God did not want a bunch of aliens running around, barely compatible fits with Earth as intended to be privileged. Fine tuning does not require as much life as possible.
1 Like
Not particularly. I’d be surprised that there aren’t some. Would you be surprised to find some "big Dawkins fans here? Is there a requisite number of them or a required ‘bigness’ for my question to be welcome or even allowed?
Well to start with, I was directing the comment to an individual person. Is that a problem for you? Why the offense?
And I was desiring to see how Dawkins’s materialist view of there being no good, fit with faded Glory’s idea that love is an abstraction.
I’m sorry that you are bothered by the question.
1 Like
I doubt Dawkins would see it as a skewer. He’d more likely be glad that I could read his words and take his meaning. I’m unaware that Dawkins ever indicated any discomfort about having communicated this and shied away from owning it or wished he’d said things differently.
Then what is your problem?
Not sure this is completely true. Paul, for example, clearly thought that God can be inferred from observation of the natural world, making him a proponent of intelligent design! Here is what he said in Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
If so, one would wonder why God went through the trouble of performing miracles before the Jews and Christians to bolster their faith. It’s obvious he wanted “finite minds” to scrutinize his presence and power.
2 Likes
Intelligence and relationships certainly do predate Volkswagens. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they have always existed. Perhaps intelligence and relationships are one of many products of there first being nonsentient life, which is in turn one of the many products of there first being imperfectly self-catalysing chemical structures.
2 Likes
This thread is becoming fractured, possibly fractious. Please take divergent topic to a new thread and resolve personal disagreements to stay on topic.
Seriously folks, I have a busy day and a cold. Any amount of self-moderation you can do will be greatly appreciated. 
1 Like