Can materialistic science answer life’s big questions? |317|

I'm not sure people recognise Gods even when they do show up. Jesus's disciples were convinced until his resurrection that he was a warrior-mystic sent to free the Jews from Roman oppression. My suspicion is the supernatural intervenes continually even when we perceive it as natural.
The old gods of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, and Babylon were easily recognizable, by all reports. What became difficult was recognizing the mixed bloods.

I agree with your suspicions about the supernatural, especially because I'm fairly certain we are the source of most of it without realizing it. Jesus tried to get this across to the disciples but they never seemed to grab onto it, even though Peter actually walked on water all by himself for a few seconds before "losing faith".
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

That sounds suspiciously like superpsi, which is the state of cognitive dissonance physicalists promote when confronted by the evidence.
Actually Braude is sort of the father of Super-Psi, and he certainly isn't a physicalist.

In Immortal Remains he said he leans toward survival, though I've seen him waver back and forth since then.
 
Anger at a God one doesn't believe exists must be the very definition of futility.
I think that is a piece of witty repartee, but nothing more. Whether he is right or wrong, he is angry at the practical consequences of the fact that people believe in a God that is supposed to have certain views.

Translate it to the Islamic viewpoint - aren't we all angry with a God that sanctions things like the Orlando massacre?

I am not gay, so I don't feel any temptation to 'sin' by going off with a man, but that in turn makes sympathise with Stephen Fry in that the Christian God (whether he exists or not) created gay people and then expects them to abstain from sex!

David
 
Last edited:
I think that is a piece of witty repartee, but nothing more. Whether he is right or wrong, he is angry at the practical consequences of the fact that people believe in a God that is supposed to have certain views.

Translate it to the Islamic viewpoint - aren't we all angry with a God that sanctions things like the Orlando massacre?

I am not gay, so I don't feel any temptation to 'sin' by going off with a man, but that in turn makes sympathise with Stephen Fry in that the Christian God (whether he exists or not) created gay people and then expects them to abstain from sex!

David
I don't know what you mean by "sanction" a massacre, the Christian message is precisely the opposite of the kind of hatred involved in the Orlando killing. I believe in free will, which includes the ability to mow people down with automatic weapons right up to pressing the nuclear button. I don't believe God will physically intervene to remove the reality of human hatred the consequences of which have been spelled out at length in scripture.

Stephen Fry has admitted to living a life of complete dissolution which is inconsistent with religious and secular morality, and wants to blame "God" (in whom Fry does not believe) for providing him with such desires. I've had periods in my life when I've behaved with similar abandon (though not homosexually), but at no point did I blame God for not giving me the willpower to forego things I had no intention of stopping. I did them because I wanted to, not because I didn't know they were immoral or dangerous.
Fry is following the line of other polemical atheist materialists in believing his genes made him do it, whatever it is. Genetics, predisposition and environmental factors all play a part in forming our behaviour, but it's disingenuous of Fry to bring God into his moral code.

Stephen Fry is an intelligent, well-schooled human being from a loving home with mastery of his own behaviour, not the unwitting dupe of highly motivated genes.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that the video where the interviewer asks him to assume it's all true and he was appearing before St. Peter at the pearly gates? What did you want him to do, refuse to even contemplate it?
At the time it came out I watched the video but haven't seen it since. Fry is a vocal spokesperson for militant atheism and required no prompting to expound his ideological beliefs. You wind his key and watch him go, the idea the notion of God was sprung upon him and he responded off the cuff is absurd. You can't shut Fry up on the subject!
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

I don't know what you mean by "sanction" a massacre, the Christian message is precisely the opposite of the kind of hatred involved in the Orlando killing. I believe in free will, which includes the ability to mow people down with automatic weapons right up to pressing the nuclear button. I don't believe God will physically intervene to remove the reality of human hatred the consequences of which have been spelled out at length in scripture.

Stephen Fry has admitted to living a life of complete dissolution which is inconsistent with religious and secular morality, and wants to blame "God" (in whom Fry does not believe) for providing him with such desires.
Does God intervene to damn people who rejected It after they're gunned down?

Also I missed something - Why would consensual sex of any kind be immoral? [I'm assuming age of consent applies for consent here btw.]

edit: Ah, I guess I should qualify that with respect to abortion. Assume birth control with 0% chance of conception.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does God intervene to damn people who rejected It after they're gunned down?

Also I missed something - Why would consensual sex of any kind be immoral?
The guidance of Christian ethics and the mercy of God are not the same thing. One is based on the words of Jesus, the other is a mix of assumptions and guesswork. Because one may convince oneself that sex is consensual does not mean that it is harmless for either consenting party, and that's equally true for all manner of moral problems, not only sexual ones.
 
