5 questions for the secular

[paulo75]

Though the secular view of the world is rationally possible, I don’t think that it make as much sense of the world as the view that God exists. The theory that there is a God who made the world accounts for the evidence we see better than the theory that there is no God (that statement alone requires it’s own thread, which I would be more than happy to start). Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Based on that, I’d like to pose the following 5 questions to the secularists.

1. If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

2. Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

3. Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive†as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

4. How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

5. The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

 

[Veritas]

seems like very good questions to me

 

[platos_cave]

Those who argue against the existence of God use induction, language, and their cognitive faculties, all of which make far more sense in a universe in which God has created and supports them all by his power.

Well, interesting how you merely asserted that it makes more sense without support. Not to mention that something "making more sense" isn't necessarily true. Simply fabricating a concept and then saying "this makes more sense to me" isn't falsifying another belief system.

1. If, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love, and beauty is not real –

What?

if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to pass on our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should we trust them?

This question doesn't make any sense, coupled with the first sentence it makes even littler sense. The more accurate someones brain coincides with reality, the better suited to living in reality that person is. Having a brain that "lies" to us causing our deaths is nonsense.

Why would the prescriptive idea of why we have emotions, why morality exists and how the concept of beauty formed debase those concepts? Just because you don't like it?

2. Many people on here are proponents of strong rationalism, which is nearly impossible to defend, mostly because it can’t live up to it’s own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof?

Um..what does empiricism have to do with rationalism? The first part of your question was a claim against rationalism, the second part of your question was asking about empiricism. Two different concepts. I'll let you rephrase your question.

3. Many say that the Bible stunts our growth as a progressive society. How can we use our time’s standard of “progressive†as the plumbline by which we decide which parts of the Bible are valid and which are not?

Not sure what this question means.

4. How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you claim that none of the religions have?

Good thing I don't claim that.

5. The last question pertains to altruistic behavior . If we see a total stranger fall into the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if he person in the water is an enemy.

We do? That seems like an odd analogy, considering it is completely without detail. If it turns out to be a river of lava, then perhaps jumping in would not be a good idea. Or maybe the river of water is a raging torrent of rapids and you are unable to swim...etc.

Context.

How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?

Altruism is the result of empathy. Empathy allows us to see what's happening to one person and how they appear to feel about it and relate to that person by imagining ourselves in that same situation. Since we are social creatures, empathy is a strong social bond that helps to prevent causing other people to suffer, which would be contradictory to the survival of a society.