Replies

I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply. Why don't you agree that there is a God, and therefore none of us should steal?

I don't feel you answered my question. But I will attempt some answers to yours.

As an aside, I am not a theologian. Some seem to think that only experts should have opinions in biology, climatology, education, law, and other fields. I think this applies equally well (or poorly) to theology, which is by no means an easy subject. But I think any of us should use our mind in any domain that interests. If you don't use YOUR mind, it's not thinking. So, with humility, and no training, I will attempt a few responses to a very big question.

One reason is that we do have a sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? Religion has an answer. I don't think naturalism has a satisfactory answer.

A definition is in order. Naturalism is the belief that everything has natural causes, sometimes described as the interplay of chance and law. It is basically the assumption that there is no God.

Neuro-scientists believe there is no self. Self-conciousness is an illusion. They believe there is no you in there. There is merely brain-matter, chemistry, and electricity. They believe, as do I, that any other position introduces a supernatural element. Billions of people living today believe in the self, and billions more in the past. On the assumption of naturalism, neuro-scientists blithely say that "it is all an illusion"; these billions of people are wrong. It seems to me they are ignoring billions of data points, which is bad science.

Evolution seems certain to many because they were taught at an impressionable age - and by golly it's going to stay that way! But I suspect it does not stand up to scrutiny any better than the works of Malthus, Marx, or Freud. I think we've been sold on junk science, much of which assumes naturalism and acts to advance it. Dawkins says that in biology all appears to be designed, but that is (just another) illusion.

There is also the testimony of miracles in the Bible. Sure there all sorts of way that those who were not there can dismiss the testimony of those who were there. Witnesses are not always right, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Bur witnesses are not always wrong either. I believe that all the Apostles, with the exception of John, had the choice to deny or die. They all died. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

I think I may be soon running against limits - text length, time, intellect. So that is it for now.

Good luck in your inquiries.

I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply.

On the contrary. You have directed none of your previous postings to me.

Why don't you agree that there is a God, and therefore none of us should steal?

You will need to define "God" before I can even consider it as a possible entity. Once defined, you will need to provide a reason to believe that such an entity exists.

One reason is that we do have a sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? Religion has an answer. I A definition is in order. Naturalism is the belief that everything has natural causes, sometimes described as the interplay of chance and law.

Such a description is somewhat misleading.

It is basically the assumption that there is no God.

This is an unsatisfactory claim. You are positing that naturalism accepts the definition of a specific deity, and then rejects it. You have not given reason for assuming the particular deity that you posit in the first place, however. Ultimately, naturalism is simply a lack of statement regarding the supernatural, not an outright denial.

Neuro-scientists believe there is no self.

I was unaware that this was a belief of neuroscientists. None of the neuroscientists with whom I have conversed have ever suggested such a thing.

Self-conciousness is an illusion. They believe there is no you in there. There is merely brain-matter, chemistry, and electricity.

This is not only an unsupported generalization of all neuroscientists, but also an appeal to the division fallacy, in that you assert that self-consciousness cannot be a result of the interaction of brain matter and chemistry.

They believe, as do I, that any other position introduces a supernatural element.

Incorrect. It is possible to accept that the final result of multiple processes acting in concert is more than the sum of the parts without invoking supernatural elements.

Billions of people living today believe in the self, and billions more in the past. On the assumption of naturalism, neuro-scientists blithely say that "it is all an illusion"; these billions of people are wrong. It seems to me they are ignoring billions of data points, which is bad science.

Even if I accepted your inaccurate generalization of the beliefs of all neuroscientists, which I do not, you have yet to establish any actual data points. You are appealing to the popularity of a belief, which is not itself evidence for a claim.

Evolution seems certain to many because they were taught at an impressionable age - and by golly it's going to stay that way!

On the contrary; I have found those most convinced that the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality are those who have studied it extensively in their adult years.

But I suspect it does not stand up to scrutiny any better than the works of Malthus, Marx, or Freud I think we've been sold on junk science, much of which assumes naturalism and acts to advance it.

You are certainly free to assert this, but your assertion does not amount to evidence against the theory of evolution. Your claims would carry credibility if you supported them with evidence; as you do not, your claims have no merit.

Dawkins says that in biology all appears to be designed, but that is (just another) illusion.

I am aware of Dawkins's claim on the subject, as I have encountered it used by creationists in the past. Dawkins uses the claim in explaining how examination of complex biological systems that, on the surface, appear as though they were designed are actually able to come about without any deliberate act of design at all. Dawkins does not make his claim without supporting it with evidence.

There is also the testimony of miracles in the Bible.

Please reference this specific testimony.

Sure there all sorts of way that those who were not there can dismiss the testimony of those who were there. Witnesses are not always right, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Bur witnesses are not always wrong either.

You have yet to demonstrate that the books of the Bible were actually written by those who witnessed any of the miracles claimed within.

I believe that all the Apostles, with the exception of John, had the choice to deny or die. They all died. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

It does not. Martyrdom is not evidence of the validity of faith. If it were, then Islam would carry a great deal of credibility.