JESUS is Overrated
- Thread starter Javery
- Start date
[quote name='mykevermin']
Gains power where? How? Scientific evidence does not mean a damn thing to our current administration; if it did, we would not have gone into Iraq, we would have embraced the Kyoto Protocol, we would not support supply-side economics, we would not support the privatization of social security. None of this would be the case if our nation embraced hard, empirical, scientific inquiry. I'm curious as to the location of science's power that you're referring to here; where is it gaining power?[/quote]
Where do you think those bombs come from that they are using in Iraq; and what about that computer you are typing this on? I'll give you a hint, its not the toothfairy. Science is responsible for many many of the activities that go on in the world today. It is only a matter of time until the scientists become established enough so that they can exert their power based on reputation alone. Just look here in this thread at how many people blindly pledge their allegence to science without really understanding much of it at all.
[quote name='mykevermin']
In addition (and I'm going to be overly ideal here, but the generalization holds), scientific inquiry and academic publication have a checks and balances system of sorts. You're not going to advance anything unless it is carefully scrutinized by your peers and criticized ad infinitum. Then, and only then, is it published in an academic publication (and we all know that academic publications are read less than popular publications like Chinchilla Illustrated, Gingham Fetish Monthly, and my favorite, Pork!. Scientists have to go through a whole lot to gain credibility in their field, and it is a field that is too frequently ignored by those outside of it. Academics are often accused of seeing things from their "white towers," where they observe, but do not participate in, their daily lives. Well, I am of the persuasion that it's a two-way street that other rarely look down upon. Why is that, you ask? Well, it's due to the complexity of life; do you want a three-hour lecture on the complexity of sexuality in the real world, its relation to population density, the social construction of beauty, and other related topics (all of which are just the tip of the iceberg), or do you want to see your spiritual leader, who says "straight, good; queer, bad"? The appeal of simplicity is boggling (to my mind, at least).
On the other hand, how frequently do you see the Rev. Jerry Falwell on telelvision, discussing the need for morals in our nation? What is his reputation? What are his credentials? When he supports abstinence-only sexual education, that is what you see and hear in the media. Abstinence-only. Never mind that the scientific research says that abstinence-only education does not work. It delays the initial onset of intercourse for nonmarried peoples by around 18 months; when the average age of first intercouse is around 16-17, you will see that students in abstinence-only classes are still around high-school kids.
The difference for these kids is that they lack the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases BECAUSE they engaged in abstinence-only education. The short story: abstinence-only education (1) marginally delays the onset of first intercourse and (2) increases the likelihood of pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Despite this, it is still being promoted, uncritically, by the major media.
Who has the power now? Academics? Science? Surely you jest.[/quote]
Your criticisms are with the administrative faculties. Much of religion today is severely lacking in good administration. However, religion was not always lacking in checks and balances. This is merely the aftermath of tremendous power and corruption. When science runs its course it will eventually meet the same problem.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']As the truth is found, beliefs supported or supporting religions disapear. Therefore, religion beliefs are just convienient place holders used to keep the masses appeased.[/quote]
You can repeat this vague mantra all you want, but that won't make it true. What "truth" is being found that challenges religion at large? It certainly isn't science as the truths persued by religion and science are orthogonal. Religion tries to answer "why" and science tries to answer "how". Finding out "how" can never contradict "why".
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I didn't say science "is" the truth, I only said it "seeks the truth". Unlike religion which just repeats the same old tired beliefs until science forces it to adapt.[/quote]
Way to put the spin on it. Religion also seeks the truth and science repeats the same old tired beliefs about objective empiricism, while ignoring the fact that empiricism can not exist without a subjective observer.
What can I say? Traditional thinking usually fights any new ideas tooth and nail. Religion just happens to be older than science so it exhibits more inertia. Science will eventually reach the same kind of inertia and unwillingness to adapt. Again I will repeat that science does not have any mystical property to protect it from inertia. You may believe that it does and that is fine, but don't try to pretend that this is anything other than blind faith in the community. With enough power the community will be corrupted.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Religion is only powerful in the sense that it keeps the masses from thinking for themselves. It's usefulness is as a pacifier for the weak. It offers no answers, only tired mysticism and empty hope.[/quote]
The supernatural is fact. It is unreasonable and illogical to think otherwise. To stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist is not an answer. Science does not address the supernatural. Religion does. So no matter how polished scientific thought is compared to religious thought you cannot find the truth using science alone. Furthermore, I think that the scales are balanced because the questions that religion tries to answer are more important than those that science tries to answer. You cannot study semiconductor physics unless you have a reason to get out of bed. Religion can provide that reason by trying to answer questions of purpose, while science cannot. In other words, science tries to answer the easier and less important questions, so of course it does a better job.
Religion is powerful. The sum of all human accomplishment until now would not have been possible without religion. Without answers to the question of purpose man has no motivation to perform science or anything else.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Science needs no "mystical powers to ward off corruption". The community self regulates. When any new finding is exposed other scientists throughout the world are there to question and try to replicate it. The concern is for the advancement of knowledge, and that keeps science honest. If a scientst proclaims something that can be shown to be false is true, the community will call bs.[/quote]
This is a good administrative approach and one that has been used before in many other contexts, including religious contexts. However, anything that is increasingly useful is powerful and you can be sure that with enough power anything will be corrupted no matter how good an administrative approach you have.
[quote name='camoor']
There's a quote from the man himself, by his own admission he would be considered an athiest using the commonly accepted definition of the word.
As for Newton, I love how the man who propelled our knowledge of physics and gravity is considered crazy because his interpretation of Christianity was different then the accepted norm. You'd think after the horrible things that Christians have done to scientists, and the dishonest ways in which Christianity has interpreted scientific findings (from "evolution is just a theory" to stem cells) that the Christians would jump to claim any scientist they could as their own. But no, if you don't accept every single utterance from the 's mouth, your Christianity is just crazy.[/quote]
He said by the definition of a Jesuit priest, who would consider any noncatholic, including the most devout muslim or jew, an atheist. I don't think that is the commonly accepted definition.
While he may not have subscribed to any particular religious community or institution, he believed that there existed a power higher than the universe (a sort of "god" of the universe), which means that he certainly wasn't an atheist.
The beliefs of religious crackpots like the president are no more relevant to the validity of religious thought than the pseudo-scientific rantings of a conspiracy theorist are relevant to the validity science.
Gains power where? How? Scientific evidence does not mean a damn thing to our current administration; if it did, we would not have gone into Iraq, we would have embraced the Kyoto Protocol, we would not support supply-side economics, we would not support the privatization of social security. None of this would be the case if our nation embraced hard, empirical, scientific inquiry. I'm curious as to the location of science's power that you're referring to here; where is it gaining power?[/quote]
Where do you think those bombs come from that they are using in Iraq; and what about that computer you are typing this on? I'll give you a hint, its not the toothfairy. Science is responsible for many many of the activities that go on in the world today. It is only a matter of time until the scientists become established enough so that they can exert their power based on reputation alone. Just look here in this thread at how many people blindly pledge their allegence to science without really understanding much of it at all.
[quote name='mykevermin']
In addition (and I'm going to be overly ideal here, but the generalization holds), scientific inquiry and academic publication have a checks and balances system of sorts. You're not going to advance anything unless it is carefully scrutinized by your peers and criticized ad infinitum. Then, and only then, is it published in an academic publication (and we all know that academic publications are read less than popular publications like Chinchilla Illustrated, Gingham Fetish Monthly, and my favorite, Pork!. Scientists have to go through a whole lot to gain credibility in their field, and it is a field that is too frequently ignored by those outside of it. Academics are often accused of seeing things from their "white towers," where they observe, but do not participate in, their daily lives. Well, I am of the persuasion that it's a two-way street that other rarely look down upon. Why is that, you ask? Well, it's due to the complexity of life; do you want a three-hour lecture on the complexity of sexuality in the real world, its relation to population density, the social construction of beauty, and other related topics (all of which are just the tip of the iceberg), or do you want to see your spiritual leader, who says "straight, good; queer, bad"? The appeal of simplicity is boggling (to my mind, at least).
On the other hand, how frequently do you see the Rev. Jerry Falwell on telelvision, discussing the need for morals in our nation? What is his reputation? What are his credentials? When he supports abstinence-only sexual education, that is what you see and hear in the media. Abstinence-only. Never mind that the scientific research says that abstinence-only education does not work. It delays the initial onset of intercourse for nonmarried peoples by around 18 months; when the average age of first intercouse is around 16-17, you will see that students in abstinence-only classes are still around high-school kids.
The difference for these kids is that they lack the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases BECAUSE they engaged in abstinence-only education. The short story: abstinence-only education (1) marginally delays the onset of first intercourse and (2) increases the likelihood of pregnancy and transmission of STDs. Despite this, it is still being promoted, uncritically, by the major media.
Who has the power now? Academics? Science? Surely you jest.[/quote]
Your criticisms are with the administrative faculties. Much of religion today is severely lacking in good administration. However, religion was not always lacking in checks and balances. This is merely the aftermath of tremendous power and corruption. When science runs its course it will eventually meet the same problem.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']As the truth is found, beliefs supported or supporting religions disapear. Therefore, religion beliefs are just convienient place holders used to keep the masses appeased.[/quote]
You can repeat this vague mantra all you want, but that won't make it true. What "truth" is being found that challenges religion at large? It certainly isn't science as the truths persued by religion and science are orthogonal. Religion tries to answer "why" and science tries to answer "how". Finding out "how" can never contradict "why".
