Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

Assuming a given theory and a material experiment he tests a hypothesis that a sky scraper can exist.

This, in fact, is not an alternate.  Few scientists would perform an experiment (unless he was confirming another's hypothesis,) unless he had faith that indeed the hypothesis was true.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Few scientists would perform an experiment unless he had faith that indeed the hypothesis was true.

The hypothesis and the experiment can be inspired by ignorance seeking knowledge just as easy as faith seeking proof. And I would argue that both motivations exist. And I would argue that the first is the truest science.

[dharveymi]

We will have to disagree.  I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work.  A good scientist makes a few best "guesses", and doesn't waste time on hypothesis that have "no" chance of being true.  It would be too expensive and take too long to do science your way.

[ChristianAnarchist]

We will have to disagree.  I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work.  A good scientist makes a few best "guesses", and doesn't waste time on hypothesis that have "no" chance of being true.  It would be too expensive and take too long to do science your way.

True.  Even with my biodiesel project,
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13024.0
I did not (and still do not) have complete faith that this stuff burns as well as diesel and will cause no harm to my fuel delivery system.  I am trying it, however, based on what I have read, and my own "understanding" of the mechanics involved.  I have yet to make my second tank, however, and am currently running on straight diesel until I can modify my pumping station (plumb in a pump bypass for fuel transfers without filtration).  I did have an incident where my engine just died as I started to drive yesterday, but it did start right back up. 

So even though it has been done by others (so I've read) and it seems like it should work, I'm proving it to myself with an experiment.  Now I had "faith" that I could do it before the experiment or I wouldn't have wasted the time and money to get started, but if I had less faith I would have saved my money and just continued to buy diesel...

[Rillion]

I am saying that what you are calling "faith" is actually inductive reasoning.

No.  Faith is evidence for something you can't or won't  prove.

Facts are evidence.  Faith is not a substitute for facts. 

I have faith that my mother had parents.

No, you inductively infer that your mother had parents from the fact that everybody else has parents.  That's reasoning from the general to the specific, which was the example I just gave you.  If you don't believe me, look up inductive reasoning and do a little reading about it....I'm not making this stuff up. 

[The Muslim Agorist]

I can imagine all kinds of experiments I might try but won't because I have no faith that they will work. 

We either have a drastically different understanding of faith... or of the scientific method... i suspect both.

That's fine with me.

[Rillion]

Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative.

The existence of such people in no way supports your position.  The fact that some people make automatic intuitive judgments in line with conservative thinking does not imply that there was any point at which they consciously chose to make such judgments. 

Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction?

I'm not.  I am defining morality as having and applying concepts of right and wrong, and asking you why concepts of right and wrong must necessarily always be previously consciously chosen.  It's pretty simple. 

Are you proposing that we create two categories of morality; one based on hard wired instinct and the other based on acquired values? Your whole approach to this strikes me as obfuscatory.

I am proposing that we acknowledge that morality is both hard wired and acquired.  Or to put it more accurately, that it is both hard wired and selectively cultivated. 

There's a radio show called Open Source which brings on experts to select a given topic, and the topic for Monday's show was "Morality: God-Given or Evolved?"  So I thought of this conversation, and thought I'd mention it.  It was a good show, you should check it out:  http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/

[dharveymi]

Facts are evidence.  Faith is not a substitute for facts.

Facts are one type of evidence, faith is another, eyewitness accounts are another, etc.  Who said faith was a substitute for facts?  Not me.

No, you inductively infer that your mother had parents from the fact that everybody else has parents.  That's reasoning from the general to the specific, which was the example I just gave you.  If you don't believe me, look up inductive reasoning and do a little reading about it....I'm not making this stuff up. 

This inductive reasoning is logical and reasonable, but it is not proof.  You didn't know my mother, and even I didn't know my mother's mother.  I only know what I have been told.  She might have been a clone.  It seems crazy I know, but until I have illiminated such possibilities, or devised another proof, I have to have faith.  I might have other evidence (such as inductive reasoning, but I certainly have faith in my mother in this matter.)

[Rillion]

Facts are one type of evidence, faith is another

You've defined faith as belief in something unproven.  How is belief evidence for.....belief?  I'm trying to find a way of interpreting the statement "faith is evidence" in a way that isn't circular, and am not finding one.  Help me out here. 

This inductive reasoning is logical and reasonable, but it is not proof.

Yes, that would be because there's no such thing as proof.   And that's okay, because we don't need things to be proven in order to act on them rationally. 

