I would say that it is easier to get people to agree on facts than on values. Yet, even when it comes to basic facts, it can be impossible to convince certain people because of their ideological or religious views. Like in the case of climate change. When I run into a climate science-denier, and I ask them specific questions about the science --- are they denying that carbon absorbs radiation, despite we can demonstrate this in a lab? Are they denying that the increase in carbon is coming from human activity, as we can identify the isotopes involved? Are they denying that radiation is being absorbed exactly where predicted, as we have satellite measurements verifying this? What exactly is being denied? A lot of times they will concede the scientific points, as they have no evidence against any of them, while still denying human caused climate change, but, at least I stump them on the facts and after awhile, they really have no basis for their denial. I have convinced a handful of deniers that they are wrong by simply focusing on the facts and not letting them just generalize the topic.

Nils Loc: I largely agree with you. I personally hate Trump's rhetoric, as it is hateful, and packed full of lies. I don't think any sitting president should speak like he does or behave like he does. However, that is a moral condemnation, as I am not able to establish that his speech caused any of the violence.

If I had to guess, I would say social media is a far greater cause regarding these violent terrorist attacks.

I'm also not saying that Trump's speech may very well be a contributing cause, like you stated. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. My point is that I am not sure how anyone can make such a claim now, given the evidence of a causal link not being demonstrated in any meaningfully scientific way.

Praxis: Quit assuming nonsense. Jesse Dollamore, or some name like that, just posted a video yesterday from his site about how Trump's speech caused the violence. Numerous news shows say the same thing, as well as numerous articles that have been posted all over the web. The Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC, they all have been saying it, for days. If you are too lazy to find these postings, then that's not my problem, it is yours.

Not to mention you keep, at the very least, insinuating, that Trump's speech has caused the violence. With zero evidence to support your claim. You have actually proved my point if anything.

Marchesk: Nazism is objectively worse, because it can't function. It's not a method of having people flourish, and that's what morality is all about. If you want to say morality means something different, then I have no idea what you mean by morality, and nor do I care. I'm sticking with the real world issues, and as a practical matter if morality does not deal with how people can flourish and get along well with others, then it is simply a meaningless term.

As far as your claim it's merely a human opinion, so it can't be objective, that argument is not a very good one. It's also a human opinion that the laws of physics exist, after all, if we didn't exist, there is no evidence that anyone would know anything about the laws of physics.

No system we have is grounded --- science, mathematics, logic, they all rest on faith. In logic and mathematics, we rely on the faith in axioms. In science, we rely on the circular reasoning of using induction to support induction, which means science remains ungrounded. The distinction between theists and others has nothing to do with the issue of faith, as all of us have faith. Philosophers have shown this over and over again. We cannot even trust there is a world outside of ourselves without faith, it simply cannot be proven in any concrete fashion. The distinction is that some theists make claims to knowledge that they do not possess. That's the real dividing line.

Praxis: All over. Just click on YouTube and watch videos of CNN, MSNBC, and numerous political pundits. They have been saying over and over that Trump is responsible. It's simply something that they want to believe, but they have no evidence for their claim, and given the facts known, it is doubtful his rhetoric caused the violence. If Trump's rhetoric was the cause, then I would think we would have a lot more people committing these violent acts, because a hell of a lot of people have been exposed to Trump's rhetoric for years now.

Marchesk: Are you saying that if a society adopted rules that allowed for legalized child-rape that you would consider that society as equally moral to one that outlawed child-rape? I don't, and the reason why is because I view morality as a way of people being able to flourish and how we can get along with one another to do so. Therefore, there would have to be better and worse answers on how to achieve that flourishing among people. This is an idea going back to Aristotle. Setting up a society along the lines of Nazism is objectively worse than establishing a society along the lines of the current US Constitution. The Nazi society will crumble and kill many millions in the process of doing so.

Marchesk: One cannot rule out the existence of an objective morality no matter how many people disagree over moral issues. The reasons for this are quite simple --- everyone could be wrong, or one person could be wrong, and the others right, or more than one person could be objectively right. There is nothing about an objective morality that rules out more than one morally right answer, nor would it rule out disagreement. In fact, recall that there was a time that everyone thought Newtonian mechanics was right, and it turned out everyone was wrong. Did that rule out objective knowledge regarding the laws of physics?

