Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[o_O.Q]

JWeinCom said:

 

the thing is from the line of reasoning you've been using i could argue that this is not really true... i could claim that all human observations are in fact subjective and biased due to our limitations 

for example yes we observe that objects fall to the ground, but for all we know what ever causes gravitation to occur could turn off tomorrow and we'd have to completely reassess our understanding of our environment

but of course we don't do this... we do say that some things we observe have occured so many times unaffected by changing variables that we conclude that they are part of objective reality and we use that as foundation to work from

The difference is our body of evidence.  We have literally trillions of examples of gravity working, and no examples of gravity failing.  And, it is incredibly easy to devise an experiment where we can isolate and test for gravity.  You could probably say that we can't 100% prove that gravity will always work, but based on our body of evidence it would be absurd to expect anything else.

We don't have this body of evidence for civilization and morality.  If I wanted to, I could test to see if gravity works at least 1000 times in the next hour. I could easily isolate gravity via experiment, but there are thousands of interacting factors, and it could take us years, decades, or centuries to truly examine how one factor effects civilization.

You can say that all human observations are biased due to our limitations, but not to the same degree.  Our limitations don't impede us all that much in analyzing gravity, especially since we have tools that can measure its impact in a purely objective manner.  So we can be practically 100% certain about that.  Our limitations in analyzing society itself are incredibly inhibiting, so we can't get anywhere near that degree of certainty.  That's why nobody really disputes gravity, and we have billions of moral disputes each day.

there have been many tales through the century all with common themes - osiris, isis, horus |  nimrod, semaramis, tammuz  | zeus , hera , hercules etc etc etc

all were used to communicate an objective standard for how people and societies should conduct themselves

as i said an idea can be sound but the delivery of that idea because of our limitations can be flawed... as i've stated many times that does not invalidate the idea

If your claim is that god makes objective morality possible, then there needs to be a reliable mechanism to transmit that morality.  If we can't transmit the message in an objective fashion, then objective morality is not possible.  By definition.  It doesn't matter where the flaw is.  

you stated that we can make objective observations of the world... well how then do you reconcile that with people who think the earth is flat or hollow or that we never went to the moon or whatever? does the fact that some people go astray invalidate the observation? i'm sure you'd say not

It again comes to the body of evidence.  We can demonstrate that the world is round.  We do it every day when planes fly or we see a ship coming up on the horizon, when we take photos of the earth, when we send up satellites etc.  The round Earth model is sufficient and neccessary to explain why these things work.  The flat Earth model is not.  Which is why there is overwhelming agreement in the scientific and lay community on this.

When given the evidence people reach the same conclusion well over 99% of the time.  If I send out a message and it's interpretted correctly by nearly every recipient, then I can confidently conclude the recipient is the problem.  

and in the sense of their core values they are as i stated

Sure.  You stated it.  I'm not really interested in what you state without evidence.

Let's stick with science.  People may arrive at these values (which I don't think are core to christianity at any rate) through religion, or through other means like secular methods or just plain chance.

Religion is one possible method.  No argument there.  But if we want to claim it is the best method, we would have to do a study.  We would have to compare the treatment group (the group that is exposed to religion) to the control group (the group not exposed to religion) to see if the treatment group gets to the same moral values with greater frequency.

Even if we don't go to the effort of making a study, we have enough data to make an informed opinion.  Based on sectarian divisions, sectarian violence, the prison rate of religious people vs atheists, and the quality of life differences between religious and non religious nations, I'd say there is a strong case to be made that religion does not do a good job of conveying morals. 

If you wanted to claim that religion objectively conveys morality, you'd need to take it a step further and show that religion leads to the same moral system nearly 100% of the time.  

i wonder what matt dillahunty would say about differences in conclusions between scientists?

I can't speak for him, but I would imagine he would say something along these lines.  Science has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable method to get to truth.  Since our methods are flawed, the process is not infallible.  That is why we have corrective mechanisms, such as the peer review process, that helps us reach the best possible conclusion based on our current knowledge.

isn't buying what game you think is best personal choice? anyway what does this have to do with weighing different opinions between people?

But that's not what I'm doing in this example.  I am not buying the game I think is best, I'm buying the game I think my nephew will like best.

My goal is to give my nephew as much enjoyment as possible.  He will get more enjoyment out of one game than the other.  This is an objective fact (ignoring the possibility that he likes them both the same).  

I don't have perfect knowledge of my nephew's inner workings, or the games themselves, so I can not objectively determine which game he'll like better.  That leaves me with two subjective options.  I think he will enjoy Zelda more, or I think he will enjoy Horizon more.  By weighing the evidence I have (data about my nephew) I could pick which of the subjective options will most likely get me to my goal.

a better outcome? didn't you previously completely throw out the idea that there's a better outcome?

No.  Assuming we agree on the standard or goal we want to achieve, then there can be objectively better or worse outcomes.  

If, for instance, we're doctors and we agree our goal is to keep a patient alive as long as possible, we might suggest two different courses of action to treat them. 

The patient will live longer with one treatment than the other, so one choice is objectively better. But our opinion on which option is better is subjective, since we can not predict the future.  By analyzing the data to the best of our ability, we are more likely to choose the better of our subjective choices and get to the better objectively better outcome (the patient living longer).

what's the point of worrying about it if you don't think the data is actually taking you to an objectively better standard?

Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal.  From there, we have opinions (by definition subjective) on how we can reach that goal.  

Naturally, I think my opinions on how we should act are the ones that will get us closest to this goal.  That's why I hold them.  But they're still subjective.  If they weren't, I would have no reason to try to learn about morality or to discuss morality ever again.

If you don't agree with that initial statement, then we are indeed at an impasse and it's pointless to discuss anything related to morality.

 

Edit:  At any rate, I think we're just going to go in circles here, so I'll just leave it at that.  It was a nice conversation even if I don't agree with you.  Later.

 

"Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal."

 

i suppose to end with i'm just wondering how you think its possible to have a society without this... i mean otherwise it should be obvious that you can't have a society

 

...why do you think we have police? do you not realise that the society you live in has to have some type of foundation that we do in fact treat objectively for people to work with?