Below are discussions on 'Knowledge Beyond Science'.

The outcome was predictable. The exchanges were nonetheless erudite, and at times entertaining. David Helfand's perfectly reasonable stance is that he is a skeptic who sees no reason to believe in god in the absence of evidence. Ken Miller's position is that the world is the way it is as a result of a protracted history and natural selection (evolution) over billions of years. However, he goes with the limited theist view that the Universe itself and our human concepts of meaning, purpose, morality and so forth demand explanation beyond the realm of science. Evolutionary and sociological rationales are apparently not enough. Miller did not explain why god would become so deeply and only recently interested in the temporary inhabitants of a small planet if our existence is contingent (as he agrees) rather than determined in advance. He is correct in observing that science and beliefs are not necessarily incompatible. An obvious difficulty that he chose not to address is that numerous widely held beliefs are in fact incompatible with our science-based understanding of the natural world. That was the crux of the Dover, Pennsylvania 'Intelligent Design' case in which Miller was the lead witness for the plaintiffs: "Intelligent Design is a science stopper."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Nicholas Christie-Blick
Professor and Frontiers of Science Chair for Fall, 2010

Last night, you both offered possible scientific explanations for our psychological/moral sense of right and wrong, a subject on which you seemed largely in agreement. But how do these psychologically perceived moral laws have any binding force? And if they lack binding force, are we not left with the reality that, "Without God everything is permitted"?

What is death? What do you believe happens to us after death? Do you think that we ever judged for wrongs committed during our lives?

"And if they [moral laws] lack binding force, are we not left with the reality that, 'Without God everything is permitted'?"

"What is death? What do you believe happens to us after death? Do you think that we ever judged for wrongs committed during our lives?"

I offer the following opinion:

We [humans] establish the rules based upon some combination of objective evaluation of available facts, historical conventions and precedent, prejudice and politics - not necessarily in that order. So no, it is not the case that without god everything is permitted.

Nothing happens to us after death, other than rapid decomposition. We have one shot at life, good or bad. Judgment is rendered by history and by those we leave behind.

I think the phrase used above, 'objective evaluation' is regressive in that to make an objective evaluation you need to use rules again.So, if you're making rules based on rules, who makes the rules that makes the rules ?

If you say that it is only material benefit that makes our rules( I scratch your back, you scratch mine ), this is contrary to evolutionary studies that prove altruism exists even in animals, primates mainly.

Everyone knows that the body is subject to rapid decomposition, since that is what happens in the material world. But the question is what happens in the non material world ? If non material truths like beauty, justice, morality, mathematics(:O) live with us in this material world, isn't there every chance of a non material life after death ? The decomposition of the body is not evidence for the absence of a non material life after death.

Truth outside the material realm exists only in consciousness. Prior to consciousness, who is asking?

And if David Helfand and Ken Miller were to remove the “word” God, what one “word” would they use to replace it?

The ultimate reality in life is death. The fact that we are all going to die is inevitable. If there is no life after death, what does truth matter anyway? If decomposition and eternal nonexistence is what is waiting for me after 70-80 years of life, who really cares about truth? I mean both professors had a very intelligent discussion on truth beyond non-material but what good is truth in the face of death? To be clearer, what I mean is that whatever truth we seek in our life, it only applies to us and affects us while we are alive. But once we are dead, what good is truth to anyone? Do you think rotting dead flesh cares about truth? Therefore if there is no life after death, the “truth” we are seeking is an infinite truth which can only affect us for short period of time while we are alive in the world. But after we die we are no different than a dead dog, decomposing tree, or a rock. What good is truth then?

Instead, because people believe death is the END, we seek to please ourselves while we are alive. People don’t care about the truth. We care more about what makes me happy and what will make me happy while we are alive. Because if there is no life after death, then life is all we have. And because life is all we have, seeking a happy life becomes more important than truth.

“Nothing happens to us after death, other than rapid decomposition. We have one shot at life, good or bad. Judgment is rendered by history and by those we leave behind.”

I think this is one of the common beliefs people have about judgment after death. If this is true, what is the difference between Mother Teresa, Hitler, and my dog Spot after death? The three lived very different lives but the same fate of eternal nonexistence and physical decomposition awaits them all. If nothing happens to us after death, we are no different than a dog or a bug AFTER death. From the dead’s point of view, who cares about how history judges them? They are already dead! Do you think that any kind of “good” or “bad” judgment rendered by history has any affect on those who are already dead? Right now, do you think Hitler is regretting the life he lived because history has rendered him as “evil”? Besides, judgment rendered by history is always biased, incomplete and flawed anyway. Historical judgments after the fact (or death) are not always accurate or dependable.

If there is no ultimate judgment or an ultimate standard of “good” or “bad”, the only thing we are left with are different perspectives and points of views in which anything can be argued for or against anything using any reasonable means to justify whatever you want to justify. (I’m speaking from long experiences of writing papers :))))

This question came through the feedback survey:

How do you come up with specific religious beliefs when there are so many options and you can't test which ones are better?

"Without God, everything would be permitted."

The above statement is true. Not because a God, real or imagined, effects moral laws, but because powerful representatives uses Him to promote their own moral laws, or rather to force them on societies. Indeed, if "God is dead," as Nietzsche conceptualized, moral laws would return to something similar to those of the pagans: strength, glory, power, et cetera...as opposed to the Christian, or religious, ideas of morality: charity, compassion, virtue. Again, would this mean that "everything would be permitted"? Indeed. But the more important question would be, Is this bad? If a man is willing to risk his life for, say, religion, or for that matter, to risk the lives of others as well, then this hardly differs from a situation where he risks his life for glory. The outcome is the same. The one difference, however, is significant. If man follows his own moral laws, that is, the moral laws that more closely agree with his will to power--whether that power be found in money, politics, family, or other such things--then that is true morality. (And yes, there is a true morality: it is man's will to power, which is innate.) As Nietzsche would have it, "Be what you are."

Another question from the feedback survey:

If we admit that there must be some such thing as faith in general, how do we then choose which God to believe in? Why the Christian God instead of the Hindu gods? Why not the invisible unicorn?