A person of average or lesser intelligence has trouble understanding philosophy and science. Religion taught with wisdom and compassion has its place.

There would still be wars. They just would have to come up with different propaganda. Religion taken literally with political motives is propaganda.

Religion is not for everyone. Philosophy is not for everyone. I was speaking of the Internet as a network of computers. Of course there are specific sites on the Internet that have valuable information. That wasn’t my point. A library full of books would do the same job. It takes a discerning mind with some humility to gain wisdom. I’m not calling myself wise, but I am trying. Science is not the end all and be all. It has its domain.

Like I said, it can cause real harm if taken too literally. I find fault in the teachers of religion and their political motives.

Philosophy doesn’t work for everyone either. It takes a special kind of nerd to study philosophy. ;)

I’m not trying to sell you religion. It works for some people. It doesn’t work for others. And some people take it so literally that it causes real harm. I don’t think it’s for everyone.

Religion teaches by parables and mythology. It is another way to gain wisdom. Philosophy is also valuable. It seems you don’t appreciate the meaning of the term “wisdom”. At least it is difficult to discern any in you.

Religion dealt with ethics before philosophy ever did. Philosophy borrowed from religion and then separated in some cases. I have a degree in philosophy. You’re talking to me like I don’t value philosophy. I believe in the Golden Rule (from religion) as a guiding principle for our conduct. I am also a neo-deontologist in that I think you can infer moral truths from the categorical imperative (modified for some context).

To each his own. I won’t judge you.

That's not what she tells me when we're in bed together. — S

You have sex with your mother? Incest is a sin.

I don’t think we should be over-extending morality to chickens. We should be looking out for each other, and living in harmony with nature as the dolphins do. I’m sorry your mother doesn’t love you.

What don’t you understand about “mathematical unicorns”? And yes, my wife does love me. I doubt very much that anyone loves you, God bless your cynical heart. You want to get personal?

Concede what? Dolphins have language, they feel empathy, and their brain size to body size ratio is larger than humans. They even have sex for fun as we do. You could say they also have a moral code as they are also social animals who look out for one another. What’s wrong with the comparison? They eat what they evolved to eat, and we evolved to eat cooked meat. We should spend more time worrying about one another and the future of the human race, and not worry so much about chickens.

Providing examples of other species coming close to some extent and in some respects does nothing whatsoever to refute my claims about our uniqueness. — S

Well, I agree we are unique. Dolphins are also unique.

I’m talking about the genesis of the universe which I believe requires a consciousness that gives it order, what you might call a mathematical order. I believe morality comes from universal feelings from rational minds just as the universe is rational. All “scientific” universe genesis theories require the same amount of faith as a belief in God. They are all philosophy/metaphysics and not true science.

You’re talking to me like I don’t believe in science. Of course I do. I’m not ignorant. I don’t think that God created computers, at least not directly. I believe He endowed us with the same reason that governs the universe, enabling us to build computers with scientific reasoning.

It most certainly does involve faith because internally consistent mathematical theories cannot be tested and could just as well be complete fictions. You just prefer them because you don’t believe in a universal consciousness instead, which also has explanatory power that cannot be empirically tested.

Are we unique? How do you know? Dolphins probably think and feel empathy, yet they are killers. Dogs dream and understand some language and feel empathy as far as we know, and they evolved to live off our table scraps. I think we eat what we eat out of necessity because that’s how we evolved (purposefully evolved or not). I’m not denying that there are degrees of culpability, but some people can’t help themselves. They may have eating disorders, or they may be mentally ill or spiritually ill and may be eating to cope. I believe true morality involves forgiving people’s understandable faults and not being so judgmental.

String theory is nothing more than metaphysics. It cannot be falsified. The multiverse and M-theory are also metaphysics. They may be mathematically coherent, but they may also be nothing more than mathematical unicorns. In other words, they may be complete fictions, and belief in them is nothing more than faith. The probabilities of quantum mechanics may very well be due to epistemic ignorance which could very well mean that we cannot know the laws that determine quanta. Belief that the probabilities are inherent to quantum behavior is faith. Belief that the universe is fully determined is faith. Belief that the universe was caused by a quantum fluctuation that inflated into a universe may very well be a mathematical unicorn.

I prefer to put my faith in God. It makes me feel good, and my conception of God as the conscious creator of the universe relates to our conscious creations of thought, dividing the universe into the existent and nonexistent. I believe that the universe requires a conscious observer to make sense, and God fits the bill.

