One can be as rational as possible, even though the information is fuzzy. — Jake Tarragon

That's exactly what has been unproductive, assuming productivity is a worthile pursuit in the first place.

The fact that it is a simulated environment suggests a game and games suggest solutions for the audience to solve. — MikeL

So, if I understand you correctly, you see no tangible moral dimension in Marina's work? Perhaps, curiosity is a stronger drive than morality.

That's true. There seems to be no general principles that can guide action. Those that have been proposed are deficient in some respect, making them inapplicable in some situations.

I'm still confused though. Why did Aristotle think reason is the, well, highest good? Did he think that it AND the facts of the world would lead us all to goodness? Perhaps by ''good'' he means something else, something other than morality? Or did he think goodness is part of Eudaimonia, the ''flourishing'' of a person?

(Y) Could you explain the difference between ''theoretical'' and ''practical'' reasoning of Aristotle?

''I like that song for many reasons, one of them is because people love it, although is a unusual song: it has a lot of humor changes, a lot of contrasts, arrangements... There is also a lovely saxophone solo.'' [The one who speaks in the text is a musician] — Dasein

Two main points:

1. I like that song

2. Is an unusual song

Point 1 and its reason (people love it) form an explanation because there's no issue re the author's likes and dislikes. The author doesn't have to prove that he likes something.

Point 2 and its reason (it has a lot of humor changes, a lot of contrasts, arrangements... There is also a lovely saxophone solo) form an argument because the author has to show or prove that the song is unusual.

There couldn't have been nothing — Michael Ossipoff

Well, NOTHING = nonexistence.

Abstract objects were always there, and didn't at some time appear to occupy what was once nothing. — Michael Ossipoff

But NOTHING isn't a concept.

‘‘There is nothing in this world more dangerous than a humiliated man.‘‘
Kai — Vajk

(Y)

There is, apparently, a form of logic called 'dialetheism', which is 'that there are true contradictions', or cases where the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold. It is the speciality of a philosopher called Graham Priest. — Wayfarer

I guess we'll have to first of all confirm that there are real contradictions. I think this is another topic but I think every scale of reality functions with its own set of rules, its own local logic. No one system of logic is all-encompassing and even basic axioms, like the law of noncontradiction, fail to carry over intact from one level to another.

I'm not saying that doesn't culminate in something truly known, but that scepticism has its place — Wayfarer

I agree but one accusation leveled against philosophy has been about it being ''unproductive'' and most replies I've seen seem to play on the meaning of ''productive'', saying things like ''we get a clearer perception of the issue'' and that, according to philosophers is productive. I like philosophy and I agree but this stock answer, or variations of it, doesn't actually answer the question, does it?

Logic needs WFFs (well formed formulas) to operate in a water tight fashion and real life is unlikely to yield many, apart from rather weak syllogisms and the like ... "so then, my good philosopher friend, can we not agree that in some cases it is true that not all men who are wealthy are... whatever..." etc etc, if you see what I mean. — Jake Tarragon

Yes, I understand but then the next question is, obviously, why the stress or emphasis on being rational? It doesn't lead anywhere at all.

This "cause" is a handle which we can turn to change things or gets renamed and reimagined as something friendly. — t0m

So, the motivation for rationality is an emotional one - a desire to align nature to our expectations, possibly fear too.

When I look at the fundamental question or the deepest why, I see the impossibility of an answer in principle and not as a matter of fact. — t0m

Why do you think that?

This makes them difficult to reason with. — Jake Tarragon

I agree this is true in everyday life. What about in philosophy - on serious issues. Most disagreements in serious philosophy can be triangulated to be with the premises - the beginnings of arguments. Doesn't that show that our world is contradictory; afterall, the only way to disagree, given logic isn't at fault, is if we start with contradictory premises.