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I didn't say science "is" the truth, I only said it "seeks the truth". Unlike religion which just repeats the same old tired beliefs until science forces it to adapt.[/quote]
Way to put the spin on it. Religion also seeks the truth and science repeats the same old tired beliefs about objective empiricism, while ignoring the fact that empiricism can not exist without a subjective observer.
What can I say? Traditional thinking usually fights any new ideas tooth and nail. Religion just happens to be older than science so it exhibits more inertia. Science will eventually reach the same kind of inertia and unwillingness to adapt. Again I will repeat that science does not have any mystical property to protect it from inertia. You may believe that it does and that is fine, but don't try to pretend that this is anything other than blind faith in the community. With enough power the community will be corrupted.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Religion is only powerful in the sense that it keeps the masses from thinking for themselves. It's usefulness is as a pacifier for the weak. It offers no answers, only tired mysticism and empty hope.[/quote]
The supernatural is fact. It is unreasonable and illogical to think otherwise. To stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist is not an answer. Science does not address the supernatural. Religion does. So no matter how polished scientific thought is compared to religious thought you cannot find the truth using science alone. Furthermore, I think that the scales are balanced because the questions that religion tries to answer are more important than those that science tries to answer. You cannot study semiconductor physics unless you have a reason to get out of bed. Religion can provide that reason by trying to answer questions of purpose, while science cannot. In other words, science tries to answer the easier and less important questions, so of course it does a better job.
Religion is powerful. The sum of all human accomplishment until now would not have been possible without religion. Without answers to the question of purpose man has no motivation to perform science or anything else.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Science needs no "mystical powers to ward off corruption". The community self regulates. When any new finding is exposed other scientists throughout the world are there to question and try to replicate it. The concern is for the advancement of knowledge, and that keeps science honest. If a scientst proclaims something that can be shown to be false is true, the community will call bs.[/quote]
This is a good administrative approach and one that has been used before in many other contexts, including religious contexts. However, anything that is increasingly useful is powerful and you can be sure that with enough power anything will be corrupted no matter how good an administrative approach you have.
[quote name='camoor']
There's a quote from the man himself, by his own admission he would be considered an athiest using the commonly accepted definition of the word.
As for Newton, I love how the man who propelled our knowledge of physics and gravity is considered crazy because his interpretation of Christianity was different then the accepted norm. You'd think after the horrible things that Christians have done to scientists, and the dishonest ways in which Christianity has interpreted scientific findings (from "evolution is just a theory" to stem cells) that the Christians would jump to claim any scientist they could as their own. But no, if you don't accept every single utterance from the 's mouth, your Christianity is just crazy.[/quote]
He said by the definition of a Jesuit priest, who would consider any noncatholic, including the most devout muslim or jew, an atheist. I don't think that is the commonly accepted definition.
While he may not have subscribed to any particular religious community or institution, he believed that there existed a power higher than the universe (a sort of "god" of the universe), which means that he certainly wasn't an atheist.
The beliefs of religious crackpots like the president are no more relevant to the validity of religious thought than the pseudo-scientific rantings of a conspiracy theorist are relevant to the validity science.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
You make this primordial ooze out to be so much more complex than it actually is. Experimentally if you take a simple chemical mixture containing compounds believed to be present several period billions of years ago and if you provide a source of energy simple amino acids form, nothing really magical about that, unless of course by magical you are referring to the limitless possibilities that can arise from allowing such a reaction to occur for a half billion years. [/quote]
You just wave your hands in the air and say "it happens". That doesn't explain anything. If you press the power button on the front of the microwave then the food inside will get cooked. Simple right? That doesn't detract from the complexity of the microwave. [/quote]
Primordial ooze is NOT complex. This is a fact.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Evolution is not a copout but rather a piece in answering the question. It is a step not an answer itself, obviously if life came from ooze the ooze itself must have originated from some where. It seems odd that in attacking evolution you start at its origins and neglect fossil records and genetic differentiation. It would seem rather odd for all life to be traced back to a single source that just appeared one day. To be a follower of science is simply to state that based on the facts life on this planet originated from chemicals present on earth rather than just appearing at some point. How did these chemicals get to be there? That we intend to find out.[/quote]
Yes it is a sort of answer. However, the way that it is phrased does not facilitate further questioning.
I don't understand what you are saying. How is chemicals being present and things appearing two different philosophies? If something is present then that implies that it appeared. Likewise if something appeared then that implied that there was a mechanism present by which it appeared. You can't have one without the other.....so there is no "present rather than appearing". [/quote]
There is a major difference between life developing out of existing chemicals and life forms simply appearing out of nothingness.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Of course science only gives you things as they are similar and related to one another. The basis of science is that everything is interconnected. What good would it do me to know the mass of oxygen if I couldn’t compare to it the mass of all the rest of the elements? Science would be completely useless if we didn’t describe things in ways that can be interrelated. Yet do not confuse this with a lack of ability to define things, it is quite a simple process to determine definite value and characteristic properties of items. For example the heat of enthalpy is known for copper and so is its solubility constant in water. These are definite characteristics, constant values. [/quote]
As you say, they are values (numbers), but what is the meaning of the units? If you only consider values then you are ignoring half of the picture. Meaning and purpose are not quantifiable properties. Interestingly purpose is probably the most significant property in defining what something truly is and this property is not examined by science at all. [/quote]
Purpose is a very personal thing which should be able to stand alone outside of science or religion. Unless you decide that your purpose is science or religion.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Religion important? Then why does everything it touches turn to dust? The first act of any new religion is to scour the past and remove conflicting ideas and concepts. Religions very nature is that of the destroyer. In order to survive it must destroy everything that contradicts it, for opposition leads to questions and questions ruin all ideologies as their perfection is shown to be a facade at best and a sham at worst. It helps to answer the questions? How because it provides answers? So can your mind, if you stop to think about it the answers provided by your own mind will not only be better suited to your individualized needs but will also rest not on the foundation on the swampy marsh of ideology but on the cold hard rock of reason.[/quote]
Everything it touches turns to dust? What are you talking about. To date religion has had a much greater impact on the lives of individual people than science. Religion has served as a basis for the personal philosophies of billions and billions of people. It has given very compelling reasons as to why one should get up in the morning. It has shaped government and philosophy for thousands of years and is responsible for the birth of science itself. On the other hand, science has only begun to make any meaningful impact over the 200 years or so.
You think that religion has to destroy because you assume it has nothing meaningful to contribute. You are sorely mistaken about this. If you look past the corruption then you will find that religion has contributed a lot of important truths.
I'm finding your comments at the end quite confusing. Mind and religion are not comparable items. You don't use your mind instead of religion. You use your mind for religion just like you use your mind for science.
Of course when it comes to thinking about anything you should rest it on the cold hard rock of reason. Be it physical, spiritual, emotional, political, philosophical, or social matters; logic is indispensable. [/quote]
Religion has had a greater impact, by virtue of time. Whether this has been a positive impact is debatable. Science may have been born of religion however that's only because the abortion was unsuccessful.
Science has contributed in a massive way to all parts of our lives in an undeniably positive way.
What has religion ever contributed that had anything to do with truths? Religion has always fought kicking and screaming against any new developments which might expose it's fallacy.
Thinking for yourself and accepting the beliefs of others are obviously comparable.
Logic is indespensable, everywhere except within religion.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Science is gaining power because it is useful? Imagine that! People wanting something because it works, WOW I’m truly shocked. People choose science because they can see the results and the logic behind its processes. Science does have a "magical" power that wards of corruption, it is the simply fact science itself cannot be corrupted. Corruption occurs to the women and men who practice science to the societies that teach it, but corruption does not occur to the actual process itself. Their theories and results can be corrupted but science is the underlying truths beneath these results, if something is wrong its incorrectness will eventual been shown in its incompatibility with other results. That said scientists and scientific institutions can be corrupt and this has happened on several occasions before yet unlike religion the truth does eventually prevail. The facts are analyzed scrutinized and corrections are made. Science will never become as corrupt as religion because long before that point it will have ceased to be science, it will have reverted into shamanism and alchemy, voodoo and witchcraft since for corruption to have taken over the scientific method itself must be ignored.[/quote]
It shouldn't be shocking that people are choosing science because it works. They also chose religion because it works. Simple economics.
If you want to define science as uncorruptable and say that it is the people that are being corrupted then that is fine. But this is not a useful definition because if all the scientists are corrupt then there is no science. I could likewise claim that all of your criticisms of religion are not of "true religion", but that would just avoid the criticism. Likewise, you are avoiding the issue.
There is no guarantee that falsehoods will eventually be exposed in science or anywhere else.[/quote]
They don't chose religion because it works, they choose it because it's the easy way out that provides all the "answers".
Science cannot be corrupted by its very nature. Religion on the other hand has no factual or even logical backing to save it from such a fate.