Praxis: Okay, so you think relying on a post hoc fallacy proves your point? Show me any scientific evidence for how Trump's rhetoric caused the bombings, which is a claim numerous people on major news outlets have been making. And how is it that so many millions of people believe in what he says, yet, only one of them mailed off bombs? That seems to be a rather suspicious causal connection.

Keep in mind too, I HATE Trump. However, regardless of my feelings for Trump, I refuse to be manipulated into believing something without evidence. And in this case, the act that was most violent last week, the gunning down of eleven Jews at a synagogue, was done by a man who hated Trump. So, did Trump's rhetoric also cause a man who hates him to murder Jews?

There may be a lot of hateful rhetoric out there, especially by main-stream politicians, and I certainly do not like that rhetoric. However, I fail to see any reason to believe that such rhetoric caused any of the violence last week. Any more than I would say it was caused by violent video games, or social media posts, or mental illness, or long-standing acceptance of anti-Semitism, etc. There are many possible causes, but no one could possibly know what the actual cause was because no one has even studied the issue scientifically at this point.

Rank Amateur: I understand that you are claiming such a right exists, but what is your claim based on besides pure speculation on your part? And if the right is inalienable, understand that this means the person cannot even waive it, like if a person has a right to life, he cannot request he be put out of his misery if suffering greatly from a terminal illness. In which case, this so-called right is used as a source of abuse against the person, which is one reason for anyone to be highly suspect that any such right exists in reality.

Praxis: Are you claiming then that you know that Trump's rhetoric caused the bomber to send out bombs? If Trump's rhetoric was the cause, then how come only one person mailed off bombs as opposed to the millions and millions of people who listen to Trump and support him? How do you know that even if Hillary won, that this bomber wouldn't have tried to blow up CNN? After all, didn't he make a bomb threat years ago, long before Trump became president?

There are no facts, just interpretations.

Because people disagree over moral issues, then morality must be subjective.

If we view depression as an illness, then wouldn't a person being healthy be the opposite of depression, in the same way a healthy person would be the opposite of someone with cancer?

I reject premise one. Why would some supposedly greatest being of all be worthy of unconditional worship?

I reject premise two. If the unconditional obedience aligned with one's moral beliefs, then how is there a conflict?

I reject premise three. The science is still out on this issue, but, at present there appear to be many causes behind our beliefs and behaviors that are not fully within our control.

This is the libertarian argument for open borders, and I think it has a number of problems. First of all, how can you say everyone has "rights"? I do believe within a general moral framework, I can agree with the statement that people should not be abused, but this is not the same thing as claiming that people have something known as a "natural right." I have rights as an American citizen, because I am a citizen, and non-citizens do not have the same rights that I have. And if natural rights did exist, how would you know what their scope s? How is it that I wouldn't have a natural right to form a nation with other people where we set limits on who can become our fellow citizens?

As a practical matter, national borders and a restriction on citizenship does help to preserve the workings of a nation, both in economic terms as well as cultural/political terms. I'm not a xenophobe, and recognize we are a land of immigrants, and I wish we had an easier path to citizenship for people already here, who are working and staying out of trouble, but, I don't see why just anyone should be allowed to enter the USA.

Math is definitely the closest related philosophy subject, but, it's not for everyone. Philosophy is about arguing, and that's what a mathematical proof is --- an argument. History also seems to overlap with philosophy, at least intellectual history. There are also options in cognitive science, which may also be useful for graduate work in artificial intelligence. You could also do something like minor in biology, and then go to medical school with a philosophy major. Law school is also an option for philosophy majors.

Arkady: Okay, then, I'll make it simple for you --- science only makes epistemological claims. To the extent that you think otherwise, you are wrong, and are confusing philosophy for science.

Your proposal is doomed to failure. We have had times when government has collapsed in the USA, and the result has been mass rioting, not peaceful co-existence. Without a state establishing a currency, there is no free-trade. Without a state establishing roads, and uniform traffic laws, you couldn't even get to and from your home to work without risking your life in a major way or risk being banned from using the only roads to get back home. Things like liberty only exist within a governmental framework. I only own my home, because the government establishes property rights. If a government did not exist, if I left my home to go to work, someone else could move in and take my home from me while I was gone. You are assuming that the functions of government will exist without a government, when there is no theoretical or empirical reason to believe this would ever happen.

