Anthony Mannucci

No, I never meant to imply you were OK with atrocity. I was merely following the logic of your argument, that your morality comes from biology. If that is so, and I change the biology, I can change the morality. I am invoking feeling in this sense: how do you feel about that ease with which morality can change? It can change for me just as easily as for you. If you resist this scientific perspective of how morality comes from biology, then why do you resist it? Why should it matter? Perhaps it matters because you have a belief, irrational and outside of science, in a morality that is not biologically based. Perhaps you are not comfortable with the notion of psyche-based morality. In my view, this is a very emotional view of science. I don't think science is about "doing everything you can to disprove an explanation." Science is about: make a guess, test the guess, refine the guess. Scientists are not and should not be obsessed with proving things wrong. Scientists have to work from a more postive angle, which involves faith to some degree. Prayer is about getting in touch with our dependence on a higher power (call this power whatever you like). Prayer reconnects you with the scientific fact that you do not determine your path through life, it is determined by something outside of you. I am merely pointing out that prayer makes sense within the construct of science. I am not as interested in assumptions about my prayers being heard or what that entails. I am not saying one way or another what hears my prayer and whether my prayer is acted upon. If there is a higher being that is listening to my prayer, I do not presume to influence such a being. That being will do what it will. What I can do is reaffirm my dependence on a higher power (higher in the sense I am dependent on it). Perhaps this is a more palatable phrase: everything we have comes from outside of ourselves. Call it naturalism wearing whatever article of clothing you prefer. I again end with this thought: are science and religion really so distant?

If we are discussing feeling, it is fair game to ask how you feel. A large part of religion is about feeling. Suppose we are having a discussion about what is moral and what is not. Is it not fair to provide examples of how you feel about certain moral situations? How you feel about these situations is relevant to your moral choices. Feeling does change what is true, when the discussion is about feeling. I agree that how I feel about a material object does not change that object. According to http://blogs.alterne...11/06/20/23128/ the following religions don't require belief in a supernatural being: Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism and Buddhism Of course, that's just another source you might dispute. Suppose I take Buddhism and remove reincarnation and karma. I still have a religion, wouldn't I? A set of codes to live by, a set of values to believe in, and a stated purpose to life based on some sort of belief (not necessarily a supernatural belief). So, I think I'm on solid ground here: religion does not require belief in a supernatural being. Let's look at it another way. You don't see any difficulty with the phrase "the abstract does not exist"? There are books about abstract things. All these books are about something that does not exist? If something does not exist, I don't think I can talk about it. It's really simplest to just state that abstract things exist. Saying they don't exist gets very complicated. I agree that the way an abstract thing exists is different than the way a material thing exists. But to deny abstract things exist gets one into trouble. Abstract things can exist without a concrete representation in my opinion (not sure what you mean by "representation"). Science is not the same as faith, but it is not the antithesis either. Science requires faith. Science requires faith that the scientific method is a useful way to learn about the world. Science is not about truth. It is a method. Any given scientific fact is subject to reversal by some future experiment, as has happened many times in the conduct of science. I would say that the experiments of science are not refutable: if you put your apparatus together in a certain way and get a certain reading on a dial, I'll agree that reading is a "fact". But interpreting what you are measuring and what you are theorizing about is an important part of science. Science is about the ideas we attach to the measurements. Those ideas are not "facts" or "truth". They are the concepts we use to interpret the measurements. I do not regard those concepts as "truth", but rather part of a logical construct that we use. There is no way to prove the concepts are true, just that we aren't aware of their being contradicted yet. Science can teach us about the natural world because the natural world works as it does, logic being an important part of the overall structure. If the world did not have a logical under-pinning, the scientific method would fail. Logical world + discoverable world + eternal laws of nature + my feelings about it = my religion. You might say it's a terrible religion, but I feel awe at the power of the world around me, and that causes me to pray because I realize I myself am subject to this power. I realize that everything I have is given to me by this power. All the preceding is completely aligned with science. Are science and religion really so distant?

Feeling is important in the discussion of religion. Religion (and in fact life itself) is all about feeling. I believe Buddhism does not require belief in the supernatural. Let's suppose for a moment that is true: god is no more or less real than Jar Jar Binks. What's wrong with that? To me it is so obvious that the abstract exists, I don't want to debate it. Religion does require faith, as does science. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

The appeal to emotion is deliberate. Your sense of moral values is very tied to emotions. Your values are from biology, but that does not mean there is not an emotional component. A religion can be based on worship and the assertion of a moral code based on faith. It need not postulate a "supernatural world". Yes, that is what I am saying. The abstract is not amenable to scientific analysis, but is used in scientific reasoning. The abstract exists. That's all I am saying. I am not interested in the Supernatural. Someone else brought that up. To appreciate the numinous is to go down a path that does not involve science, but that involves values, and starts to bring in the idea of awe. Once this idea is brought in, one is beginning to bring in the basis for religion. Perhaps "appreciating the numinous" is like a mini-religion. You are doing something ("appreciating") that is not part of a scientific experiment. You are stepping outside the measurable world, yet valuing that non-material world. So, that could be your religion. Science itself is numinous. I am making the connection between what scientists may believe and what religious people may believe, but I am not claiming they are identical. I see a link there.