I'm sure you know this - even science, the paragon of objectivity, isn't free of contradictions. I don't know how far I'm correct but contradictions are allegedly found in quantum physics. My humble opinion is that contradiction are a real and ineluctable part of our reality. What do you think this fact has on the way we do and expect of philosophy?

IMO, philosophers have willfully ignored the darkness. On the other hand, it's not clear that staring into the darkness is always useful. There are arguments to be made for false light. — t0m

This seems to be a matter of opinion. Look at what @Wayfarer wrote above. It's a, well, negative view of knowledge. There seems to be no real truth or knowledge to gain. Even if there is no one has found it (yet). It's more about finding and discarding false beliefs. You don't know the truth but you know the lies.

think that morality is perhaps an emergent compilation of many drives. It is these more fundamental drives that is being explored by Rhythm 0. We know morality is a natural cooperative expression as evidenced by societies around the world and that sometimes it all goes sideways. — MikeL

Possibly...

The one thing that strikes me the most is that when people are free to choose between a feather and a gun, their preference is for the latter and that too, as adults, fully(?) aware of the moral implications of the two objects. At the very least, Rhythm 0 implies that some form authority is necessary to control people and, paradoxically, this authority is itself designed and put there by the very people who are prone to, as you put it, ''go sideways''.

Your post is confusing...

think this way of framing the question would be unintelligible to Aristotle. It might be correct to say that Aristotle's conception of ethics is realist (it's not up to us, or up to our conventions, whether some action is good or bad) and cognitivist (it is either true or false that we ought to do this or that). But modern ethical theories often are foundationalist in the sense that they purport to deduce truths about value jugements, or about the moral goodness of actions, from general principles. This wouldn't make sense for Aristotle. — Pierre-Normand

And then you say...

But Aristotle's explanation of practical deliberation doesn't work like that at all. Aristotle's practical "syllogism" is merely analogous to a theoretical syllogism since it has a major premise (stating a general truth regarding an end pursued in action) and a minor premise (identifying a particular means and opportunity to achieving that end). The conclusion of the practical syllogism, though, isn't a proposition. It is an action (or an intention for the future), and it isn't arrived at deductively. In fact, it can't logically be arrived at deductively since actions don't have a propositional form. Rather, in order to be valid, the practical syllogism must reflect the wisdom of the agent in selecting both premises in accordance with the morally salient features of the situation (the end that ought to be pursued) and the reasonableness of the action (as a means to achieving that end). That is, among many potentially conflicting ends, the practically wise agent must judge which one of those ends has precedence over the other ones in light of, in part, the means available. And there is no general blueprint for doing that. — Pierre-Normand

He thought there were good reasons for being self-centered and also good reasons for being oriented ethically. — darthbarracuda

The balance - the middle path. Life, reduced to basics, is a balancing act between extremes, don't you think? Also, it depends a lot on perspective. Zoom in - the world is about you, to be brought under your will - satisfy your desires, whims and fancy. Zoom out - there's society, there's the Earth, then the Solar system, the milky way, the local cluster, and the universe itself...the self fades away until we realize our insignificance in the great scheme of things.

Why be moral? is a question not within ethics but outside of ethics. — darthbarracuda

I think morality only makes sense in a social context. As I said above, it's about realizing we're part of something bigger. The self loses importance...we give up our self and become part of a higher order of existence. What do you think?

This is why I think there really is no such thing as "choosing" to be ethical - because you either are or you are not. — darthbarracuda

I think you're correct, at least in the modern context where people have been stripped of Godly refuge. Without God, morality is a void and people are left confused, struggling between selfishness and altruism.

I also feel that people do choose between good and bad. Morality is imperfect and fails to provide us with a comprehensive guidelines and that, perhaps, can be misconstrued as morality not being a conscious, reasoned choice.

Virtue ethics, however, has notoriously struggled with defining what the good is by appeal to reason (and virtue). — darthbarracuda

I agree but for a different reason. I don't know how far this is true but in the present world the good, self-sacrifice, love, honor, fairness, honesty, etc. are equated with naivety, foolishness, even madness. Yes, the media and the government do give credit for virtuous acts but ask the man on the street and you'll get a different picture: good = a complete lack of understanding on human nature. It appears, therefore, that to be good requires us to ignore certain facts about the world (nonexistence of God, human nature to desire profit, power, money, and so on). So, reason actually forces us towards immorality, at least in self-defence if not for gain. Reason, alone, is inadequate.

Perhaps I misunderstood Aristotle. What I'm particularly hoping and looking for are the premises, the obvious truths that are necessary for Aristotle's idea on morality to make sense. He said it's enough to be rational to be good. Doesn't that imply that there are objective facts about the world that will, on applying reason, lead everyone to goodness?

Well, Zen and Greek philosophy have that in common. The saying of Socrates, 'all I know, is that I know nothing', could easily have come from the mouth of a Taoist sage - 'he that knows it, knows it not'. Of course one must interpret such sayings with care, as they don't denote mere absence of knowledge -
more a real sense of its inadequacies, especially in the face of the kinds of questions that Socrates would ask, about 'virtue' and 'wisdom'. — Wayfarer

Why do you think this is the case? Why is knowledge/truth so elusive (I know that I know nothing)? Some truths are clear, almost obvious, e.g. the color of grass, the cold of winter, etc. I think philosophers would regard such matters of fact as trivial. Other kinds of truth, you mentioned virtue and wisdom, are hard to pin down. Why so? Is life, of itself, vague and/or ambiguous - impossible to clarify?

By forfeit rationality do you mean following empathy and compassion over objective reason? — MysticMonist

Something like that. All I can say is that morality is a glue for social cohesion. I want there to be more to morality - something greater, more majestic, even cosmic. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic and that's all there is to morality.

Practical reason, as opposed to theoretical reason, is the part of reason that is concerned with determining what one ought to do rather than what one ought to believe. — Pierre-Normand

Hence, excellence in rationality -- practical and theoretical -- has virtue of character and practical wisdom as requirements — Pierre-Normand

Yes, but rationality alone doesn't cut it. I mean it's not enough to be just rational. I can go even further and say that, sometimes, rationality impedes the good.

What if it's not actually a problem? — Wayfarer

I think that answers a lot of my questions. Life isn't so easy to study. Life is multi-faceted and each side comes in many shades of meaning. Sometimes points of view converge, other times they diverge. For instance, dualism and theism fit together but materiaislm and theism do not. So, philosophy's like a game. We choose a starting point, follow logical rules and see where that takes us. I like that. It makes us explorers. Does this view trivialize philosophy, in an unacceptable way?

One of the characteristics of the Platonic dialogues is aporia — Wayfarer

I recently read about aporia. It's some kind of refinement of ignorance - a higher level of not knowing. Sounds Zen to me.

Well, my final take from your post is that gaining knowledge is more about discarding falsehoods than acquiring truths.

What I find strange is that rationality is elevated to the highest position in the philosophical enterprise and all that it has shown is there is no real reason to be good or bad, for that matter.

Therefore, it looks like morality may require us to forfeit rationality.

This makes them difficult to reason with. — Jake Tarragon

This comment may apply to a forum like this one...imperfect as we are. However, disagreement exists at all levels - from casual exchanges to the most well thought out arguments. Surely the problem isn't with logic. It has to be with the premises - our axioms. The only way this leads to contradictions is if the axioms themselves are contradictory. Life must be a contradiction.

With people, as they are fallible. — Frank Barroso

In which area do they err? The initial premises or in their logic? You see, the error must be in one of the two. Logic is fine. So the initial premises must be contradictory.

Another thing... this very thread is a case in point. Both of us are being reasonably logical and yet we disagree.

Is there any doubt that some people really do live better lives than others? Must we accept that mass murderers just have a different idea about what makes a good life? — anonymous66

I think that's an inevitable conclusion.