You make this primordial ooze out to be so much more complex than it actually is. Experimentally if you take a simple chemical mixture containing compounds believed to be present several period billions of years ago and if you provide a source of energy simple amino acids form, nothing really magical about that, unless of course by magical you are referring to the limitless possibilities that can arise from allowing such a reaction to occur for a half billion years. [/quote]
You just wave your hands in the air and say "it happens". That doesn't explain anything. If you press the power button on the front of the microwave then the food inside will get cooked. Simple right? That doesn't detract from the complexity of the microwave. [/quote]
Primordial ooze is NOT complex. This is a fact.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Evolution is not a copout but rather a piece in answering the question. It is a step not an answer itself, obviously if life came from ooze the ooze itself must have originated from some where. It seems odd that in attacking evolution you start at its origins and neglect fossil records and genetic differentiation. It would seem rather odd for all life to be traced back to a single source that just appeared one day. To be a follower of science is simply to state that based on the facts life on this planet originated from chemicals present on earth rather than just appearing at some point. How did these chemicals get to be there? That we intend to find out.[/quote]
Yes it is a sort of answer. However, the way that it is phrased does not facilitate further questioning.
I don't understand what you are saying. How is chemicals being present and things appearing two different philosophies? If something is present then that implies that it appeared. Likewise if something appeared then that implied that there was a mechanism present by which it appeared. You can't have one without the other.....so there is no "present rather than appearing". [/quote]
There is a major difference between life developing out of existing chemicals and life forms simply appearing out of nothingness.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Of course science only gives you things as they are similar and related to one another. The basis of science is that everything is interconnected. What good would it do me to know the mass of oxygen if I couldn’t compare to it the mass of all the rest of the elements? Science would be completely useless if we didn’t describe things in ways that can be interrelated. Yet do not confuse this with a lack of ability to define things, it is quite a simple process to determine definite value and characteristic properties of items. For example the heat of enthalpy is known for copper and so is its solubility constant in water. These are definite characteristics, constant values. [/quote]
As you say, they are values (numbers), but what is the meaning of the units? If you only consider values then you are ignoring half of the picture. Meaning and purpose are not quantifiable properties. Interestingly purpose is probably the most significant property in defining what something truly is and this property is not examined by science at all. [/quote]
Purpose is a very personal thing which should be able to stand alone outside of science or religion. Unless you decide that your purpose is science or religion.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Religion important? Then why does everything it touches turn to dust? The first act of any new religion is to scour the past and remove conflicting ideas and concepts. Religions very nature is that of the destroyer. In order to survive it must destroy everything that contradicts it, for opposition leads to questions and questions ruin all ideologies as their perfection is shown to be a facade at best and a sham at worst. It helps to answer the questions? How because it provides answers? So can your mind, if you stop to think about it the answers provided by your own mind will not only be better suited to your individualized needs but will also rest not on the foundation on the swampy marsh of ideology but on the cold hard rock of reason.[/quote]
Everything it touches turns to dust? What are you talking about. To date religion has had a much greater impact on the lives of individual people than science. Religion has served as a basis for the personal philosophies of billions and billions of people. It has given very compelling reasons as to why one should get up in the morning. It has shaped government and philosophy for thousands of years and is responsible for the birth of science itself. On the other hand, science has only begun to make any meaningful impact over the 200 years or so.
You think that religion has to destroy because you assume it has nothing meaningful to contribute. You are sorely mistaken about this. If you look past the corruption then you will find that religion has contributed a lot of important truths.
I'm finding your comments at the end quite confusing. Mind and religion are not comparable items. You don't use your mind instead of religion. You use your mind for religion just like you use your mind for science.
Of course when it comes to thinking about anything you should rest it on the cold hard rock of reason. Be it physical, spiritual, emotional, political, philosophical, or social matters; logic is indispensable. [/quote]
Religion has had a greater impact, by virtue of time. Whether this has been a positive impact is debatable. Science may have been born of religion however that's only because the abortion was unsuccessful.
Science has contributed in a massive way to all parts of our lives in an undeniably positive way.
What has religion ever contributed that had anything to do with truths? Religion has always fought kicking and screaming against any new developments which might expose it's fallacy.
Thinking for yourself and accepting the beliefs of others are obviously comparable.
Logic is indespensable, everywhere except within religion.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='zionoverfire']
Science is gaining power because it is useful? Imagine that! People wanting something because it works, WOW I’m truly shocked. People choose science because they can see the results and the logic behind its processes. Science does have a "magical" power that wards of corruption, it is the simply fact science itself cannot be corrupted. Corruption occurs to the women and men who practice science to the societies that teach it, but corruption does not occur to the actual process itself. Their theories and results can be corrupted but science is the underlying truths beneath these results, if something is wrong its incorrectness will eventual been shown in its incompatibility with other results. That said scientists and scientific institutions can be corrupt and this has happened on several occasions before yet unlike religion the truth does eventually prevail. The facts are analyzed scrutinized and corrections are made. Science will never become as corrupt as religion because long before that point it will have ceased to be science, it will have reverted into shamanism and alchemy, voodoo and witchcraft since for corruption to have taken over the scientific method itself must be ignored.[/quote]
It shouldn't be shocking that people are choosing science because it works. They also chose religion because it works. Simple economics.
If you want to define science as uncorruptable and say that it is the people that are being corrupted then that is fine. But this is not a useful definition because if all the scientists are corrupt then there is no science. I could likewise claim that all of your criticisms of religion are not of "true religion", but that would just avoid the criticism. Likewise, you are avoiding the issue.
There is no guarantee that falsehoods will eventually be exposed in science or anywhere else.[/quote]
They don't chose religion because it works, they choose it because it's the easy way out that provides all the "answers".
Science cannot be corrupted by its very nature. Religion on the other hand has no factual or even logical backing to save it from such a fate.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']As the truth is found, beliefs supported or supporting religions disapear. Therefore, religion beliefs are just convienient place holders used to keep the masses appeased.[/quote]
You can repeat this vague mantra all you want, but that won't make it true. What "truth" is being found that challenges religion at large? It certainly isn't science as the truths persued by religion and science are orthogonal. Religion tries to answer "why" and science tries to answer "how". Finding out "how" can never contradict "why".[/quote]
It can if "how" invalidates everything that "why" is based on. How is the question at hand, why is irrelevant. Why is meaningless because it is personal.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I didn't say science "is" the truth, I only said it "seeks the truth". Unlike religion which just repeats the same old tired beliefs until science forces it to adapt.[/quote]
Way to put the spin on it. Religion also seeks the truth and science repeats the same old tired beliefs about objective empiricism, while ignoring the fact that empiricism can not exist without a subjective observer.
What can I say? Traditional thinking usually fights any new ideas tooth and nail. Religion just happens to be older than science so it exhibits more inertia. Science will eventually reach the same kind of inertia and unwillingness to adapt. Again I will repeat that science does not have any mystical property to protect it from inertia. You may believe that it does and that is fine, but don't try to pretend that this is anything other than blind faith in the community. With enough power the community will be corrupted.[/quote]
How is religion currently trying to advance human knowledge? It doesn't. It can't, without exposing it's own weaknesses.
Science begins and ends with the quest for new knowledge. When it ceases to change it will cease to be. Obviously this situation is laughably impossible.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Religion is only powerful in the sense that it keeps the masses from thinking for themselves. It's usefulness is as a pacifier for the weak. It offers no answers, only tired mysticism and empty hope.[/quote]
The supernatural is fact. It is unreasonable and illogical to think otherwise. To stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist is not an answer. Science does not address the supernatural. Religion does. So no matter how polished scientific thought is compared to religious thought you cannot find the truth using science alone. Furthermore, I think that the scales are balanced because the questions that religion tries to answer are more important than those that science tries to answer. You cannot study semiconductor physics unless you have a reason to get out of bed. Religion can provide that reason by trying to answer questions of purpose, while science cannot. In other words, science tries to answer the easier and less important questions, so of course it does a better job.
Religion is powerful. The sum of all human accomplishment until now would not have been possible without religion. Without answers to the question of purpose man has no motivation to perform science or anything else.[/quote]
The supernatural is not fact. There is nothing reasonable or logical in the belief that it is fact. Science does not address the supernatural because there is not evidence of such a thing, measuable or not.
If your only purpose in getting out of bed in the morning is your religion then you should really work on finding the source of this instead of turning to religion and ignoring the real problem. Purpose is not a question that can be answered. While important, it is a personal thing that each man (or woman) must discover for themselves.
Religion is powerful. It is powerful because those that believe give it that power. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not; belief in anything can affect us. Some of us just prefer to place that belief in ourselves and take credit for our own deeds good or bad.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Science needs no "mystical powers to ward off corruption". The community self regulates. When any new finding is exposed other scientists throughout the world are there to question and try to replicate it. The concern is for the advancement of knowledge, and that keeps science honest. If a scientst proclaims something that can be shown to be false is true, the community will call bs.[/quote]
This is a good administrative approach and one that has been used before in many other contexts, including religious contexts. However, anything that is increasingly useful is powerful and you can be sure that with enough power anything will be corrupted no matter how good an administrative approach you have.
[/quote]
I think we've already covered this one.
