In the interests of closing the discussion I’ll make a couple of closing points and let it rest as well. Clearly we are “agreeing to disagree” on a couple of fundamental points and outlining those is perhaps useful.

1. As someone who doesn’t believe there are absolute rights or wrongs, your point about not being able to tell if murder (for example) is absolutely right or wrong doesn’t bother me. A common trick is to then say “well murder is ok then” which is a non-sequitur. The belief that says “murder is not ok” doesn’t suddenly disappear because there is no absolute behind it.

2. You said:

It should be very clear by now that it is impossible to identify this sort of morality in a naturalistic worldview.

One of the driving forces of this discussion has been me trying to dissuade you of this particular notion. Apparently I failed :)

3. You also said:

If I accept that absolute morality is real, something other than naturalism is now required

If I (for the purpose of discussion) accept that absolute morals exist and that for some strange reason science can’t detect them, I still have no idea what this magical (I can’t resist lol) “something other than naturalism” is that gives you this insight. After all it is not speculative on your part, you are stating it exists with some certainty and then using that as the basis for other things. This means you must have used something other than science to get to this conclusion. I do not know what that could be.

4. Regarding abiogenesis, I will make just one point. There are four options for how life came about:

a. Natural processes that obeyed natural laws
b. Natural processes that disobeyed natural laws
c. Supernatural processes that obeyed natural laws
d. Supernatural processes that disobeyed natural laws

I believe a is the answer because I (nor anyone else that I know of) has ever observed any examples of b, c, or d. Now it seems to me that if c is possible then surely a is also possible. And it also follows that if d is possible then b is also possible.

With that in mind I have to conclude that a is by far the most likely and all the work is still ahead of the theist to show particular reasons why god “must” be involved.

On Morality
The naturalistic worldview identifies what it calls morality. This turns out to not be a right and wrong, but a belief people develop that there is a right and wrong. In naturalism, many things may contribute to shape such a belief, as Ian has kindly described. (Thanks again for your input) What naturalism fails to address is whether what people hold as “right” could actually be right. Obviously, naturalism cannot address this as it excludes the possibility of there actually being a real “right”. When morality is sourced in whatever we decide to value and what we are shaped by, the morality is just an extension of our preference or of our current state of “evolution”. It is interesting to contemplate and discuss how naturalism develops a belief in morality, but there can be no real morality, just a belief that there is.

This leaves us in an untenable position of not being able to tell anyone else that they are right or wrong. You might think that this is a good thing, yet it ensures that murderers, rapists, deceivers or abusers are not really “wrong”. In naturalism, they may only be deemed “different”. Maybe different to society’s norm, maybe different to our own preference, but certainly not “wrong”. And as this preference-standard can actually change, one day they may well become “right”.

When I think of morality, I think of a standard detailing right and wrong. Not a shaped-belief from preference that there is a “right” and “wrong”, which in the end, really has nothing to say about what is ‘right or wrong’. Sure, there can be vivid discussions on how it is that people come to think that there is a right and wrong. Interesting discussions on what may have shaped us to have such attitudes – as Ian has provided us. Yet, “right” could only be truly deemed “right” if it is independent of us. It must be right whether we know it or not! It must be right whether we believe it or not! It must be right whether we agree with it or not! It is just right. This is usually called absolute morality. It should be very clear by now that it is impossible to identify this sort of morality in a naturalistic worldview. It should also be clear that science and naturalism cannot uncover an objective moral standard. Sure, scientific naturalism can discuss a belief in morality that is shaped by society, education, self-interest and instinct, but it has nothing to say about the validity of the standard itself.

I believe that such a real standard exists. I find it imposed on me when I do not even desire to follow or acknowledge it.

Without a real standard, a lot of life just does not make sense. If absolute morality does not exist, we could not objectively judge the behaviour of anyone at all. If it absolute morality does not exist, we could not have moral reform. Morality cannot improve unless it is drawing closer to the ‘correct’ morality. In naturalism, relative morality can change but at any point in time, whatever is held as “right” is deemed right, simply because it is held.

Those who deny obvious moral rules – who say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a vice, and that cowardice is a virtue – do not merely have a different moral point of view; they have something wrong with them.
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air F.J. Beckwith & G.Koukl p59

You can only make such statements if absolute morality is true. Why have I bothered to layout this view? It is the beginning of the end of naturalism for me. If I accept that absolute morality is real, something other than naturalism is now required. There are many other indicators that fit together to destroy naturalism, in my mind at least. Without going into the details of these, it is sufficient for this topic to plainly say that I do not believe in naturalism and see no reason why I should.

