Hot answers tagged

65

I think you have a false premise. Your premise seems to be "Devout believers/adherents of the religion Islam believe that humans need not make any effort in their survival in the natural world." I don't think that is true. Evidence against that premise is that people in Saudi Arabia farm, gather, purchase, or otherwise obtain food to eat. If your premise ...


31

There's a good joke about this. The Mississippi floods, but this guy stays put and says "God will save me". A policeman comes past and says "Better be going" but our guy says "God will save me". The river rises more, and he moves upstairs. A rescue boat comes past and the crew say "Come on, you've got to go", but our guy says "God will save me". The river ...


19

There are some religious groups --I'm thinking here of "prosperity" churches --that promote the message that nothing but good things will ever happen to the truly faithful. But these are definitely among the minority among religious traditions. Most religious people don't take it as an article of faith that bad things won't sometimes happen in their lives. ...


5

What makes the argument of intelligent design unable to stand on its own legs is that simplicity and efficiency, are hints of design, not complexity. The useless complexity of living forms, the flaws in their body are all hints at a natural, trial and error type of development. A common example is the incredibly bad design of the human eye: photoreceptors ...


4

Science is not well adapted to addressing purpose -- most science starts with the assumption that purpose should be either ignored, or dismissed. So --what you would be interested in may be scientists who are bringing their skill set to philosophy. This will not be a single reference, as these are diverse thinkers, with diverse subjects they address. I can ...


4

There's an implicit assumption in this question which can be challenged. Do we in fact understand good and evil - or, perhaps more accurately, what sort of thing is the "good/evil" distinction we understand? There's a purely naturalist account of this: (tendencies towards) certain social behaviors can be evolutionarily selected for or against. ...


2

Is the coronavirus (COVID-19) another piece of evidence that we are all either ‘atheist’ or 'agnostic'? ... Most of the people in the Persian Gulf nation pray five times a day, ... No. The tags that you used atheism and agnosticism clearly explain: Atheism is (in a broad sense) a skeptic attitude towards the belief in deities. In a narrower sense, ...


2

Is the mere people's understanding of the concept of good and evil a proof of god? In order to give an answer to that question, one must first define what is meant by the term "god", and possibly "exist", since one is generally asking about a possible proof of the "existence" of a "god". When those terms are left ...


2

In the Wikipedia article that you linked: Nontheism does not necessarily describe atheism or disbelief in God; it has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such as agnosticism, ..., atheism, ... So all atheist are nontheists, but not all nontheists are atheists.


2

It's not a proof of god. Your question about why we acquire concepts of morality could equally be applied to how any being acquires any concepts at all. Your question is really about rationalism vs empiricism I think. How can we acquire moral concepts empirically when we're just talking about physical events... But the same can be said about all our concepts....


1

Define good and evil. In evolutionary biology, good and evil are simply reflections of what helps or hinders our genetic base in surviving and reproducing. Or, to put it another way, they are the concepts which the human brain has evolved in order to understand and think about its race-survival instincts. That is all the understanding one needs to ...


1

Here's one of several possible answers: because your ancestors who denounced certain acts as evil, and praised other acts as good, were better adjusted to their community and enjoyed greater reproductive success. Ancient people who didn't know the difference between good and evil would be punished by those who did, so the ignorant tended to die out. It's ...


1

This is closely related to the common response that belief in the wrong god may result in worse punishment than belief in no god at all. The only difference is that you're considering the possibility of a god who punishes based on the belief in any god, including itself. This possibility isn't necessary, since already it's enough to consider two different ...


1

You have mis-stated the Argument From Design. It is only weakly based on complexity, but instead is based on intentionality. If an object is most validly explained as a product of intentional design, then there is good reason from the existence of that object to infer a designer. Complexity is only relevant in that it triggers a search for the ...


1

The question is a little problematic because Atheism is a position on a single question. If you believe that a god exists then you are a theist, if you don't, your an atheist. Atheism has no dogma and makes no proclamations of any kind. Thus it needs no defence against arguments of design. Also, having to defend Richard Dawkins is a little weird. I can try ...


1

The best way to know how Dawkins responds would be to read his book The God Delusion. As probably the most militant of the New Atheists, his argument is spelled out absolutely clearly. Part of his argument is to explain what science is and why intelligent design (ID) gets it wrong, particularly in Chapter 4, "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". The ...


1

How can a creationist invoke a created universe and assert its logical consistency, given that almost nothing (as measured by volume or mass [1]) inside the universe was created by intelligence? It's only a tiny fraction of things in the human world, the rest is created by intelligence-free, unconscious mechanisms. Even the only known intelligence inside ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible