Every belief has a degree of uncertainty associated with it, and rationally, it can never be perfect. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because of induction, but there’s also the possibility that my life here is a dream and the sun doesn’t even exist, or the universe is destroyed in an instant due to some unexpected physical phenomena. In that sense, we are all agnostic (if we are rational) about everything.

But that’s not really what agnosticism means. Atheism doesn’t mean 100% certainty (or at least, not in the sense I’m using it), rather it means “with high probability”. There is minimal evidence for the existence of God, so while I cannot rule out the possibility, it’s unlikely enough that it’s not rational to believe in God.

Scientific-minded people make cut-offs with certainty all the time, believing hypotheses once they reach a threshold of evidence. If they did not, science could not progress.

-Scott

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=way+to+believe+jamal+harwood&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.al-dawah.dk%2Fboger%2Fengelske%2Fpdf%2FFaith_and_Progress.pdf&ei=v90NT-rcK8vyrQfn6OSzBA&usg=AFQjCNEpypH_YMnOK8CAIkVfCXXjbREuWw&cad=rja

for furthur info ..on this topic you can email me..
amaankhani30@yahoo.com……

Thanks for the intelligent response. First, this article is rather old and I don’t think it fully reflects my viewpoints on the subject (especially from a vantage point of debate, since I was mostly trying to argue that atheism needn’t be emotionally unfulfilling–I don’t really expend much effort trying to argue the philosophy).

Some quick thoughts to a few of your points:

1. The moral sense having a basis in morality does not preclude moral objectivity, or at least a range of appropriate moralities which are universal. Evolution is a stochastic process but the results of it are not random, those with greater fitness propagate into the future, and this tends to produce creatures with specific shapes and forms which are well suited to the environment.

Similarly, it might be that, morality, like eyes or hearts, is something that tends to evolve in interpersonal groups of conscious entities. Of course, this is speculative, but saying that the moral sense is an evolved one doesn’t necessarily mean that for beings which consciously perceive the world like humans, morality is simply “up for grabs” and both Dalmer and I are on equal grounds saying what is right and wrong.

2. Yes empiricism has flaws, but I see no better method for arriving at knowledge. Rejecting empiricism is simply declaring the obvious, but rather useless truth, that all knowledge has an unknowable degree of uncertainty.

Sense organs can fail, the universe may suddenly nucleate out of a false vacuum, we may all be brains in a vat. The problem with these arguments isn’t that they can’t be true, I don’t reason in any certainties, but just that there is no useful way to distinguish any of their claims.

So yes, God might exist, within that unknowable uncertainty for me (and even beyond that considering the empirical probability of God is not zero, even though I’d consider it low), but I also might be a blue space alien and Earth is just a delusion.

Einstein’s thinking was a hypothesis, an important part of science. Had it been rejected through experimental observation (as his ill-fated idea of a cosmological constant) then it would have been dismissed. The difference between Einstein’s thought experiments and theologians’ theories is that one presents empirical claims and the other does not.

3. My argument about consciousness being patterns was never developed in this article, but when I say consciousness is a pattern, that means it is *not* the material substrate of the pattern, and that, at least theoretically, any other machine which could simulate the pattern would equally be you. Making any conclusions about death based on this idea is highly speculative, but quantum immortality is an idea suggested by some as a proper interpretation of the many-worlds view of quantum physics.

—

Good points to reflect on,
-Scott

I think I would still say—part of my position on morality is very much that we regard morality in some sense as being objective, even if it isn’t. So the claim that we intuit morality as objective reality—I would still say that. Of course, what I would want to add is that from the fact that we do this, it doesn’t follow that morality really is objective.

I’m saying that if in fact you’re Christian then you believe you were made in the image of God. And that means—and this is traditional Christian theology—that means that you have intelligence and self-awareness and moral ability… it’s a very important part of Christianity that our intelligence is not just a contingent thing, but is in fact that which makes us in the image of God.