As far as civility in politics is concerned, it's never been civil. The founders engaged in insults against each other that make today's partisan insults seem paltry in comparison. William F. Buckley, Jr., and Gore Vidal debated with each other, because those people who sponsored the debate thought they would demonstrate civility, as both were highly educated. The result? They called each other names, Buckley threatened to punch Vidal, and both ended up suing each other afterwards. Why? Because political differences are not so much a function of arguments, but is mainly biologically wired into us. So, on political issues, we cannot agree on topics like we can in the world of science, math, engineering. Welcome to the human condition.

Jeremiah: What I stated is a fact. You are as ignorant of science and boring as Sir2u, so I'm also done responding to you. You literally can't grasp what is taught to students in a basic introductory science course within the first two weeks. That's how ignorant of science you are. Carry on with your childishness with someone else who actually cares what you think. I for one couldn't care less what you have to state on this topic.

Paleontology claims what is rational to believe based on the evidence, not what actually exists now or earlier. If you are a realist, then you can take the epistemological claims of paleontology and consider them real, and I imagine most people do so, including myself, but that does not mean that science makes anything more than epistemological claims. Obviously, those claims are about what exists, and that's where people start to get confused on the limits of science, because the epistemology seems to merge into ontology.

I agree with unenlightened and Purple Pond. There can't be an unstoppable force if there is an unmovable object, and there cannot be an unmovable object, if there is an unstoppable force. The question makes no sense.

People can be realists, but, that is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. This is why regardless of whether a person is a realist or not, it does not affect scientific research, just the meaning they assign to it.

Sir2u: I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here.

Just ignore them. There are some people who do not respond to rational arguments, and after awhile you'll see it's a complete waste of time dealing with them. Just focus on the people who can grasp rational arguments.

The USA currently has an authoritarian, science-denying, racist, conspiracy-theorist in the white house, and there is about 25% of the country who does not care how many lies he tells, as long as he supports an agenda of bigotry and hatred. As an American, I am completely disgusted with Trump and his followers. I've never hated a president so much as I hate Trump. I stand for liberty, equal rights for everyone, and democratic institutions, which means I am against everything Trump and his followers stand for.

Sir2U: You claimed, "Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings." That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material.

Jeremiah: There you go again with your childishness. No where in your question did you rule out God being a supernatural being, and for many billions of people, that is precisely how they view God. So, it is you who has demonstrated yet again that you cannot even grasp the most basic logical thinking. Yes, I am positive I know more about logic, math, and science than you. In fact, I am 100% positive that you are at the remedial level when it comes to such subjects.

Justr give it up already. There is no science textbook at any major western university that supports your bullshit claims. Not one. They all support my position. The only time students discuss the existence of God issue on college campuses is in the philosophy classroom, or the literature classroom, or the theology classroom, not in the physics classroom. If you would actually read an actual science textbook and go through the problem sets, you'd realize, very quickly, how absurd your position is. But, instead, you get your science "education" from ideologues, which is never good for anyone.

I think the science is pretty clear --- we have biases that are largely based on our biology. When a neuroscientist can come up with a more accurate prediction of whether someone is right-wing or left-wing based on a brain scan of brain structures, than a social scientist can predict based on political party affiliation, then we are looking at biology as a basic foundation for our political, moral, views. Other research has also linked numerous psychological dispositions to biology and personality traits as well. Given this, I don't think it will be possible for any person to ever look at the world without having a biased view to some extent.

I largely agree with Metaphysician Undercover's above comment. I've been arguing on the thread I started regarding the relevance of Hawking's opinion on God, that science is mainly about epistemological claims, not ontology or metaphysics. Science is about establishing what claims can justifiably be made about reality, and that is epistemology, not metaphysics.

Jeremiah: What is your question? All I've seen from you is childish nonsense. I did see you ask a foolish question about what would discover God first, science or religion, which I answered. Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. It's simply not a topic for science. If you would actual pick up a physics textbook, work through the problem sets, then you'll realize that science has doodly squat to do with the God issue, which is why I have stated Hawking's opinion on whether God exists carries no more weight than some drunken idiot's opinion on the topic.