On Abiogenesis (I am using what I consider to be the common understanding of the word)
Naturalism requires us to believe in abiogenesis. Ian outlined a valid proof for us on this. Given naturalism, we will search for ways that abiogenesis must have occurred. I do not have any real issue with the search. Let it continue! It may find a solution, but I do not think it can. As I sit in a worldview other than naturalism, I am not required to believe in abiogenesis. So what do I do? The validity of such a thing for me rests on research, on science.

Ian has pointed out that abiogenesis does not break any natural laws. Should this be enough for me to believe it? I do not think so. A good analogy entails Mt Rushmore. (It is not my analogy) Mt Rushmore has four heads carved into the side of a mountain. Intricate details. If someone came to me and said that erosion carved out those heads, I would reject their claim. If they said that there are no natural laws that erosion breaks, so there is nothing preventing it from happening, I would consider that interesting but would again reject the claim that it happened. It is the complexity of the details, the non-related information content and the random nature of erosion that convinces me it is not possible. “What about thirty billion years of erosion on thirty billion planets, could this carve out just one such detailed mountainside?” I would still say “No way.” To put this in perspective, if we happened to reach a new planet, which had a detailed carving on the side of a mountain, we would immediately claim, “Intelligent life made this”, even if there was no sign of that life! I look into a cell and think the same. So no, while abiogenesis does not break any “natural laws”, such an argument does not convince me that it occurred either.

The position of the naturalist is that “We do not know how abiogenesis happened but we know that it did!” It is unquestionable because of the worldview. It is possible for all Christians to say, “I do not know how abiogenesis happened, and I do not know if it even happened.” God could have made life in such a manner, but did He? The scientific indicators seem to say no. (Another topic perhaps?) As such, the only viable position for a non-naturalist like myself is “Where is the evidence?”

Well Ian, thanks again for the discussion. I may be the only one who found it interesting. Since you like to end your posts with a dig at “magical” beliefs, let me give you one to muse on. Take a bunch of atoms that follow a set of specific laws, add a very long time period and those atoms will be able to reason, think and contemplate themselves. Magical! ;-)

To the first, I would say that one-off events do not have patterns, yet still may become explicable if someone were there to observe the event.

I can’t think of any examples that fit that description?

I definitely want to look at your reasons for discarding the “anarchistic random do-what-you-want kind of personal preference”.

You mention discarding it, invalidating it, discrediting it, and even saying it is wrong. These are four different things and none of them really get at what I was talking about – perhaps yet another rephrasing will help lol:

I think everyone is free to think and value whatever they want, however they want, which means ultimately it all comes down to personal preference. Having said that, I do not think it is arbitrary or random what people actually end up valuing or thinking morally but rather a function of those three things I discussed earlier (and probably others as well).

‘Observation of patterns’ may decide that it is not the norm, but it cannot say that it is wrong.

I agree entirely and for that reason I do not (and did not) claim it is wrong. To be honest I am not even sure what it being “wrong” would even entail.

Again, science has successfully reduced morality to absolutely nothing. If this is true, science does have nothing to say on morality, expect perhaps, that it does not exist.

The observation that people value things similarly/differently and that they act on those values (i.e. morality) is a very real phenomenon and is far from being “nothing”. I just don’t think it has a magical source.

To the second I have more to say.

I guess in the end it does boil down to personal preference but not the anarchistic random do-what-you-want kind of personal preference for a couple of very important reasons.

I definitely want to look at your reasons for discarding the “anarchistic random do-what-you-want kind of personal preference”.

Firstly society as an entity shapes the people in it so people living near each other will tend to have similar values (which is what this really boils down to).

The first reason is that groups of common people will tend to do similar things. That may be true, but it does not invalidate any anarchistic-personal-preference. It only places such a view in the minority.

Secondly I suspect there are certain tendencies towards types of behaviour that are built in to most higher organisms which will shape values.

The second reason is that you suspect that built-in behaviour preferences will shape values. Again, this may well be true, but again, it says nothing in regard to discrediting an anarchistic-personal-preference. In fact, this reason does the opposite, it gives validity to the anarchistic-personal-preference by noting that it may well be a built-in tendency.

Thirdly once you accept that people value things similarly (on the whole) then you can see that many logical discussions of what is perceived as right or wrong will tend to lead to similar conclusions.

Now, I am willing to accept that on the whole people value things similarly. And yes, what is perceived as right and wrong will therefore be similar conclusions. This appears true again, but again, it is not a reason for discrediting or invalidating any anarchistic-personal-preference.