You can repeat this vague mantra all you want, but that won't make it true. What "truth" is being found that challenges religion at large? It certainly isn't science as the truths persued by religion and science are orthogonal. Religion tries to answer "why" and science tries to answer "how". Finding out "how" can never contradict "why".[/quote]
It can if "how" invalidates everything that "why" is based on. How is the question at hand, why is irrelevant. Why is meaningless because it is personal.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I didn't say science "is" the truth, I only said it "seeks the truth". Unlike religion which just repeats the same old tired beliefs until science forces it to adapt.[/quote]
Way to put the spin on it. Religion also seeks the truth and science repeats the same old tired beliefs about objective empiricism, while ignoring the fact that empiricism can not exist without a subjective observer.
What can I say? Traditional thinking usually fights any new ideas tooth and nail. Religion just happens to be older than science so it exhibits more inertia. Science will eventually reach the same kind of inertia and unwillingness to adapt. Again I will repeat that science does not have any mystical property to protect it from inertia. You may believe that it does and that is fine, but don't try to pretend that this is anything other than blind faith in the community. With enough power the community will be corrupted.[/quote]
How is religion currently trying to advance human knowledge? It doesn't. It can't, without exposing it's own weaknesses.
Science begins and ends with the quest for new knowledge. When it ceases to change it will cease to be. Obviously this situation is laughably impossible.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Religion is only powerful in the sense that it keeps the masses from thinking for themselves. It's usefulness is as a pacifier for the weak. It offers no answers, only tired mysticism and empty hope.[/quote]
The supernatural is fact. It is unreasonable and illogical to think otherwise. To stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist is not an answer. Science does not address the supernatural. Religion does. So no matter how polished scientific thought is compared to religious thought you cannot find the truth using science alone. Furthermore, I think that the scales are balanced because the questions that religion tries to answer are more important than those that science tries to answer. You cannot study semiconductor physics unless you have a reason to get out of bed. Religion can provide that reason by trying to answer questions of purpose, while science cannot. In other words, science tries to answer the easier and less important questions, so of course it does a better job.
Religion is powerful. The sum of all human accomplishment until now would not have been possible without religion. Without answers to the question of purpose man has no motivation to perform science or anything else.[/quote]
The supernatural is not fact. There is nothing reasonable or logical in the belief that it is fact. Science does not address the supernatural because there is not evidence of such a thing, measuable or not.
If your only purpose in getting out of bed in the morning is your religion then you should really work on finding the source of this instead of turning to religion and ignoring the real problem. Purpose is not a question that can be answered. While important, it is a personal thing that each man (or woman) must discover for themselves.
Religion is powerful. It is powerful because those that believe give it that power. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not; belief in anything can affect us. Some of us just prefer to place that belief in ourselves and take credit for our own deeds good or bad.
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Science needs no "mystical powers to ward off corruption". The community self regulates. When any new finding is exposed other scientists throughout the world are there to question and try to replicate it. The concern is for the advancement of knowledge, and that keeps science honest. If a scientst proclaims something that can be shown to be false is true, the community will call bs.[/quote]
This is a good administrative approach and one that has been used before in many other contexts, including religious contexts. However, anything that is increasingly useful is powerful and you can be sure that with enough power anything will be corrupted no matter how good an administrative approach you have.
[/quote]
I think we've already covered this one.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
Until some fresh tangents are broached I will refrain from posting in this topic. I'm sure you understand.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='chunk']Where do you think those bombs come from that they are using in Iraq; and what about that computer you are typing this on? I'll give you a hint, its not the toothfairy. Science is responsible for many many of the activities that go on in the world today. It is only a matter of time until the scientists become established enough so that they can exert their power based on reputation alone. Just look here in this thread at how many people blindly pledge their allegence to science without really understanding much of it at all.[/quote]
HALLO THAR SPECULATION! How about, instead, I consider the amount of people that blindly pledge themselves to religion instead of science? You've not done a damn thing to suggest that I'm wrong.
[quote name='chunk']Your criticisms are with the administrative faculties. Much of religion today is severely lacking in good administration. However, religion was not always lacking in checks and balances. This is merely the aftermath of tremendous power and corruption. When science runs its course it will eventually meet the same problem.[/quote]
So, in the past, religion used a rigorous system of maintaining its integrity through peer reviewed work? Or, it changed itself as necessary based upon the whims of the current king at the time? I don't think you are making a very good point here, and instead, are just uttering words to avoid admitting that I have a point. Or, instead, perhaps you can inform me of how the administrative faculties of religious groups differed in the past from the present.
myke.
...I'm
ing trashed and can still handle this shite.
HALLO THAR SPECULATION! How about, instead, I consider the amount of people that blindly pledge themselves to religion instead of science? You've not done a damn thing to suggest that I'm wrong.
[quote name='chunk']Your criticisms are with the administrative faculties. Much of religion today is severely lacking in good administration. However, religion was not always lacking in checks and balances. This is merely the aftermath of tremendous power and corruption. When science runs its course it will eventually meet the same problem.[/quote]
So, in the past, religion used a rigorous system of maintaining its integrity through peer reviewed work? Or, it changed itself as necessary based upon the whims of the current king at the time? I don't think you are making a very good point here, and instead, are just uttering words to avoid admitting that I have a point. Or, instead, perhaps you can inform me of how the administrative faculties of religious groups differed in the past from the present.
myke.
...I'm
ing trashed and can still handle this shite.Here's a little article from the BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4294417.stm ):
Black church and community leaders are calling for action to protect children from the effects of exorcisms.
A spokeswoman for Africans Against Child Abuse (Afruca) said church leaders who believe in possession needed education on child protection.
A BBC investigation suggests only a third of London's local authorities are addressing the issue seriously.
The Newsnight probe suggests some children are being beaten by parents trying to drive out evil spirits.
Afruca spokeswoman Debbie Ariyo said she was not surprised by the findings because the driving out of demons was known to be a widespread practice within the African churches.
"It's part and parcel of what churches do in terms of freeing people from what they see as the stranglehold of the devil.
"But it does worry me that local authorities are not making the effort to link up with the churches in terms of their practices regarding child protection," Ms Ariyo said.
'Institutional failure'
However, Joseph Ocheno, a community activist in Peckham, south London, said he believed some stories of exorcisms were an exaggeration.
"I know, as someone who's actively involved in the community, that there are all sorts of stories that come out of churches and I do not think personally that these things are as widespread as they're made out to be.
"I hope this doesn't divert from the very fundamental issue of the massive institutional failure that led to the unfortunate death of Victoria Climbie," Mr Ocheno said.
Exorcism is a good thing but it's not meant to be abusive
Katie Kirby
African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance
Newsnight report
The Newsnight investigation comes on the fifth anniversary of the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, killed by carers who claimed she was possessed by the devil.
Newsnight's study found a third of all London boroughs did no work at all on the issue of the effects of child exorcisms.
They included Lambeth in south-east London, a borough with one of the biggest African population in the UK.
However, Hanna Miller of the Association of Directors of Social Services said it was unfair to say the issue had been ignored.
"It does take a while for people to get geared up, to become expert, to find out about things," she said.
"The fact is you have boroughs that are actively engaging, they have recognised those issues and done something about it."
The challenge for London now was that good practice should be rolled out to boroughs not doing as much as they should, Ms Miller added.
'Culture'
In Tower Hamlets in east London, where the authorities are taking the issue seriously, 30 churches which might inform parents their children were possessed have been identified.
The Metropolitan Police is currently investigating a number of cases of so-called "faith crimes".
Detective Superintendent Chris Bourlet of the Met's Child Protection Central Command told Newsnight reporter Angus Stickler the scale of the problem was difficult to determine.
"We are talking about child abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, actually using emotional abuse against the child - quite serious offences in some cases - up to physical woundings of children," Mr Bourlet said.
Sociologist Dr Richard Hoskins, of Kings College London, recently returned from doing research on the issue in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he found thousands of children were believed to be possessed.
He told Newsnight the problem for the UK was potentially "massive".
"We are on the cusp of something quite sinister and major here, " he said, before calling for a government task force to look into the issue, rather than just leaving it to the criminal justice process.
However, Katie Kirby of the African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance (ACEA) said it was important to keep the issues in context.
"Exorcism is a good thing but it's not meant to be abusive, there's no biblical precedent for that," she said.
"It's important social services work with the faith communities to understand them and make sure they're not misinterpreting the culture but challenging anything that's immoral or unsafe for children."
David Pearson of the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service, an independent authority, said it was vital cultural considerations did not take precedent over a child's welfare.
Mr Pearson, who gave evidence at the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, said: "Abuse is abuse, and can never be overlooked or mitigated against by cultural or religious factors."
Lord Laming, who conducted the inquiry into the Climbie case, said he was "appalled by the terrifying experiences" to which some children in the report had been subjected.
"Children are not chattels, they are citizens, and they are entitled to the protection of the law," he told Newsnight
Discuss.
Black church and community leaders are calling for action to protect children from the effects of exorcisms.
A spokeswoman for Africans Against Child Abuse (Afruca) said church leaders who believe in possession needed education on child protection.
A BBC investigation suggests only a third of London's local authorities are addressing the issue seriously.
The Newsnight probe suggests some children are being beaten by parents trying to drive out evil spirits.