Jeremiah: If there was an actual creator and it was supernatural, then science will never discover it, which is why real science makes no statements regarding the supernatural, except to state science does not address them. There could be one supernatural being or trillions of them, and science will never, ever, detect them, if they actually existed.

As Thomas Paine pointed out, a past generation has no right to rule over the present generation. Why would they? And in a world where knowledge increases from one generation to the next, going with the delusional claim of "original intent" simply means we should try to discern what the intent was among a handful of people in an earlier generation who knew far less than we do now. As if that is a good idea?

Bitter Crank: You are right that the USA has been through a lot, and we have had conspiracy-theorists for presidents before, as well as racist and anti-Semitic presidents before, as well as presidents who ignore basic economics in favor of nationalistic policies. However, something the USA has never faced before is the rise of social media where now millions of people get manipulated by algorithms run by companies like Facebook and Google. Something like a third of Americans now support an authoritarian government, and I think the same is true for Germany, while Britain and France have half their populations in favor of some form of authoritarianism. I think in the USA something like half of the younger generation supports authoritarianism. I don't think this is a coincidence that the rise of social media correlates with the rise in authoritarianism movements in the west. Social media is a sewer-fest of ignorance and hate.

So, here we go. Trump is now blaming the so-called "fake news," which is merely news that criticizes Trump, for all of the recent bomb attacks. Never mind the fact every victim of these attacks has been a person that Trump himself has said hateful things about. Never mind the fact that Trump continues to support violence at his rallies. Never mind the fact that no main-stream media network has ever advocated for violence against anyone. Trump is not apologetic at all, and by blaming the main-stream media, the branches of the media that do not adopt Trump's lies and distortions and twisting of reality itself, Trump is condoning the violence.

Frank: In my case, there could still be conflict as I have many doubts about numerous issues. However, even assuming perfect agreement, I don't see how that would remove my personal identity. I'm not sure why it would.

It seems that I am not alone in how I feel about what is going on in America these days. That's good to know.

Jeremiah: The problem is that you know so little, you are actually impressed with your silly assertions.

@Tim Wood: I do think that Trump has a moral sense, if someone accepts pure egoism as morality. I personally don't, but some philosophers do. I think we shall hear him, over the next several days, make contradictory remarks, just like he did after the white-supremacist rally in Virginia, where sometimes he'll condemn the attempted bombing attacks and at other times he will signal he approves of them. I also don't think he'll ever condemn the attack against Soros, especially since just days ago, he was making up conspiracy nonsense against Soros.

When our own president starts to condone violence, then this could be the beginning of the end of our liberal democracy. It does concern me; a great deal. Two former presidents were attacked, a former secretary of state, a major news network and a philanthropist. Even if someone sent a pipe bomb to a person like David Duke, I'd be offended. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not that one gets murdered for saying something people don't like, even when it's offensive racist garbage by David Duke.

Jermiah: Oh, the IRONY in that last statement of yours. Hilarious.

Jeremiah: I see that it was you who made this comment, which I mistakenly thought was made by another user: "And yet, despite your claim of an education, you keep demanding proof of this non-existence; showing how little you actually understand the scientific process. It is like those people who demand science prove that vaccines never cause autism. It is an impossible standard and it cannot be done. Science can show that there is no evidence of a link, and it is on the lack of evidence where we draw our conclusion. Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence. So much for your college degree, as in this area it seems"

Now then it is you who needs to learn how to read, and not me, as I never claimed that science functions by proving things, although it most certainly does do this, despite people's love affair for Popper. After all, we know for a fact the Earth is not in the shape of a square, and never can be, as it is a three-dimensional spatial object, and it can never be described as a two-dimensional shape, and that is a fact, a proven fact,. and it won't change. We also know such other facts as an instantaneous velocity, where the velocity is not constant, can not be directly calculated algebraically, but has to be approximated through a limit process, and this fact will never change either.


What I stated, however, was that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, because science does not address the issue, at all. You are also not able to read my numerous comments where I have stated I do not believe in any God, I am an atheist, however, unlike you, I know science, have a physics degree I earned long ago, and am planning to attend grad school in the next couple of years in applied mathematics. I love science so much that I refuse to stand by why anyone, whether creationists or atheists, distort it to serve their ideological views.