I have a bachelor’s of science degree, and I scored in the 99.6 percentile of the general knowledge portion of the Wechsler IQ test which was almost entirely scientific questions. I’ve read books on string theory, cosmology, quantum mechanics, and relativity. And, yes, I also read the Bible.

What is your reasoned position that the universe has no purpose? I will bet there is an element of faith involved if you are brave enough to persuade me otherwise. And if you don’t believe that rational minds evolved non-accidentally, then what is your position there?

one has yet to learn not to take me so seriously. I'm like this with everyone. Nothing against theists in particular. I'm don't hesitate to rip into atheists with bad arguments. — S

Very well. Carry on wit yo bad self. ;)

Belief that the universe has no purpose is also a leap of faith. Reasoned faith is not an oxymoron. It simply means that one has good reasons for believing in purpose/God. That definition is not oxymoronic. You say that we just happened to evolve rational minds. That is faith. I say that it had to necessarily happen. That is also faith.

But whatever floats your boat. I won’t take it personally, as you probably treat all theists that way.

It doesn’t seem very moral, as it seems like you are denying theists’ humanity and dignity.

Why are you so combative? Did your parents threaten you with eternal damnation and hellfire if you didn’t accept God? Personally, I don’t have a problem with atheists. I was one for much of my life. I had good reasons for being one. I now also have good reasons for not being one. Why do atheists have such a problem with all theists? I don’t share that feeling towards atheists.

How is it that we can discover natural laws? Is that not a good reason to maybe believe that we are in tune with nature? And if we are in tune with nature, is it such a stretch to believe that rational minds had to necessarily arise in nature? And I think that is reasoned faith. Your denial of these reasons is also reasoned faith.

I believe there are universal feelings for non-psychopaths that indicate moral truths.

No, you’ve got it backwards. I don’t believe in God through purely wishful thinking, but rather on reasoned faith. I will grant that you have reasons for believing that there is no purpose to the universe (and I’m not denying that some of them may be good reasons, just that I feel like I have good reasons for my belief). However, you don’t even know what my conception of God is, and your reasons are just as much a faith belief as mine.

I don’t think I believe in abstract objects, but I do believe in universals.

Well, I don’t believe in the mental-only/objective-mind-independent dichotomy. I believe they are intertwined inextricably. Hence, my belief that there is reason to the universe (it is rational) and the human mind is rational. The two cannot be extricated or separated.

Well, I’m not sure what nominalism is. I’m not familiar with that. I believe there are real abstracts. I don’t think that idealism or mental-only implies not real in a propositional sense.

Remind me, how did you address that criticism? Oh, that's right... — S

I addressed it by agreeing to moral reasoning. Remember me granting you that eating too much beef is wrong? I thought we agreed on that. I was asking questions as a dialectical tool to get you to give your basis for morality, which you said were based on the primacy of your personal feelings. I then gave reasonings for denying that. Some of my reasons were addressed to TerrapinStation. I assumed you read those, too. Your basis that the universe has no purpose is based on faith as is my basis of intrinsic human value is based on reasoned faith.

don't believe that we do discover laws of nature. I'm not a realist on natural law. I'm not a realist on an abstracts. The evidence suggests that laws of nature are a way that we think about what we experience rather. — Terrapin Station

That sounds like idealism. I thought you were against idealism.

There is reason to the universe and there is reason to the human mind. I don’t believe that is a coincidence. I believe that is at least one piece of evidence that the universe was created for rational beings. We can also be rational about conduct because if the universe was created for beings like us, then we have a moral obligation to preserve human life.

A complete lack of evidence? How is it that the human mind can discover laws of nature, for example? Is that just a happy coincidence?

I’m not denying the existence of contingent moral truths (Kant’s hypothetical imperatives). I am claiming there are at least some necessary moral truths (Kant’s categorical imperatives).

I believe I have addressed your position. I believe I gave an adequate answer that both of us are basing our worldviews on faith.

I believe through faith that the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality. Thus, I don’t see how it doesn’t follow that there are no necessary truths regarding conduct. You, on the other hand, believe through faith that there is no purpose for the universe.

I disagree that it is an ontological fact that nothing has intrinsic value. I’m not an atheist anymore.

So, human life has no intrinsic value to you? It’s just a matter of how a particular person happens to feel about humans?