Afruca spokeswoman Debbie Ariyo said she was not surprised by the findings because the driving out of demons was known to be a widespread practice within the African churches.
"It's part and parcel of what churches do in terms of freeing people from what they see as the stranglehold of the devil.
"But it does worry me that local authorities are not making the effort to link up with the churches in terms of their practices regarding child protection," Ms Ariyo said.
'Institutional failure'
However, Joseph Ocheno, a community activist in Peckham, south London, said he believed some stories of exorcisms were an exaggeration.
"I know, as someone who's actively involved in the community, that there are all sorts of stories that come out of churches and I do not think personally that these things are as widespread as they're made out to be.
"I hope this doesn't divert from the very fundamental issue of the massive institutional failure that led to the unfortunate death of Victoria Climbie," Mr Ocheno said.
Exorcism is a good thing but it's not meant to be abusive
Katie Kirby
African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance
Newsnight report
The Newsnight investigation comes on the fifth anniversary of the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie, killed by carers who claimed she was possessed by the devil.
Newsnight's study found a third of all London boroughs did no work at all on the issue of the effects of child exorcisms.
They included Lambeth in south-east London, a borough with one of the biggest African population in the UK.
However, Hanna Miller of the Association of Directors of Social Services said it was unfair to say the issue had been ignored.
"It does take a while for people to get geared up, to become expert, to find out about things," she said.
"The fact is you have boroughs that are actively engaging, they have recognised those issues and done something about it."
The challenge for London now was that good practice should be rolled out to boroughs not doing as much as they should, Ms Miller added.
'Culture'
In Tower Hamlets in east London, where the authorities are taking the issue seriously, 30 churches which might inform parents their children were possessed have been identified.
The Metropolitan Police is currently investigating a number of cases of so-called "faith crimes".
Detective Superintendent Chris Bourlet of the Met's Child Protection Central Command told Newsnight reporter Angus Stickler the scale of the problem was difficult to determine.
"We are talking about child abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, actually using emotional abuse against the child - quite serious offences in some cases - up to physical woundings of children," Mr Bourlet said.
Sociologist Dr Richard Hoskins, of Kings College London, recently returned from doing research on the issue in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he found thousands of children were believed to be possessed.
He told Newsnight the problem for the UK was potentially "massive".
"We are on the cusp of something quite sinister and major here, " he said, before calling for a government task force to look into the issue, rather than just leaving it to the criminal justice process.
However, Katie Kirby of the African Caribbean Evangelical Alliance (ACEA) said it was important to keep the issues in context.
"Exorcism is a good thing but it's not meant to be abusive, there's no biblical precedent for that," she said.
"It's important social services work with the faith communities to understand them and make sure they're not misinterpreting the culture but challenging anything that's immoral or unsafe for children."
David Pearson of the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service, an independent authority, said it was vital cultural considerations did not take precedent over a child's welfare.
Mr Pearson, who gave evidence at the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie, said: "Abuse is abuse, and can never be overlooked or mitigated against by cultural or religious factors."
Lord Laming, who conducted the inquiry into the Climbie case, said he was "appalled by the terrifying experiences" to which some children in the report had been subjected.
"Children are not chattels, they are citizens, and they are entitled to the protection of the law," he told Newsnight
Discuss.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
^
That'sed up.
That's
ed up.zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
Exorcism in awesome, but possesing people is where it really is at!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Considering the "hellhouses" that many churchs (in the States at least) put up to scare the bejeezus out of the children (from behaving in immoral ways), we've got it easy relatively speaking.
myke.
myke.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='btw1217']Basically, it comes down to this. There are two sides...
and 
involves alot of [-o< and 
whereas consists more of 
, 
, 
, and 
which can lead to either 
or 
, or if you're really unlucky both and . Get it?[/quote]
Oooh ooh I've got some.
Conservative Christian =
Independent Thinker in Bush's Amerika = ](*,)
Bush = :^o
and involves alot of [-o< and whereas consists more of , , , and which can lead to either or , or if you're really unlucky both and . Get it?[/quote]Oooh ooh I've got some.
Conservative Christian =
Independent Thinker in Bush's Amerika = ](*,)
Bush = :^o
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Primordial ooze is NOT complex. This is a fact.[/quote]
If you think that primordial ooze is not complex then why don't you cook up some ameoba from scratch? If you can't do it then I'm sure you can buy something simple like that on ebay. Oh wait, you can't, but there are plenty of microwave ovens on ebay and those are complicated as hell.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']There is a major difference between life developing out of existing chemicals and life forms simply appearing out of nothingness.[/quote]
The only difference is your fluffy vague language. How exactly does something appear out of nothingness and how do you classify it as simple? Is life developing out of existing chemicals simple?
If you think the difference is so major then why don't you specify exactly what the difference is? I think that you will find that you will need to go into much greater detail than that specified by any religion in order to make a distinction.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Purpose is a very personal thing which should be able to stand alone outside of science or religion. Unless you decide that your purpose is science or religion.[/quote]
Exactly. So you admit that science cannot and does not explain everything (such as purpose).
And the question I have for you is are the personal aspects of life (such as purpose) any less real than the physical aspects of life (such as those studied by science)? In my opinion they are more real (although tougher to study).
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Science has contributed in a massive way to all parts of our lives in an undeniably positive way.
What has religion ever contributed that had anything to do with truths? Religion has always fought kicking and screaming against any new developments which might expose it's fallacy.
Thinking for yourself and accepting the beliefs of others are obviously comparable.
Logic is indespensable, everywhere except within religion.[/quote]
I would hardly call the contributions of science undeniably positive. Is atomic warfare positive? Is choking the planet to death by burning petroleum positive? How inventing tanks to roll over protesting citizens? These contributions are questionable, to say the least.
Some important contributions from religious thinkers are:
-Considering the needs of others before your own needs (unselfishness).
-The virtue of being humble. Including, recognizing that there is always someone else better than you and recognizing that you make mistakes.
-The idea of justice.
-Purpose in life.
-The virtue of trust.
Anything that has existed for any extended period of time has always fought change kicking and screaming. The same is true of science. The same is true for all ideas, whether truths or lies.
Thinking for yourself or accepting the beliefs of others are certainly comparable, but I don't see what that has to do with religion or science. Science certainly isn't taught in the schools as "thinking for yourself".
Why do you say that logic is dispensible within religion? That is the kind of thinking that creates problems. If logic were applied more frequently in religion then things like the inquisition wouldn't have happened.
Your criticisms are misguided. Instead of constructively criticising and getting to the real issues you just want to blame everything on religion when most of these problems are related to human nature more than anything else. These flaws of human nature manifest themselves everywhere in society.
You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']They don't chose religion because it works, they choose it because it's the easy way out that provides all the "answers".
Science cannot be corrupted by its very nature. Religion on the other hand has no factual or even logical backing to save it from such a fate.[/quote]
While I agree that many people misunderstand religious teachings, the same is true of science. Your average joe is just as likely to try and get easy answers of out science too.
You agree that there is nothing magical to keep science from being corrupted, but then you suddenly say that it is uncorruptable by its very nature without any justification for such a belief. Such blind faith in science is entirely illogical. Has there ever been a worthwhile pursuit that has escaped corruption indefinately? Perhaps if you were a little more open to religious ideas then you would realize that power corrupts and science is no exception.
I have provided tons of factual and logical backing for religion in this thread. You on the other hand have simply repeated the mantra that "religion is illogical and science is infallible" without providing any reason or justification. Have you found everything that I have had to say up until now entirely illogical? Am I a babbeling idiot? If so then perhaps you can convince me to snap out of it.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It can if "how" invalidates everything that "why" is based on. How is the question at hand, why is irrelevant. Why is meaningless because it is personal.[/quote]
How can the personal be meaningless? Objective experience is not possible without personal experience. You cannot forget that before you have science you must have a scientist. The personal cannot be irrelevant because before you can ask either "why" or "how" you must have a person to ask. It is not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is a prerequisite; it is essential.
It is impossible for "how" to invalidate "why". The two are orthogonal. If you disagree then give an example. Give any two answers to a question, one to the "why" version and one to the "how" version. You cannot create a contradiction in this way. Of course if don't answer the questions, but just give any arbitrary statement then you can create a contradiction. So keep in mind that using the word "because" doesn't automatically make any statement an answer to "why".
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
How is religion currently trying to advance human knowledge? It doesn't. It can't, without exposing it's own weaknesses.
Science begins and ends with the quest for new knowledge. When it ceases to change it will cease to be. Obviously this situation is laughably impossible.[/quote]
Everyday people all over the world are discovering new things about love and spirituality. For example, there was a guy from Sir Lanka on the news. He was in a boat with a bunch of children when the tsunami hit. According to him their tiny motor boat was about to be swallowed by a giant wave when he asked god to push the wave back. He said that at that moment the wave receeded and they all managed to safely escape. Those people learned something significant about the love of god.
There are also people like mother theresa giving their lives to the service of others around the world that are gaining important knowledge.
Of course you will probably have many objections to these specific things, but this is no surprise since you object to the existance of the supernatural. It is like trying to convince someone that there is truth in science when they refuse to believe that physical phenomena reflect order in nature.
However, breaking religious knowledge it's not as accessable as scientific knowledge, but there are many reasons for this. One reason is that religion just happens to be in a less active period right now. In 1000 AD the situation was reversed. Another reason is because corruption has left people confused and disallusioned. Another reason is that you just aren't looking. There are journals, groups, publications, and conferences which deal with cutting edge religious ideas. You just choose to not acknowledge their existence. Granted, most of it is probably worthless, but the same is true of scientific journals.
I admit that by and large religion is not as active as science right now, but to forget all of its prior contributions is to choose ignorance.
Science is not the quest for new knowledge, it is the study of natural phenomena. Your assertion that it is the quest for new knowledge is based on an illogical belief that all knowledge can be obtained from natural phenomena.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']The supernatural is not fact. There is nothing reasonable or logical in the belief that it is fact. Science does not address the supernatural because there is not evidence of such a thing, measuable or not.[/quote]
I gave a logical proof. Do you care to address that instead of just stating your belief?
The existance of the supernatural is painfully obvious. Simply observe your own intent. There is obviously a difference between a rock and yourself. You have a will. It is not something that can be explained by natural phenomena because it is inside your person (not even your body). This should be convincing enough, but if aren't convinced then I gave a logical proof of the existence of the supernatural. Still perhaps you may think that personal experience and logic are not enough. Well if this is the case then you wouldn't accept scientific knowledge either (as it is all based on experience and logic).
Ignoring the fact that once you refute logic discussion is futile, we may consider that perhaps you put additional weight in sensory experience over other kinds. In other words, you believe that the five senses are "more real" than other facets of human experience such as thought and feeling. Well, in this case you have really made your requirements painfully specific and I would be surprised that you could find evidence of anything at all. Surprisingly you can still find evidence of the supernatural.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']If your only purpose in getting out of bed in the morning is your religion then you should really work on finding the source of this instead of turning to religion and ignoring the real problem. Purpose is not a question that can be answered. While important, it is a personal thing that each man (or woman) must discover for themselves.[/quote]
Just as each man (or woman) must convince themselves of the veracity of science and not simply accept what the school teacher tells them on blind faith.
Just because you can't answer the question of purpose that does not mean it cannot be answered. Such a philosophy wreaks of ignorance and apathy. What if Isaac Newton said that he cannot figure out how gravity works and, therefore, declared the question unanswerable? If there is anything to learn from science it is that we should continue pursuing all inquiries and never give up.
Why is it that you think I am ignoring the real problem?
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Religion is powerful. It is powerful because those that believe give it that power. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not; belief in anything can affect us. Some of us just prefer to place that belief in ourselves and take credit for our own deeds good or bad.[/quote]
And I am one of those that perfers to take credit for my own deeds, good or bad. What makes you think that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not? What makes you think you know where the power of religion comes from?
For somebody that claims to believe science you don't show much skepticism.
[quote name='mykevermin']HALLO THAR SPECULATION! How about, instead, I consider the amount of people that blindly pledge themselves to religion instead of science? You've not done a damn thing to suggest that I'm wrong.[/quote]
I'm not trying to suggest that your wrong. I agree with you. People blindly pledge themselves to all kinds of things. Some people in this thread seem to think that science is some kind of magical exception.
[quote name='mykevermin']So, in the past, religion used a rigorous system of maintaining its integrity through peer reviewed work?[/quote]
Yes. Where do you think the bible came from?
[quote name='mykevermin']Or, it changed itself as necessary based upon the whims of the current king at the time?[/quote]
This was later. Once it started to become associated with politics everything went downhill. Same as science with the Soviets (and analogously, even with the Soviet pseudoscience in place they did manage to make a few contributions here and there). Guess where most funding for science in America comes from nowadays?
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you are making a very good point here, and instead, are just uttering words to avoid admitting that I have a point. Or, instead, perhaps you can inform me of how the administrative faculties of religious groups differed in the past from the present.[/quote]
I'm not trying to avoid admitting that you have a point. Actually, I don't even know what your point is. Maybe you could explain it again.
About the administrative faculties of religious groups, I'm not an expert on religious history, but I will tell you a little of what I know (if you really want to know you should research this yourself because there is just way too much for me to type it all). Christianity basically started as a part of Judaism, which was at great conflict with the government of the time. It was initially spread throughout the jewish areas, but later decided that it was consistent with the jewish teachings for nonjews to be included.
In each town those that found the teachings convincing met in various homes in that town where they would study the jewish writings and talk about them. They would also pray together and figure out how to accomplish practical things (such as how help the needy in the area and avoid the government, since it was illegal in many areas).
The guys that basically started the whole thing left local people who proved themselves trustworthy in charge of making sure things didn't get out of hand. As history has shown, people can get crazy sometimes and its a good idea to put someone in charge of trying to snap them out of it. For example, a voice of reason was sorely needed in nazi germany, or during the american witch trials.
The message of this group became more and more widespread and increasingly popular. However as with all new things, some people opposed it bitterly. Many people were killed because their views dissented from the governing authority.
The message was life transforming for many. It was that mankind inevitably screws things up and that through the jews god has sent a savior to reunite us with god (if only we can admit that we need such a savior).
This went on for a few hundred years until this group caught the eye of the roman emperor Constantine. For whatever reason Constantine thought that the ideas of this group would be a good vehicle for advancing his political goals. He declared it the offcial religion of the roman empire. Established a priesthood and required everyone to attend the courthouses where the priests would lecture. Prior to this there was no priesthood. The roman courthouses are the origin of what you might consider your standard church building (long wooden benches facing a pulpit at the front). Later down the line a greater distinction was established between "clergy" and "layity" and lay people were basically forbidden from actually reading any of the writings themselves. It was at this point that it was firmly established that the masses had to be told everything from the priests and could not arrive at their own understanding. Things just kept getting worse from there with a few important victories for the people (such as the reformation). However, none of those victories were ever able to restore things to what they once were (obviously nearly all christian groups follow the roman courthouse model, which was already a gross distortion of things).
If you think that primordial ooze is not complex then why don't you cook up some ameoba from scratch? If you can't do it then I'm sure you can buy something simple like that on ebay. Oh wait, you can't, but there are plenty of microwave ovens on ebay and those are complicated as hell.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']There is a major difference between life developing out of existing chemicals and life forms simply appearing out of nothingness.[/quote]
The only difference is your fluffy vague language. How exactly does something appear out of nothingness and how do you classify it as simple? Is life developing out of existing chemicals simple?
If you think the difference is so major then why don't you specify exactly what the difference is? I think that you will find that you will need to go into much greater detail than that specified by any religion in order to make a distinction.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Purpose is a very personal thing which should be able to stand alone outside of science or religion. Unless you decide that your purpose is science or religion.[/quote]
Exactly. So you admit that science cannot and does not explain everything (such as purpose).
And the question I have for you is are the personal aspects of life (such as purpose) any less real than the physical aspects of life (such as those studied by science)? In my opinion they are more real (although tougher to study).
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Science has contributed in a massive way to all parts of our lives in an undeniably positive way.
What has religion ever contributed that had anything to do with truths? Religion has always fought kicking and screaming against any new developments which might expose it's fallacy.
Thinking for yourself and accepting the beliefs of others are obviously comparable.
Logic is indespensable, everywhere except within religion.[/quote]
I would hardly call the contributions of science undeniably positive. Is atomic warfare positive? Is choking the planet to death by burning petroleum positive? How inventing tanks to roll over protesting citizens? These contributions are questionable, to say the least.
Some important contributions from religious thinkers are:
-Considering the needs of others before your own needs (unselfishness).
-The virtue of being humble. Including, recognizing that there is always someone else better than you and recognizing that you make mistakes.
-The idea of justice.
-Purpose in life.
-The virtue of trust.
Anything that has existed for any extended period of time has always fought change kicking and screaming. The same is true of science. The same is true for all ideas, whether truths or lies.
Thinking for yourself or accepting the beliefs of others are certainly comparable, but I don't see what that has to do with religion or science. Science certainly isn't taught in the schools as "thinking for yourself".
Why do you say that logic is dispensible within religion? That is the kind of thinking that creates problems. If logic were applied more frequently in religion then things like the inquisition wouldn't have happened.
Your criticisms are misguided. Instead of constructively criticising and getting to the real issues you just want to blame everything on religion when most of these problems are related to human nature more than anything else. These flaws of human nature manifest themselves everywhere in society.
You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']They don't chose religion because it works, they choose it because it's the easy way out that provides all the "answers".
Science cannot be corrupted by its very nature. Religion on the other hand has no factual or even logical backing to save it from such a fate.[/quote]
While I agree that many people misunderstand religious teachings, the same is true of science. Your average joe is just as likely to try and get easy answers of out science too.
You agree that there is nothing magical to keep science from being corrupted, but then you suddenly say that it is uncorruptable by its very nature without any justification for such a belief. Such blind faith in science is entirely illogical. Has there ever been a worthwhile pursuit that has escaped corruption indefinately? Perhaps if you were a little more open to religious ideas then you would realize that power corrupts and science is no exception.