What I would argue is that the connection between Darwinism and ethics is not what the traditional social Darwinian argues. He or she argues that evolution is progressive, humans came out on top and therefore are a good thing, hence we should promote evolution to keep humans up there and to prevent decline. I think that is a straight violation of the is/ought dichotomy…I take Hume’s Law to be the claim that you cannot go from statements of fact—“Duke University is the school attended by Eddy Nahmias”—to statements of value—“Duke University is an excellent school.”

Ed [Edward O. Wilson] does violate Hume’s Law, and no matter what I say he cannot see that there is anything wrong in doing this. It comes from his commitment to the progressive nature of evolution. No doubt he would normally say that one should not go from “is” to “ought”—for example from “I like that student” to “It is OK to have sex with her, even though I am married.” But in this case of *evolution* he allows it. If you say to him, “But ‘ought’ statements are not like ‘is’ statements,” he replies that in science, when we have reduction, we do this all the time, going from one kind of statement to another kind of statement. We start talking about little balls buzzing in a container and end talking about temperature and pressure. No less a jump than going from “is” to “ought.”

My position is that the ethical sense can be explained by Darwinian evolution—the ethical sense is an adaptation to keep us social. More than this, I argue that sometimes (and this is one of those times), when you give an account of the way something occurs and is as it is, this is also to give an explanation of its status. I think that once you see that ethics is simply an adaptation, you see that it has no justification. It just is. So in metaethics[4] I am a nonrealist. I think ethics is an illusion put into place by our genes to keep us social.

I distinguish normative ethics from metaethics. In normative ethics I think evolution can go a long way to explain our feelings of obligation: be just, be fair, treat others like yourself. We humans are social animals and we need these sentiments to get on. I like John Rawls’s[5] thinking on this. On about page 500 of his Theory of Justice book, Rawls says he thinks the social contract was put in place by evolution rather than by a group of old men many years ago. Then in metaethics, I think we see that morality is an adaptation merely and hence has no justification. Having said this, I agree with the philosopher J.L Mackie[6] (who influenced me a lot) that we feel the need to “objectify” ethics. If we did not think ethics was objective, it would collapse under cheating.

If we knew that it was all just subjective, and we felt that, then of course we’d start to cheat. If I thought there was no real reason not to sleep with someone else’s wife and that it was just a belief system put in place to keep me from doing it, then I think the system would start to break down. And if I didn’t share these beliefs, I’d say to hell with it, I’m going to do it. So I think at some level, morality has to have some sort of, what should I say, some sort of force. Put it this way, I shouldn’t cheat, not because I can’t get away with it, or maybe I *can* get away with it, but because it is fundamentally wrong.

We’re like dogs, social animals, and so we have morality and this part of the phenomenology of morality, how it appears to us, that it is not subjective, that we think it *is* objective…So I think ethics is essentially subjective but it appears to us as objective and this appearance, too, is an adaptation.

Within the system, of course, rape is objectively wrong—just like three strikes and you are out in baseball. But I’m a nonrealist, so ultimately there is no objective right and wrong for me. Having said that, I *am* part of the system and cannot escape. The truth does not necessarily make you free.

There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention—an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape—in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level—love your neighbor as yourself, etc.—is justifiable. That is why I am not deriving “is” from “ought,” in the illicit sense of justification. I am deriving it in the sense of explaining *why we have* moral sentiments, but that is a different matter.

I think ultimately there is nothing—moral nihilism, if you wish.

“Morality doesn’t need to come from the threat of divine punishment. Religion can do much good, but it can be twisted to do evil as well. I believe ethics come from society. It comes from the basic principles of respecting the rights of others, service and altruism. You don’t need a god to explain morality anymore than you need Zeus to explain lightning bolts.”

1. We have to distinguish between epistemology and ontology. No one reasonable claims people cannot know what’s right and what’s wrong and act rightly. No one reasonable claims atheists can’t do what’s right and be good people and theists can’t do what’s wrong and be bad people.

2. Rather the question is, what grounds objective morality given metaphysical naturalism? As you said, morality and ethics is grounded in society. But society isn’t an objective standard. It’s subjective. That is, it depends on society. What if all humans believed murder is right and good? Would that make murder right?