The eye and light - reason and divine inspiration. I like that. But one could ask for the rational basis for divine morality. Socrates' divine command problem.

It's not the worlds fault, nor is it logics. — Frank Barroso

Where does the fault lie? A very simple example of an obvious contradiction is Theism-Atheism. Both are philosophical claims and both are, purportedly, well-reasoned positions. There are great thinkers on either side. So, logic isn't a problem here. The only source of the contradiction is the initial premises - the, supposedly, obvious truths. So, why does this world throw contradictory truths at us? Isn't it, well, obvious, the world is a contradiction?

What is a "mental world"? — Cabbage Farmer

The world of thoughts, distinct from the physical world we touch, see, hear and feel. Pegasus exists in the mind, the mental world; it is a mental object/thing, isn't it?

It's beginning to sound as though you're saying that NOTHING, aka nonexistence, is a thing that exists, that is not merely conceptual, and that does not exist merely in the mental world. Is that the ballpark? — Cabbage Farmer

I'm saying exactly the opposite. NOTHING can't be physical or mental. Anything that exists in these two worlds have properties e.g. a banana is yellow and a pegasus has wings. But, NOTHING, being nonexistence, has no properties.

but the neglect of units — Cabbage Farmer

We can work with numbers without units. Pure arithmetic: 2 - 2 = 0. Ask yourself ''how many things there are in NOTHING?'' The answer is ''zero''.

Are there different Nothings? — bloodninja

I'm talking about a specific NOTHING - nonexistence, not anything. Perhaps yhis is what you mean by ''primordial nothing''.

I would tickle the gun with the feather and make a big speech. — Jake Tarragon

:D

Your explanation is good but so much for morality then.

But it is a mistake to oversimplify. I wouldn't say the opposition of pleasure and pain is a false dichotomy, just a slippery one. — Cabbage Farmer

It's my impression that rational examination of issues lead to simplification - we pare away the irrelevant, the incidental, the superfluous, etc. and focus on the essentials, the heart of an issue. Perhaps you mean that such an approach can lead to artificial situations, the purely hypothetical, which are so removed from reality as to be pointless.

I'd rather say the fact that people aren't rational enough, and don't have time or inclination to sort out their thoughts and experiences, leads them to many errors and confusions, including an oversimplified view of pleasure, pain, and their relation to action and happiness, for instance. — Cabbage Farmer

The only way I can make sense of the above is that life needs to be appreciated for its subtlety and variety. Isn't that why you warn against oversimplification? To me, this is good advice. We need to be recognize the complexity, so to speak, of life if we are to ever understand it. But, this complexity isn't amenable to reason because logic simply can't deal with it. For instance, I'd like clear-cut directives on morality but this, it turns out, is too complex for logic.

If you think the facts and the evidence don't line up with our concepts and accounts, don't blame logic. Blame our concepts and accounts. — Cabbage Farmer

I'm not blaming logic. I think it's a fine tool but I am saying that its application has failed to provide answers on crucial matters e.g. morality.

It seems to me that on balance, good information and good reasoning tends to increase the range of purposes and circumstances with respect to which we may be fit and satisfied and happy. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes indeed. Rationality is all about getting to the truth and one who is aligned to the truth should be happy, so long as his worldview is shaped by the truth.

What does it mean to say that life is a contradiction? I'm inclined to reject the claim. — Cabbage Farmer

Read my other thread: Is life a contradiction?

Certainly at least, the audience/accomplices felt they had a certain amount of license to be sensational given the presence of a loaded gun, razor blades etc. — Jake Tarragon

But there was also the feather. Why didn't people choose it over the gun? The feather and the gun are equally suggestive - the former associates with laughter and joy while the latter with pain and death. Why did the people pick the gun and the knife over the feather?

That struggle is not moral, our actions, the things we do, are moral or immoral. — Cavacava

But our actions are determined by our decisions. This ''amoral struggle'' resolves into decisions and then actions. So, what tips the balance in this struggle?

In Rhythm 0, the leader is absent. The audience consisted of adults so no, curiosity doesn't fully explain its behavior.

In our ordinary lives we live in an interference pattern of choice between wicked and good. — MikeL

What if there isn't any choice, specifically, a rational choice to be good? Morality is just mirage and, obviously, people aren't convinced by the weak arguments promoting it. Think of it. The very fact that all moral theories fail to convince anyone, unless s/he is already convinced, is evidence that no one has, as yet, discovered anything substantial in the field.

practical and theoretical — Pierre-Normand

What is practical isn't good e.g. it's practical to kill all old people since they're, well, useless (this isn't my view).

Theoretically, good hasn't been found. Isn't that why ethics isn't well established?

In other words, rationality is necessary but not sufficient. — bloodninja

Some would say the exact opposite is true. Being rational has obstructed people from being good. They lost faith in God, once a powerful motivator of goodness. Rationality has failed to ground morality on firm foundations, leaving us stranded in a confusing moral landscape. It seems, therefore, that, to some extent, rationality is an impediment to morality. There was a time, before the Age of Reason, when people had faith in God and divine morality held sway.

I believe morality is groundless and that we are empty conformists. — bloodninja

I have the same feeling. Reason has failed or rather, succeeded in unequivocally proving that morality has no foundation, at least nothing objectively perceivable.

People might think that they are expected to be sensational, for example. — Jake Tarragon

So, you're saying the artist was suggesting the audience to be ''sensational''. Isn't it strange that people would ''sexually assault'' under a creative license?

What I feel is that in the Milgram Experiment the authority was evil and so I think the subjects can be forgiven for their acts - at least that's what is the general consensus.

However, in Marina's art work people were given freedom - to be good OR bad or anything. Yet, they chose a path that was ultimately bad.

If this shows anything it's that in morality there has to be both incentive (for being good) and deterrence (against being bad). Human nature can't be trusted.

For example, perhaps initial instincts to torture in a consequence free environment are driven more by curiosity and a desire for norm-breaking rather than malice or sadism, and perhaps these instincts lessen in favour of empathy on repeated trials. — sime

Nothing is without consequence. In Rhythm 0, the acts of the audience has consequences for both it and Marina. The audience wasn't a bunch of troglodytes who didn't understand pain or death and were simply acting on curiosity. May be I'm not entirely correct on this - perhaps the audience wanted to test Marina's resolve. But they could've tickled her with the feather or done something benign and yet they chose to test the other end of the good-bad spectrum. Why is that?

I suspect that most gamers get bored of playing tyrannical torturers pretty quickly, and that once they are in psychological equilibrium with the game they tend to only torture and imprison a perpetrator in direct proportion to their sense of injustice and grievance due to the actions of the perpetrator. — sime

How evil can one get? Boredom or satiety will eventually reign in destructive habits. Or do they? Serial killers have to be forcibly stopped. Evil needs to be controlled and if that's impossible, snuffed out. So, you're views aren't mainstream on this one. Why do you think that way?

What the two cases show is that people can be evil under authority and in complete freedom. Basically, what it shows is that the current paradigm (incentive for good and deterrence for bad) is the correct one. It's tough being good - we need rewards to keep us motivated. It's easy being evil - we need tangible disincentives to keep us in control.

Good and evil are essential parts of what make us human, an amoral struggle within us that is never resolved. — Cavacava

If this ''amoral struggle'', a very indifferent analysis in my opinion, defines us what's the point of being good?

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26

My two-cents:

Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:

1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.

2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.

3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.

Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say.