It seems to me that unless you are first willing to make an absolute moral stance that the “the anarchistic random do-what-you-want kind of personal preference” is wrong, you cannot make such a statement. ‘Observation of patterns’ may decide that it is not the norm, but it cannot say that it is wrong. As such, “right” still remains nothing more than personal preference. Given your lack of objective evidence, it seems to only be your personal preference that decided “anarchistic personal preference” is wrong. Yet it is obvious to the person with an anarchistic-personal-preference, that such a thing is right.

Again, science has successfully reduced morality to absolutely nothing. If this is true, science does have nothing to say on morality, expect perhaps, that it does not exist.

1) If explaining observations via patterns is our most accurate, concise description of science, is it true to say that whatever does not provide “patterns”, is going to be out of the reach of science?

Pretty much – I’d say that anything that does not fall into some sort of pattern is inexplicable.

I guess my question for you is; do you really hold “right” to be nothing more than personal preference?

I guess in the end it does boil down to personal preference but not the anarchistic random do-what-you-want kind of personal preference for a couple of very important reasons. Firstly society as an entity shapes the people in it so people living near each other will tend to have similar values (which is what this really boils down to). Secondly I suspect there are certain tendencies towards types of behaviour that are built in to most higher organisms which will shape values. Thirdly once you accept that people value things similarly (on the whole) then you can see that many logical discussions of what is perceived as right or wrong will tend to lead to similar conclusions.

1) If explaining observations via patterns is our most accurate, concise description of science, is it true to say that whatever does not provide “patterns”, is going to be out of the reach of science?

2) Regarding morality, in your blog, you noted a couple of things. It is possible to recognise a pattern in that people believe that there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. People will categorise some behaviour as right and other behaviour as wrong. Also, there is another pattern that in general, what is ‘right’ is very consistent across people groups. For example, it seems universal that ‘right’ is to treat other people as you would like them to treat you. Quite possibly, we would agree that this is science in action on the topic of morality.

Now, taking morality one step further, can anything be said about what is right? How could we know if what we think is ‘right’ is actually right? Just because most people think something is right, does that make it right? What about the individuals, who hold a different right, are they wrong simply because they differ from the norm? Is slavery right when the majority believes it to be? It seems to me that as soon as science discovers morality, it reduces morality to nothing. What is ‘right’ really does not mean anything different than some people like the taste of pepper and some do not.

I guess my question for you is; do you really hold “right” to be nothing more than personal preference?

To try and restate it more clearly: There are people who claim that science cannot explain morality but other modes of discourse can explain morality (effectively excluding science from the discourse although that point is secondary). I think that is a fallacious claim.

Although on a slightly different track I will say that, since I do not think anything like an absolute morality exists, it obviously follows that science cannot explain it, because there is nothing to explain :)

Now regarding science detecting the dectable, this is actually a really nice way of describing the whole issue. Detectable things we can know about and explain through science. Undectable things either don’t exist or do exist but we can’t detect them. There really isn’t any practical difference between the last two options.

Science is what we can explain by observing patterns
If there is something that can be explained, science will be able to explain it

Pretty much although if I may be pedantic: science is explaining observations via patterns, not what can be explained.

“A common claim is that there are things out there which science cannot explain but that other modes of discourse can.”

And to clarify this, you wrote (I quote again);

“Let us take the rather heavy example of morality where many religious people argue that science cannot explain absolute morals.”

So, do you want to go with the new claim that there are people who say that science cannot participate in the discussion on morals? Or do you want to stick with the original claim that there are people out there who say science cannot explain absolute morality? They are very different claims. (Personally, I am one of the people who would make the original claim but I would not make your modified claim. Thus I am only interested in hearing what you have to say about the original one.) Are you able to stick with the original claim? I will try again to elucidate your view:

Science is what we can explain by observing patterns
If there is something that can be explained, science will be able to explain it

In answer to the people who say that there are things beyond the scope of science, like absolute morality. You say that if absolute morality existed, science could detect it, provided it was detectable. (This has got a little bit confusing as you have permitted an undetectable absolute morality to exist – almost an oxymoron I would say)

1) You make the claim that science can explain everything.

Not quite – I make the claim that if something can be explained then science can explain it. I have no idea whether everything can actually be explained but that isn’t really the point.

2) Some religious people have said that science cannot explain absolute morals.

I am sure they do say that but my point was that people claim science cannot even participate in the discussion of morals (and more broadly any similar concept like good, evil, ghosts, god, whatever) let alone actually explain it.

3) You reply to them that if absolute morality actually existed, science could detect it.

Provided it was detectable, yep.

1) You make the claim that science can explain everything.
2) Some religious people have said that science cannot explain absolute morals.
3) You reply to them that if absolute morality actually existed, science could detect it.

Concisely correct, I hope?