Related, let us say all future homo sapiens – perhaps we can call them homo futurus – evolved to believe rape is right and good. Would that make rape right and good?

3. Also, many prominent atheist scholars affirm moral relativism. For example, J.L. Mackie, Taner Edis, William Provine, and Michael Ruse.

“you believe death creates infinite nothingness.”

Actually, this is true because this is what atheists themselves often believe if by atheism we believe in metaphysical naturalism (the most common form of atheism).

“Your consciousness is based on a pattern stored on neurons in your brain. If this is the case, dying would simply pause the pattern and it would resume sometime in the future.”

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. If it’s true consciousness is “stored” solely in our neurons, which are physical cells, and if metaphysical naturalism is true, then if these neurons are gone, they would have nowhere to “go” let alone “resume.”

Perhaps you can make an argument to transfer consciousness from one brain to another brain. But you can’t make an argument to say once the neurons have necrosed, then consciousness would still be present to “resume” at a future point.

“if you don’t believe in God, isn’t life meaningless…I pick a meaning for my life and I believe it is just as satisfying without conjuring a notion of a god.”

No one reasonable argues people can’t establish their own meaning in life. Rather the argument is against ultimate and objective meaning in life being possible given atheism.

Whatever meaning you establish in life is, of course, whatever meaning you want to establish in life. However, what you find meaningful could be different to what another person finds meaningful. You might find meaning writing and learning and educating others. Whereas a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer might find meaning in raping, murdering, and cannibalizing young boys. In other words, meaning is person-variable or subjective.

Given metaphysical naturalism is true, who’s to say whether you or Dahmer aren’t right?

“Freedom – The mental freedom to explore your world, learn and challenge your own assumptions. Instead of rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit your notion of a god, you can embrace everything with curiosity…Beauty – I believe beauty lies in the unknown. It lies in the things you can’t explain. That is what atheism really means. Instead of resorting to weak explanations of a deity creating the world, you see all the beautiful aspects of nature you currently don’t understand. Why tarnish evidence that the universe is larger and more magnificent than we ever realized by placing an invisible man in front of it?”

Sorry but I think all this must be a caricature of many theists. In fact, it sounds quite uninformed. It’s no better than a theist thinking atheists must all be hopeless, evil people who have nothing to do but get angry at theists (e.g. “the militant atheists”).

Instead, many theists including me have no problem embracing “mental freedom.” We have tremendous intellectual curiosities and pursuits. I enjoy learning all sorts of fields like science, philosophy, literature, music, art, history, politics, etc.

What’s more, I’m amazed by beauty of the universe around me, which I believe God created for us to enjoy and learn from, as a reflection of God’s character. One of my scientific heroes is Richard Feynman and I love his curiosity and awe at the universe.

Sorry it’s hard to take your objections seriously because they strike me as mere caricatures.

“Science, or more broadly empiricism, is about making deductions from evidence, and beyond axiomatic reasoning–it is the *only* way to arrive at defensible conclusions about reality.”

Thanks for your post. It was instructional.

However, if I could, I just wanted to comment on this particular comment. I think it is likely false or at least dubious.

1. First, there’s the question of how one defines science. In fact there’s quite a bit of debate about what science is and isn’t. For example, empiricism might be one possible definition. But there’s also rationalism, instrumentalism, and others. There are variations within each as well.

2. There are problems with empiricism. Of course, there are problems with other definitions, but since you subscribe to empiricism I’ll hone in on empiricism.

For one thing, empiricism itself is difficult to define. But here’s one definition which is commonly accepted by many scientists. Empiricism is strongly dependent on our senses to make observations, experimentation, and inductive reasoning.

That said we could take issue with each of these concepts:

a. With regard to the senses, one could take issue with the existence of the external world. Perhaps we’re all brains in a vat or perhaps we’re trapped in a Matrix-like world and all we sense is an illusion or computer simulation or somesuch. Sure, it sounds absurd, but there’s no empirical argument against this, which is the point.

However, if we don’t go quite this far, if we affirm (ontologically) the existence of an external world, our senses could nonetheless be unreliable. At the epistemic level, it’s arguable all we can affirm is what’s in our own mental world. We can’t necessarily affirm what’s beyond our mental world. Or so some like the idealists might argue.