The dichotomy of pleasure and pain is slippery. — Cabbage Farmer

One may be pained in one respect and pleased in another by the same state of affairs. — Cabbage Farmer

Good point. Life, taken as a whole, is exactly that. Yet, people have a tendency to make this dichotomy. Optimists fail to see the shadows, pessimists fail to see the light, etc. So, if this dichotomous view is an error then I'm not alone. Why do you think people are prone to this mistake? Methinks it's got something to do with our way of thinking, specifically rationality. Logic, if we're to use it effectively, requires sharply defined categories with no room for the possibilities you point out (situations evoking both pain and pleasure...life in general). I think to be happy a person has to abandon rigid reasoning.

I would say such cases of self-deception are not "willing", but rather inadvertent. — Cabbage Farmer

We'll have to argue on what ''inadvertent'' means but I accept that a person definitely wants to avoid contradictions. That brings us back to the beginning of your post - Life is a contradiction. Can we, in that case, even with the utmost deliberation, avoid contradictions? Again, we see the role of rationality, trying to arrange reality into neat compartments with clear boundaries. I think this enterprise is a fool's errand.

What does it mean to say "NOTHING is nonexistence"? Do you mean that "Pegasus does not exist" and "Pegasus is NOTHING" are essentially the same claim? — Cabbage Farmer

I was clear (at least I tried to be) that a thought, one of which is a pegasus, is not nonexistence. A pegasus is an idea and exists in the mental world. It may have no physical correlate but a pegasus exists in the mind. So, no, I don't think a pegasus is NOTHING.

NOTHING is a concept — Cabbage Farmer

NOTHING is not a concept. I believe we can have concepts OF things but the concept is not equivalent to the thing we have a concept of. This part is still unclear to me but my reasoning is that NOTHING, being defined as nonexistence, can't be a concept because concepts exist in the mental world. So, I think we have a concept OF NOTHING and this concept is something similar to a road sign pointing to NOTHING without itself being that which it points to.

So far as I can see, the main difference between zero and nonexistence is that zero is a number concept with a role in a system of number concepts, whereas the concepts of existence and nonexistence are distinct from, and I suppose logically prior to, any concept of number. — Cabbage Farmer

Zero is, to me, the quantity of NOTHING. If you have 2 dogs and I buy them both you're left with NOTHING, or in other words, zero dogs. Nobody will question my math. However, I do agree that NOTHING is prior to zero.

But, today some people do deny that man has a nature, and claim rather that "existence precedes essence". They claim that each individual decides for himself what makes his life a good one. — anonymous66

I think I get it now. Humans have a choice to be what they want to be. There is no predetermined nature we are slaves to. That also makes us responsible for our actions. The bright side is we can decide out life-path.

I think there's truth in such a view. To say the least, we function, live our lives, under this assumption.

Does humanity as a group have an essence that has been or will be discovered? Or must each individual human decide for herself what her essence is? — anonymous66

I think essence is a categorical term i.e. applies to classes or categories. An individual can't have an essence, the way I see it.

What I find strange is that the whole business of classifying reality into categories depends on essence. The essence of man is rationality. The essence of a horse is speed. Am I wrong?

So in fact S is not false, but illogical!!! — Pippen

S = all statements are false
S' = all statements but S is false AND S is false
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument A
You say S can't be true because that would make S false: the contradiction S & ~S. Then you conclude, by RAA, that S is false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument B. You go on...
S = S'

You say S' can't be false because of the clause ''S is false'' which is the Liar statement and is neither true nor false. So S can't be false too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your argument rests on the assumption that a conjunction of a proposition with a nonproposition can't have a truth value. Am I right?

The problem is such conjunctions, as you've used, are syntactically wrong. Conjunctions, or any logical operator, are restricted to propositions. Since ''S is false'' (the Liar statement) isn't a proposition, S' is not a proposition and so has no truth value. Do you mean this?

What's important is that S is interpreted as ''all statements but S are false''.

The only way I can make sense of Rolf Landauer's claim is through the necessity of the physical for information storage, manipulation or its transmission.