I have provided tons of factual and logical backing for religion in this thread. You on the other hand have simply repeated the mantra that "religion is illogical and science is infallible" without providing any reason or justification. Have you found everything that I have had to say up until now entirely illogical? Am I a babbeling idiot? If so then perhaps you can convince me to snap out of it.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It can if "how" invalidates everything that "why" is based on. How is the question at hand, why is irrelevant. Why is meaningless because it is personal.[/quote]
How can the personal be meaningless? Objective experience is not possible without personal experience. You cannot forget that before you have science you must have a scientist. The personal cannot be irrelevant because before you can ask either "why" or "how" you must have a person to ask. It is not irrelevant. On the contrary, it is a prerequisite; it is essential.
It is impossible for "how" to invalidate "why". The two are orthogonal. If you disagree then give an example. Give any two answers to a question, one to the "why" version and one to the "how" version. You cannot create a contradiction in this way. Of course if don't answer the questions, but just give any arbitrary statement then you can create a contradiction. So keep in mind that using the word "because" doesn't automatically make any statement an answer to "why".
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
How is religion currently trying to advance human knowledge? It doesn't. It can't, without exposing it's own weaknesses.
Science begins and ends with the quest for new knowledge. When it ceases to change it will cease to be. Obviously this situation is laughably impossible.[/quote]
Everyday people all over the world are discovering new things about love and spirituality. For example, there was a guy from Sir Lanka on the news. He was in a boat with a bunch of children when the tsunami hit. According to him their tiny motor boat was about to be swallowed by a giant wave when he asked god to push the wave back. He said that at that moment the wave receeded and they all managed to safely escape. Those people learned something significant about the love of god.
There are also people like mother theresa giving their lives to the service of others around the world that are gaining important knowledge.
Of course you will probably have many objections to these specific things, but this is no surprise since you object to the existance of the supernatural. It is like trying to convince someone that there is truth in science when they refuse to believe that physical phenomena reflect order in nature.
However, breaking religious knowledge it's not as accessable as scientific knowledge, but there are many reasons for this. One reason is that religion just happens to be in a less active period right now. In 1000 AD the situation was reversed. Another reason is because corruption has left people confused and disallusioned. Another reason is that you just aren't looking. There are journals, groups, publications, and conferences which deal with cutting edge religious ideas. You just choose to not acknowledge their existence. Granted, most of it is probably worthless, but the same is true of scientific journals.
I admit that by and large religion is not as active as science right now, but to forget all of its prior contributions is to choose ignorance.
Science is not the quest for new knowledge, it is the study of natural phenomena. Your assertion that it is the quest for new knowledge is based on an illogical belief that all knowledge can be obtained from natural phenomena.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']The supernatural is not fact. There is nothing reasonable or logical in the belief that it is fact. Science does not address the supernatural because there is not evidence of such a thing, measuable or not.[/quote]
I gave a logical proof. Do you care to address that instead of just stating your belief?
The existance of the supernatural is painfully obvious. Simply observe your own intent. There is obviously a difference between a rock and yourself. You have a will. It is not something that can be explained by natural phenomena because it is inside your person (not even your body). This should be convincing enough, but if aren't convinced then I gave a logical proof of the existence of the supernatural. Still perhaps you may think that personal experience and logic are not enough. Well if this is the case then you wouldn't accept scientific knowledge either (as it is all based on experience and logic).
Ignoring the fact that once you refute logic discussion is futile, we may consider that perhaps you put additional weight in sensory experience over other kinds. In other words, you believe that the five senses are "more real" than other facets of human experience such as thought and feeling. Well, in this case you have really made your requirements painfully specific and I would be surprised that you could find evidence of anything at all. Surprisingly you can still find evidence of the supernatural.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']If your only purpose in getting out of bed in the morning is your religion then you should really work on finding the source of this instead of turning to religion and ignoring the real problem. Purpose is not a question that can be answered. While important, it is a personal thing that each man (or woman) must discover for themselves.[/quote]
Just as each man (or woman) must convince themselves of the veracity of science and not simply accept what the school teacher tells them on blind faith.
Just because you can't answer the question of purpose that does not mean it cannot be answered. Such a philosophy wreaks of ignorance and apathy. What if Isaac Newton said that he cannot figure out how gravity works and, therefore, declared the question unanswerable? If there is anything to learn from science it is that we should continue pursuing all inquiries and never give up.
Why is it that you think I am ignoring the real problem?
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Religion is powerful. It is powerful because those that believe give it that power. It doesn't matter if there is a god or not; belief in anything can affect us. Some of us just prefer to place that belief in ourselves and take credit for our own deeds good or bad.[/quote]
And I am one of those that perfers to take credit for my own deeds, good or bad. What makes you think that it doesn't matter if there is a god or not? What makes you think you know where the power of religion comes from?
For somebody that claims to believe science you don't show much skepticism.
[quote name='mykevermin']HALLO THAR SPECULATION! How about, instead, I consider the amount of people that blindly pledge themselves to religion instead of science? You've not done a damn thing to suggest that I'm wrong.[/quote]
I'm not trying to suggest that your wrong. I agree with you. People blindly pledge themselves to all kinds of things. Some people in this thread seem to think that science is some kind of magical exception.
[quote name='mykevermin']So, in the past, religion used a rigorous system of maintaining its integrity through peer reviewed work?[/quote]
Yes. Where do you think the bible came from?
[quote name='mykevermin']Or, it changed itself as necessary based upon the whims of the current king at the time?[/quote]
This was later. Once it started to become associated with politics everything went downhill. Same as science with the Soviets (and analogously, even with the Soviet pseudoscience in place they did manage to make a few contributions here and there). Guess where most funding for science in America comes from nowadays?
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you are making a very good point here, and instead, are just uttering words to avoid admitting that I have a point. Or, instead, perhaps you can inform me of how the administrative faculties of religious groups differed in the past from the present.[/quote]
I'm not trying to avoid admitting that you have a point. Actually, I don't even know what your point is. Maybe you could explain it again.
About the administrative faculties of religious groups, I'm not an expert on religious history, but I will tell you a little of what I know (if you really want to know you should research this yourself because there is just way too much for me to type it all). Christianity basically started as a part of Judaism, which was at great conflict with the government of the time. It was initially spread throughout the jewish areas, but later decided that it was consistent with the jewish teachings for nonjews to be included.
In each town those that found the teachings convincing met in various homes in that town where they would study the jewish writings and talk about them. They would also pray together and figure out how to accomplish practical things (such as how help the needy in the area and avoid the government, since it was illegal in many areas).
The guys that basically started the whole thing left local people who proved themselves trustworthy in charge of making sure things didn't get out of hand. As history has shown, people can get crazy sometimes and its a good idea to put someone in charge of trying to snap them out of it. For example, a voice of reason was sorely needed in nazi germany, or during the american witch trials.
The message of this group became more and more widespread and increasingly popular. However as with all new things, some people opposed it bitterly. Many people were killed because their views dissented from the governing authority.
The message was life transforming for many. It was that mankind inevitably screws things up and that through the jews god has sent a savior to reunite us with god (if only we can admit that we need such a savior).
This went on for a few hundred years until this group caught the eye of the roman emperor Constantine. For whatever reason Constantine thought that the ideas of this group would be a good vehicle for advancing his political goals. He declared it the offcial religion of the roman empire. Established a priesthood and required everyone to attend the courthouses where the priests would lecture. Prior to this there was no priesthood. The roman courthouses are the origin of what you might consider your standard church building (long wooden benches facing a pulpit at the front). Later down the line a greater distinction was established between "clergy" and "layity" and lay people were basically forbidden from actually reading any of the writings themselves. It was at this point that it was firmly established that the masses had to be told everything from the priests and could not arrive at their own understanding. Things just kept getting worse from there with a few important victories for the people (such as the reformation). However, none of those victories were ever able to restore things to what they once were (obviously nearly all christian groups follow the roman courthouse model, which was already a gross distortion of things).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
My point is this: positivism versus faith.
Science, for the most part, is based off of empirical evidence.
Religion, as being based upon faith, is relatively unconcerned with the existing world.
The very fact that people argue about the torah as either (1) literal or (2) metaphor is profound evidence of that. There is tremendous disagreement among christians themselves as to the meanings of bible stories; the intellectual dialogue surrounding the bible more closely resembles intellectual criticism of historical literature than it does scientific research.
I don't consider the bible to be brought up in the same tradition as scholarly research, and I will ask you to elaborate upon that, with links if you will, about the methods used in editing and revising the bible early on in history.
in the end, however, my point is simply positivism versus faith. Science is not perfect, but it is built upon a foundation that is testable.
myke.
Science, for the most part, is based off of empirical evidence.
Religion, as being based upon faith, is relatively unconcerned with the existing world.
The very fact that people argue about the torah as either (1) literal or (2) metaphor is profound evidence of that. There is tremendous disagreement among christians themselves as to the meanings of bible stories; the intellectual dialogue surrounding the bible more closely resembles intellectual criticism of historical literature than it does scientific research.
I don't consider the bible to be brought up in the same tradition as scholarly research, and I will ask you to elaborate upon that, with links if you will, about the methods used in editing and revising the bible early on in history.
in the end, however, my point is simply positivism versus faith. Science is not perfect, but it is built upon a foundation that is testable.
myke.
[quote name='mykevermin']My point is this: positivism versus faith.