Okay - What's the harm?
One could list potential harm interminably, including submitting to addictive behaviour, dishonesty to spouses and partners, the risk of disease, blackmail, hypocrisy, unknown motivations of the consenting party (history of abuse, self harm, mental illness), lying to oneself, the list is endless. The idea that no one is harmed by casual sex is not born out by the facts that it uses another human being for an act designed for procreation, which has longer term implications and responsibilities than momentary pleasure. The fact you might enjoy it in no way diminishes the potential for the problems listed, it simply means you make a judgement call to ignore them.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

One could list potential harm interminably, including submitting to addictive behaviour, dishonesty to spouses and partners, the risk of disease, blackmail, hypocrisy, unknown motivations of the consenting party (history of abuse, self harm, mental illness), lying to oneself, the list is endless. The idea that no one is harmed by casual sex is not born out by the facts that it uses another human being for an act designed for procreation, which has longer term implications and responsibilities than momentary pleasure. The fact you might enjoy it in no way diminishes the potential for the problems listed, it simply means you make a judgement call to ignore them.
Okay, let's remove external additions. Assume two consenting adults having sex.

You can assume the potential for harm, but we can do that with religion as well....say, for example, a fundie nutter shooting up a nightclub.

Isn't it also a bit odd to assume the act was designed for procreation - that seems to suggest a Darwinian sort of track? Perhaps these bodies were designed for pleasure but the Demiurge cursed us by forcing us to procreate as part of our perpetual prison state?
 
Okay, let's remove external additions. Assume two consenting adults having sex.

You can assume the potential for harm, but we can do that with religion as well....say, for example, a fundie nutter shooting up a nightclub.

Isn't it also a bit odd to assume the act was designed for procreation - that seems to suggest a Darwinian sort of track? Perhaps these bodies were designed for pleasure but the Demiurge cursed us by forcing us to procreate as part of our perpetual prison state?
Examine the consequences and work backwards. If the result of sex is likely to be a child - as it was for millennia and in most places still is today - and you believe the human you've created deserves the best experience you can offer them, the natural conclusion is the sexual act is best performed within agreed social structures.

Religious sexual narratives tend to emphasise this point. I don't view sex as a uniquely moral minefield, much as some religious advocates and their critics want to elevate it to that position, I think it's one of variety of temptations to which humans are prone, and which they'll do incredible moral gymnastics to uphold, even while knowing it's the most egregious BS.
 
That sounds suspiciously like superpsi, which is the state of cognitive dissonance physicalists promote when confronted by the evidence.
Never heard of "superpsi" before, so I looked it up, and no, that is not what I meant. Put those suspicions to rest.

I have to admit that I fail to see how "unconscious processes" which are entirely non-supernatural could result in Waterwalking...?
 
Examine the consequences and work backwards. If the result of sex is likely to be a child - as it was for millennia and in most places still is today - and you believe the human you've created deserves the best experience you can offer them, the natural conclusion is the sexual act is best performed within agreed social structures.

Religious sexual narratives tend to emphasise this point. I don't view sex as a uniquely moral minefield, much as some religious advocates and their critics want to elevate it to that position, I think it's one of variety of temptations to which humans are prone, and which they'll do incredible moral gymnastics to uphold, even while knowing it's the most egregious BS.
Thankfully there is an ignore button, so I don't have to read anymore of your grandiose moralising...
 
Thankfully there is an ignore button, so I don't have to read anymore of your grandiose moralising...
I was asked a question and responded with my beliefs on the subject. This forum can be an intelligent exchange of ideas and respond with unspeakable crassness, I felt my response was of the first variety. The only reason I've raised my convictions is because I've read the most improbable dross in this site regarding Christianity, for which intelligent historians have supplied answers which are subsequently ignored. If people want to believe Jesus the man was a fiction and the twin towers were brought down by the Illuminati and crop circles are the alphabet of aliens,nothing I say will change their minds.

I do reserve the right to say so, even at the risk of being banned, again.
 
Never heard of "superpsi" before, so I looked it up, and no, that is not what I meant. Put those suspicions to rest.

I have to admit that I fail to see how "unconscious processes" which are entirely non-supernatural could result in Waterwalking...?
My apologies in that case. Over the years there have been a few extremely intractable super-psi advocates, who basically think humans are in possession of super hero type powers. I think we probably are in possession of abilities we're unaware of, but not of the variety they suggest.

My reading of their position is mainstream materialism to which they've added the unavoidable conclusion that some phenomena are inexplicable by that metaphysic. Unable to divorce themselves from physicalism and start a blank page, discussion gets stuck in circular reasoning about mechanistic super powers. They're entitled to their opinion but Mr Incredible is not the most parsimonious explanation for the evidence..
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by "sanction" a massacre,
Well you need to realise that even ISIS believe in a God but with somewhat different laws as compared with mainstream Islam, and further removed from Christianity. My point is that a non-believer can perfectly rationally become angry with a God that he doesn't believe in, because that is just a shorthand for being angry with the set of ideas that a particular conception of God contains.

David
 
Top