Such a view, though, seems vacuous. What have we gained and how can we get a better understanding on the issue through this finding? Perhaps, as your OP suggests, there may be more to information than just physicality and such a view may be more amenable to further analysis.

So you see my point. There simply is no other way to make psychology scientific or is there? Assuming, of course, that all things science must be quantitative.

However, these types of statistical data can form the basis of qualitative analysis. For instance, knowing most college educated people favor atheism can be used to field theories on why this is the case. Perhaps then, predictions, confirmation or disconfirmation will follow.

Not everything in science is quantifiable, in fact that is why we have the two terms. — Jeremiah

Can you give some examples? Physics, chemistry are entirely mathematical. Biology is following suit, with some difficulty I must say.

Demand them to prove it. — MikeL

Atheists don't have to prove anything. They just have to disprove theism. At least that's how it looks to me. As I said, the first move was theism and atheists have responded to theistic arguments through refutation.

As for science, it's not on any side of the debate. As I said, scientific discoveries are proposed as evidence for God - the design argument is based on the order/patterns that exist in the universe. Atheists think this argument from design is flawed.

One specific area where science actually disagrees with relgion is on the matter of creation - the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years or so old and Geology says its 4 billion years old. So, who is right? Evolution too is considered anti-religious in a similar fashion. What do you think? Is science anti-theism?

How do you know that the laws of the universe are not governed by a creator? — MikeL

That question cuts both ways: How do you know that the laws of the universe were put into place by a creator?

what you are counting here, your data, is categorical rather than itself being quantitative. — Srap Tasmaner

I may be wrong but how else can we quantify psychology? Can we measure thoughts or emotions in any a way other than how I described it?

We c are still discovering new types of life on this planet in areas we thought life couldn't exist. Have patience. The universe is quite large and there is plenty of time to explore it. — Rich

I don't know. What do you expect to find? More life? And how does that help arguments for God?

Still not the variable of interest. Understanding that difference is a common exam question in intro stats courses. Everyone always makes the same mistake you are making, but it is categorical. — Jeremiah

Ok. What would count as a good question of inquiry in psychology?

Precisely. It is because we are aware of ourselves, can stare in awe at nature, and understand we are more than the sum of our parts that drives us to seek out the places where the creator may have left his fingerprint. We feel unique and transcendent above simple cause and effect relationships. — MikeL

The universe is awesome in what sense? We're alive but life exists on only one planet and that too confined to certain areas on the globe. Could it be that our awe is misplaced and that we should actually rue our miniscule solitary existence in the universe?

In the meantime the other side doesn't have to do any work at all to justify their assertion that life arises spontaneously through chemical interaction. They have no solid case, which is why they turn the argument back on you rather than outlining their own proofs. If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them. — MikeL

Well, it seems that we have to slide the viewing window back to the origin of the issue. We can then see that the first move in this game was made by theists. Theists argued for the presence of a creator based on design. The atheistic position is the refutation, the second move, so to speak. The ball is in the theists' court I'm afraid.

I'm agnostic. I think our knowledge is too limited and our ignorance too vast to come to any definite conclusion.

saying that we know life arose naturally because we can form some of these base chemicals is an argument comparable to saying that we know a house arises naturally because we can get clay out of the ground and in certain conditions heat it and shape it into bricks. — MikeL

Well, I understand the scientific position as that of remaining within the bounds of the observable and measurable. Science is descriptive - it studies phenomena and looks for patterns. Many patterns have been discovered; the so-called laws of nature. This information is used by theists to claim God's existence but, as I said above, atheists think this analogy is like comparing apples to oranges and they're right. We don't have a collection of universes governed by laws made by a creator. If this were the case then the analogy would be a good one but it isn't so it fails.

Most is not a quantitative unit of measurement nor is it the variable of interest. — Jeremiah

What if I said 90% of people with a college education don't believe in God. Can I rephrase 90% as ''most''?

And name a science that does not use statistics. — Jeremiah

So, psychology is a science then, right?