Grateful,

Just because science can't 'explain' something yet, in 2017, doesn't mean that it won't be able to in the future. OR of course, that it won't be able to, even then.

BUT this doesn't mean that 'therefore' there must be only a supernatural solution, or that there must be a 'god'. The problem with that smug 'solution' of course is that somebody's fall-back position of 'god' is blown out of the water as soon as science CAN explain what it couldn't explain before.

No it won't, you may say, 'god' will still be there as an explanation for whatever we still don't know. In that case, I feel a bit sorry for 'god', who is pushed more and more into the little corners of our ignorance by the discoveries of science in its myriad forms. He/she must be praying (to some other 'god' perhaps ? Do gods have gods ?) that humans don't discover much more, that they will prefer to remain in ignorance, wonderment and belief in him/her, and give him/her some breathing space.

Cheers,

Joe

To get back to topic: surely we all have some sort of values ? Not necessarily systematic, or thought-out, but some sort of guide for everyday situations at least ? Surely everybody feels strongly about something, that everybody has a sense of what 'ought' to happen, or to be done or not done, or to be condemned ? Surely everybody has goals, preferences, likes and dislikes, which could be shaped into 'values' ? I can't believe that there is an 'emptiness of the idea of values'.

If it were so, when it's all boiled down, why would any of us ever post anything on OLO ? Why would we care enough ? Probably not a single one of us agrees with any other poster on everything (our values differ too much), but each of us may be surprised sometimes to find themselves in agreement with the opinion of someone who they thought they had nothing in common with. We all have different and, dare I say it, strong values.

I suppose that's a sufficient reason why, for example, socialism is always going to be impossible - IF it means that everybody has to be on-side with the values of the 'working class' (or more so with those of its 'representatives', especially its executioners: one would not want to have different opinions or values from socialism's executioners). I probably wouldn't last a week.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I understand that the word 'natural' has several competing meanings - especially the technical/scientific sense vs. the ecological/green sense. The sense that I used was the scientific, so in that sense, for example, a nuclear bomb is considered natural.

Of course, we have different levels of understanding about different natural phenomena, but they all remain natural even when our understanding of them is little or sparse.

In my last post, I already explained that there are people who do not accept any (or both) of the two premises:

1. That goodness and badness cannot ever be found in the natural realm.
2. That goodness and badness actually exist (and by that I mean the actual goodness and badness, rather than related mental ideas and concepts).

I was not addressing such people in my post. Rather, I was under the impression that you do accept both premises - if that's not the case then we are back to square one.

AJ:
"I didn’t say sickness is good." True, you said sickness is evil:

"There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death). "

AJ:

"I assume, by “unique”, you actually mean “objective”. That's the usual argument from theists, anyway. If so, then, no, my talk of good and evil did not imply an objective standard. I only spoke of general preferences."

What do you mean by "general preferences"? Is it what everyone agrees upon? Do you require 90% agreement? A simple majority? Have you come across Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?

AJ:
"Sure, once you've gotten around the Euthyphro dilemma and provided reliable evidence for a god."

Can you offer reliable evidence of a multiverse? If not, believng god created the universe is far more rationale than your position.

My understanding is that there is general consensus among scientists that the likelihood of this universe being the product of chance is effectively zero....unless it is but one of an uncountable number of 'experiments'. Where these experiments are supposed to have taken place is another question.

Regarding Euthypro's dilemma, its all good bro!.

Because of our desires being thwarted we presume bad. But in reality there is no inherent evil.

Who is more grateful? The person that has all that they desire or the person who has learned the true worth of things through deprivation?

A number of saying from the Prophet bear this out:

"How wonderful is the affair of the believer, for his affairs are all good, and this applies to no one but the believer. If something good happens to him, he is thankful for it and that is good for him. If something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience and that is good for him.”

"Great reward comes with great trials. When Allah loves a people, He tests them, and whoever accepts it attains His pleasure, whereas whoever shows discontent with it incurs His wrath"

“Nothing befalls a believer, a (prick of a) thorn or more than that, but Allah will raise him one degree in status thereby, or erase a bad deed.” 

“If Allah wills good for His slave, He hastens his punishment1 in this world, and if He wills bad for His slave, He withholds from him (the punishment for) his sin, until He requites him for it on the Day of Resurrection.”

...Over to you Mr Phillips