You didn't know my mother, and even I didn't know my mother's mother.  I only know what I have been told.  She might have been a clone.  It seems crazy I know, but until I have illiminated such possibilities, or devised another proof, I have to have faith.  I might have other evidence (such as inductive reasoning, but I certainly have faith in my mother in this matter.)

Inductive reasoning is not evidence-- it is a way of interpreting evidence so as to reach a conclusion about the probability of something. 

[BKO]

Since god isn't real, nothing can be derived from it -especially morality. One cannot squeeze water from a dry stone. One also cannot pull a needle from a haystack if there was never a needle in the first place.

What those people who are religious perceive as morals derived from a god, are nothing more than self causal effects. In their search for god, or belief theirin, the person has constructed his/her own perceptions based on the influence of other people. And yes, the book of religion is the work of people. Morality is not derived from a pretend spiritual being no more than one can derive the facts to support the claims that a god exists.

I see only the works of people, the effects of people, the ideas of people become manifest by their actions, and the physical world in which we reside and derive our sound or silly judgements of this existence. 

[The Muslim Agorist]

Since god isn't real,

Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

people who are religious perceive as morals derived from a god

Actually Islam teaches that morality is derived from ones "fitra." It's like your innate nature, or primordial self. Everyone has one... even non religious people. It is demonstrable that most children have similar moral understandings prior to parental or societal instruction.

the book of religion is the work of people.

"The book" implies "one book." Which book? If you're speaking about the Bible I'd agree. I believe the Bible is the work of men inspired by God. If your speaking about Koran... I think you'd be hardpressed to show that Muhammad wrote it, considering he was illiterate, and it contains scientific truths which were unknown to him, or others in that place and time. If you're talking about the Teachings of Buddha, the Upanishads, or the Bagavagita I would categorize them as divinly inspired books, but also the work of men, although I haven't studied them deeply, that is my impression.

It sounds to me like you are deriving your conclusions from your faith in the non existence of God.
And making wild generalizations about religions and books you haven't studied.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Since god isn't real,

God is real...

[markuzick]

Regardless, at some point one's values, values being the standard by which moral intuition operates, are consciously chosen

And what is your evidence for this?  I've asked you to provide it before, but you haven't.

Haven't you ever heard of a "knee jerk" conservative.

The existence of such people in no way supports your position.  The fact that some people make automatic intuitive judgments in line with conservative thinking does not imply that there was any point at which they consciously chose to make such judgments.

I never implied that. It means that they have acquired values and beliefs, which at some level required choices to be made. Their "knee jerk" (unconscious) reactions are just that: unconscious.

Why confuse an inherited behavioral trait with morality? Aren't you able to make distinctions, or is it some personal agenda that forces you to turn a blind eye to such an obvious distinction?

I'm not.  I am defining morality as having and applying concepts of right and wrong, and asking you why concepts of right and wrong must necessarily always be previously consciously chosen.  It's pretty simple. 

The question is not simple, but simplistic. You're showing the root of your confusion in that question, which is based on the implied assumption that a genetically hardwired reaction can be right, wrong, a concept or even based on a concept at all.

An inborn(genetically acquired) instinct manifests as a feeling or emotion, not a concept. A person may try to explain or justify this reaction after the fact, but the conclusion that he reaches is in no way genetically preordained. It may be fanciful, partially true or solidly true. His desire to know or understand (curiosity) is an inborn trait, but curiosity doesn't give him the tools, only the motivation, to find out why, and in no way guarantees any particular answer.

There's a radio show called Open Source which brings on experts to select a given topic, and the topic for Monday's show was "Morality: God-Given or Evolved?"  So I thought of this conversation, and thought I'd mention it.  It was a good show, you should check it out:  http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/

I listened to almost all of it and yes, it was interesting. As to the title, the answer is "None of the above.". Only the capacity for morality is God-Given or Evolved.

[lordmetroid]

We all like you gene, really your calls to FTL are awesome! Brokor really dishonoured himself there with that comment.

God is real...

I can accept that God is real if you can provide me with evidence that God is real. That's why I accept evolution and other scientifical explanations... likewise I am totally open for there to be a God but until my conditions for such an acceptance I can not. So sorry...

[markuzick]

Since god isn't real,

Well that's a bold completely unprovable premise... what's that people say about arguments that begin with a dubious premise?

Are you implying that Brokor needs to prove that there is no God? It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon those who claim there is a God. Of course, you first must define what you mean by God. Plausible definitions do exist, although the definitions don't, in and of themselves, give any evidence or explanation for the belief, one way or the other. Most definitions of God that I've heard are based on God as a being with attributes that are self contradictory and so, in these conceptions, the very definition of God constitutes its own logical falsification.