The non-material world has an effect on you every time you make a moral choice or feel joy. Yes, the non-material world can be viewed as contingent on the material in some way, yet it is not amenable to scientific analysis. It is, after all, non-material. "Green does not exist, it's a concept"? So concepts do not exist? I think you are basically agreeing with me here, except in the part where concepts do not exist. I think they do exist. Yes, I call your value system "psyche-based morality." It's a very relative and changeable form of values. If I could design the appropriate drug, I could make it so you value killing innocent children. If that's OK with you, then so be it. Not all religion involves the supernatural. Aren't there religions for which the concept of the supernatural does not exist? In any case, this shows your bias in deciding what is supernatural or not. It's just a matter of habit. You are so used to the world as it is, that you call it "natural". We really don't understand the natural world, although science lets us describe it. The scientific method is tailored towards the world as it is. Why can't I view this world as miraculous, even though it is with me every day? When early man/woman started to develop awareness of the world around him/her, he/she was more in touch with its miraculous character. We are somewhat jaded now, and forget that science is a reaction to the miraculous world. Science does not explain the world, but describes it.

The non-material world is central to your sense of values. Your sense of values has an enormous effect on you. It determines how you behave every day. Logic is an incomplete route to knowledge. Logic transforms certain statements into other statements. Axioms or starting assumptions must be provided. Natural law governs the material. My statement is that ideas or concepts lie outside of the material world, existing more as patterns than as material objects having mass. You rely on these ideas and concept every day to live your life. I just found this quote on another web site. I cannot vouch for its authenticity: "All religions, arts, and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom." -Albert Einstein-

I mean to claim everything that exists in the world is verifiable is unlikely. The unverifiable exists. A world outside of science exists. The existence of something outside of the physical universe is very relevant to your life. That is, if you value things in your life which you probably do. Is value verifiable? Unfortunately, the unverifiable is central to our lives. We all must accept that. This world is not only of verifiable things. That's just the way it is. The conceptual foundations of science are not verifiable. Experiments are verifiable. Not all aspects of science are. Logic itself has limits. Russell's paradox, etc. Who would have thought? You have faith that science "hangs together". We have faith in the workings of the external material world. Admittedly, the power of natural law, acting everywhere all the time, is great. Religion need not be strictly about explaining the material world. I advocate science for that, despite the limitations of science. If given the choice, my decisions always side with natural law as I understand it. I would never hope to see natural law violated. Yet, I have plenty of faith, because not all things within the world are governed by natural law.

The material and non-material worlds co-exist. All things in the material world have mass. Not all things that exist have mass (I do not mean mass = 0, but mass cannot be defined). Do patterns exist? Do patterns have mass? Ponder that. Thank you.

This is a lot of "word casting" going on here. What I mean is, using words that are poorly defined but have connotations to make an argument. Faith is central to our lives as human beings with a sense of value. To you I just said: "Superstition is central to our lives as human beings with a sense of value." I don't really care what you call it. Faith is fundamental to being human. All entities that are subject to scientific analysis have mass. (Physical science, that is). Not all things in this world have mass. Not all things that are important have mass. Science has its limits. Faith is important. You cannot distinguish what I said from "naturalism". That's just using a word. What is the content of this statement? To you, natural law and god are far removed. That's simply an assertion. You do not deny the existence and all encompassing power of natural law, that we are all subject to it and cannot escape it. This does not necessarily imply god, but in my view does not rule out god. To you, god is a personality that contradicts natural law. The awe inspiring and eternal presence of natural law may lead to a different sort of religion than you are used to. Perhaps a different definition of god than you choose to accept. Others may feel a spiritual connection to the eternal and all powerful. The bottom line is the importance and power of faith. I mean "superstition." How can we pretend to know what God is? The flaw here is that we can replace faith with "scientific realism", as if scientific realism were absolute and sufficient. The sufficiency of science is a common argument made against religion. Science is a method that provides a description of the natural world. It does not contradict or supplant faith. Science shows us many things about the material world. If the material world were all that existed, then science might be sufficient. The material world is only a fraction of what exists. I can never give up on the non-material world, yet I am not so foolish as to underestimate the power that Nature holds over me. I walk the line.

This is a matter of opinion. If you think elephants and dogs are special, who am I to challenge that? If you believe they live by faith, you may be right. The Absolute Truth I refer to is that there is a material world governed by natural law. Yes, one can deny this also, but I think it's a real stretch. I am basically not interested in arguing with those who believe everything that goes on is a figment of someone's imagination, that the world does not exist, etc. I don't think anyone who is sane really believes that. We all believe there is a material world out there, that science helps us learn about it, and that the world is governed by natural law. That is why I call it "Absolute Truth". Granted, you may deny the existence of a material world. According to modern physics, elementary particles are perfectly identical to each other in fundamental aspects. It is a symmetry of nature. If that symmetry did not exist, many things would be hard to explain such as the existence of atoms. That is the perfection I speak of: the perfect identity of elementary particles.

Let me answer you. Humans are pretty special, but you could say it's a matter of opinion, so I need not go there. You are right: theists should not and cannot prove it. Trying to prove it is not worth the effort. I don't think God insists on faith alone, but faith is surely important. That's a way that humans are special: we live by faith. We understand faith and can reason about it. No other species can do that. Granted, that does not prove God's existence. We can all agree on an Absolute Truth as I state in my book. That is, we all believe in an eternal presence that governs all material things. Modern physics suggests that this material universe embodies the concept of perfection, in that every electron (or quark, or photon) is identical to every other one in its essential aspects. Modern science also suggests an immutable logic governs this world. I am in awe of this. You may not be. But you cannot deny the essential reality of which I speak. Therefore, the eternal and the perfect exists and has always been with us. Perhaps that is not God, but it is leading in that direction.