By the way, you could check out debates between Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

b. With regard to experimentation, Albert Einstein’s original formulation of his theories of relativity were primarily thought experiments. True, they were later empirically verified. But verification isn’t the same as definition. Yet most scientists would think Einstein wasn’t not conducting science when he used thought experiments and mathematics to formulate his theories of relativity.

c. With regard to inductive reasoning, David Hume pointed out when we make inductive inferences we have to presuppose, for example, the uniformity of nature. And if we attempt to prove the uniformity of nature using empirical methods, then we’re ultimately arguing in a circle. It begs the question. Empiricism therefore relies on induction but induction cannot be rationally justified. There are attempted solutions to Hume’s problem of induction, but none are universally accepted (e.g. probability).

3. There are other ways to arrive at “defensible conclusions about reality” besides empiricism. We can use reason and logic alone to do so.

4. Likewise we can use mathematics to arrive at mathematical truths. Surely mathematical truths explicate reality in some significant measure. Mathematics is usually considered apart from empirical science.

5. Morever science so defined to broadly include empiricism is itself unable to establish truths about reality which reasonable persons would accept.

a. For instance we cannot use the scientific method to establish metaphysical truths such as whether the universe and all that it contains suddenly grew larger (or smaller) in size by a magnitude of n. It could be that one minute ago the universe and all it contains instantaneously and simultaneously became 1000x larger (or smaller) than it currently is. But we couldn’t tell because all would look exactly the same to our senses and what we could detect via our senses including the physical mechanisms by which our senses themselves operate (e.g. neurotransmitters, physiological pathways).

Along the same lines we cannot use science to establish whether the universe and all it contains came into existence ten minutes ago with the appearance of age including our memories that we had a past.

b. Empiricism cannot establish aesthetic judgments. How can we test whether van Gogh’s Starry Night is beautiful or ugly in an absolute sense?

c. Empiricism cannot establish morality or ethical beliefs and values.

Nevertheless these are generally accepted by reasonable people. Reasonable people accept beauty and truth and goodness as real without direct deference to empiricism.

Anyway all this is just a rough and incomplete outline. But there are obviously far more specific details we could delve into. Still I think it’s probably enough to suggest empiricism isn’t necessarily airtight in the way you believe it is.

Thanks for your time.

… To preface my comments…We may see the intricacies found in the works of nature, the wonders of the human brain, the complexity of the planet earth…and the vast “universe” people keep talking about, even though no one can rightly say he /she can see to the end of it…

Along with this…a person may intelligently and honestly assert that they themselves could not make any of these things [themselves] with their own hands… much less, make then any better than how they already are, found in nature….

However…

What I have found, in talking with other people, is simply one thing…

We simply cannot get to know and believe in ANOTHER PERSON… without experiencing a relationship with them.

I feel like I know a great deal about Scott already, simply by reading his blog.

And I know that if/when I meet him in person, he may “resemble” what I have already read at his blog (I only signed up during the past 30 minutes to receive all of his materials, so I’m a little bit late)… Assuredly though, he probably talks and acts the same way as he does in person, as he does on his blog….

Whether that is true or not, I have yet to find out …

But I have faith in one thing – that HE is the one writing all of these blog posts, and this blog isn’t a scam, a well staged hoax, or a cleverly crafted ‘social experiment’ to see how people react to reading such well-meaning, useful, and certainly, practical content about being productive in life.

… We believe in Scott, and that he is interested in us.

I don’t question his true identity, namely, who he explains himself to be….

I may not have met him face to face, but I know he’s there; not as in ‘next door’ there, as in ‘my next door neighbor’..well, you know what I mean) but I know that he exists and that he cares for his readers’ interests.

I may never get to meet him face to face, but I appreciate what he has done for me so far, helping me to obtain the answers I’m looking for… The answers I need, the answers that will help me to do better…

These answers will help me if only I take his advice, and listen to him.
…

I’m sure our Creator wants us to feel the same way about seeking Him.