Science, for the most part, is based off of empirical evidence.
Religion, as being based upon faith, is relatively unconcerned with the existing world.
The very fact that people argue about the torah as either (1) literal or (2) metaphor is profound evidence of that. There is tremendous disagreement among christians themselves as to the meanings of bible stories; the intellectual dialogue surrounding the bible more closely resembles intellectual criticism of historical literature than it does scientific research.
I don't consider the bible to be brought up in the same tradition as scholarly research, and I will ask you to elaborate upon that, with links if you will, about the methods used in editing and revising the bible early on in history.
in the end, however, my point is simply positivism versus faith. Science is not perfect, but it is built upon a foundation that is testable.
myke.[/quote]
I agree with you. However, that is simply the way things are.
Mathematics restricts itself to an even stronger foundation than science; that is those things which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt given some a set of definite assumptions. Would it be nice if we could prove science on the same level that we can prove mathematics? Of course! However, reality simply doesn't work that way. So then what do we do? Do we dismiss all of science because it doesn't rest on as firm foundations as mathematics? Do we claim that science is a farce and that only mathematics seeks truth? No. Mathematics is useless unless we can apply it to the physical world. So we relax the burden of proof and proceed.
Likewise, science chooses to restrict itself to those things that can be studied with simple empiricism. But, like mathematics with the physical world, science has its limitations. It cannot tell us about those things that cannot be observed empirically (those things that are not manifested in one of the five senses). So what about the rest of reality?
One part that clearly remains outside empiricism is people. People have purpose and intent and the goal of religion is to understand this.
Mathematics is not useful without the physical world and science is not useful without people. Notice that at each step we gain something more useful, but at the expense of the rigor in our proofs. If you want you can dismiss religion for lack of rigor, but then you will be missing out on the most important piece of the puzzle.
I'm not saying that the bible was brought up in the same traditions as scholarly research. Most of science wasn't even brought up in the same traditions as modern scholarly research. Archimedes did not publish his paper titled "Eureka!" in the journal Nature. All I was saying is that there was peer review.
Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists. I don't have time to scour the web for information on this, but arguing over religious ideas is a rabbinical tradition. Of course once you argue about things for 1000 years you come to some sort of conclusion. Accepted scientific theories, like gravity, are not being reviewed anymore. They are rather being refined. You could probably consider this analogous to trying to interpret the finer points of accepted scripture.
Science, for the most part, is based off of empirical evidence.
Religion, as being based upon faith, is relatively unconcerned with the existing world.
The very fact that people argue about the torah as either (1) literal or (2) metaphor is profound evidence of that. There is tremendous disagreement among christians themselves as to the meanings of bible stories; the intellectual dialogue surrounding the bible more closely resembles intellectual criticism of historical literature than it does scientific research.
I don't consider the bible to be brought up in the same tradition as scholarly research, and I will ask you to elaborate upon that, with links if you will, about the methods used in editing and revising the bible early on in history.
in the end, however, my point is simply positivism versus faith. Science is not perfect, but it is built upon a foundation that is testable.
myke.[/quote]
I agree with you. However, that is simply the way things are.
Mathematics restricts itself to an even stronger foundation than science; that is those things which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt given some a set of definite assumptions. Would it be nice if we could prove science on the same level that we can prove mathematics? Of course! However, reality simply doesn't work that way. So then what do we do? Do we dismiss all of science because it doesn't rest on as firm foundations as mathematics? Do we claim that science is a farce and that only mathematics seeks truth? No. Mathematics is useless unless we can apply it to the physical world. So we relax the burden of proof and proceed.
Likewise, science chooses to restrict itself to those things that can be studied with simple empiricism. But, like mathematics with the physical world, science has its limitations. It cannot tell us about those things that cannot be observed empirically (those things that are not manifested in one of the five senses). So what about the rest of reality?
One part that clearly remains outside empiricism is people. People have purpose and intent and the goal of religion is to understand this.
Mathematics is not useful without the physical world and science is not useful without people. Notice that at each step we gain something more useful, but at the expense of the rigor in our proofs. If you want you can dismiss religion for lack of rigor, but then you will be missing out on the most important piece of the puzzle.
I'm not saying that the bible was brought up in the same traditions as scholarly research. Most of science wasn't even brought up in the same traditions as modern scholarly research. Archimedes did not publish his paper titled "Eureka!" in the journal Nature. All I was saying is that there was peer review.
Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists. I don't have time to scour the web for information on this, but arguing over religious ideas is a rabbinical tradition. Of course once you argue about things for 1000 years you come to some sort of conclusion. Accepted scientific theories, like gravity, are not being reviewed anymore. They are rather being refined. You could probably consider this analogous to trying to interpret the finer points of accepted scripture.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists.[/quote]
I mean, uh, where do I start...
I mean, uh, where do I start...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='chunk']Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists. I don't have time to scour the web for information on this, but arguing over religious ideas is a rabbinical tradition. Of course once you argue about things for 1000 years you come to some sort of conclusion. Accepted scientific theories, like gravity, are not being reviewed anymore. They are rather being refined. You could probably consider this analogous to trying to interpret the finer points of accepted scripture.[/quote]
This is where I end the argument.
1) I think it is clear that your thoughts on rabbis and scholars, again, runs over the boundaries of speculation.
2) Arguing over ideas, in no way, shape, or form, suggests that they have been empirically proven. Think of the amount of discourse that occurs around something like Star Wars. While it is a film, many people believe that "Jedi" and "the force" are approachable forms of understanding, that mankind will someday grasp. Francesca Poletta and James Jasper wrote a fantastic piece on Collective Identity in the 2001 Annual Review of Sociology. While not quite the same concept as groupthink, it's certainly appropriate here.
3) By comparing religious discourse to scientific discourse, you are neglecting to take on the difference between positivism (the foundation of science, that which is shown to exist in the real world) versus faith (an arbitrary delineation between "good" and "evil" in order to acheive a positive metaphysical outcome).
myke.
...when I say "I end the argument here," I don't mean that what I say is irrefutable, but that, but your constant neglect of the fundamental differences between positivism and faith, not to mention failing to explain the presence of a omniscient being in a world where "good" and "evil" are purely arbitrary social constructs, I've lost any desire to respond anymore. You did tackle some problems with positivism, but have still neglected the seriously flawed foundation of religion.
This is where I end the argument.
1) I think it is clear that your thoughts on rabbis and scholars, again, runs over the boundaries of speculation.
2) Arguing over ideas, in no way, shape, or form, suggests that they have been empirically proven. Think of the amount of discourse that occurs around something like Star Wars. While it is a film, many people believe that "Jedi" and "the force" are approachable forms of understanding, that mankind will someday grasp. Francesca Poletta and James Jasper wrote a fantastic piece on Collective Identity in the 2001 Annual Review of Sociology. While not quite the same concept as groupthink, it's certainly appropriate here.
3) By comparing religious discourse to scientific discourse, you are neglecting to take on the difference between positivism (the foundation of science, that which is shown to exist in the real world) versus faith (an arbitrary delineation between "good" and "evil" in order to acheive a positive metaphysical outcome).
myke.
...when I say "I end the argument here," I don't mean that what I say is irrefutable, but that, but your constant neglect of the fundamental differences between positivism and faith, not to mention failing to explain the presence of a omniscient being in a world where "good" and "evil" are purely arbitrary social constructs, I've lost any desire to respond anymore. You did tackle some problems with positivism, but have still neglected the seriously flawed foundation of religion.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='chunk']Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists.[/quote]
I mean, uh, where do I start...
[/quote]
Well you could start with
but it would just result in him writing more paragraphs of the BS. It's it great when someone ridicules your ideas for pages then writes a steaming pile of crap like this in your lap?
I mean, uh, where do I start...
[/quote]Well you could start with
but it would just result in him writing more paragraphs of the BS. It's it great when someone ridicules your ideas for pages then writes a steaming pile of crap like this in your lap?
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='chunk']Most of the bible is the torah (and other various jewish writings) and I think it is clear that for most of history rabbi's have been much more serious scholars than scientists.[/quote]
I mean, uh, where do I start...
[/quote]
Oy vey.
I mean, uh, where do I start...
[/quote]Oy vey.
[quote name='mykevermin']This is where I end the argument.
1) I think it is clear that your thoughts on rabbis and scholars, again, runs over the boundaries of speculation.
2) Arguing over ideas, in no way, shape, or form, suggests that they have been empirically proven. Think of the amount of discourse that occurs around something like Star Wars. While it is a film, many people believe that "Jedi" and "the force" are approachable forms of understanding, that mankind will someday grasp. Francesca Poletta and James Jasper wrote a fantastic piece on Collective Identity in the 2001 Annual Review of Sociology. While not quite the same concept as groupthink, it's certainly appropriate here.
3) By comparing religious discourse to scientific discourse, you are neglecting to take on the difference between positivism (the foundation of science, that which is shown to exist in the real world) versus faith (an arbitrary delineation between "good" and "evil" in order to acheive a positive metaphysical outcome).
myke.
...when I say "I end the argument here," I don't mean that what I say is irrefutable, but that, but your constant neglect of the fundamental differences between positivism and faith, not to mention failing to explain the presence of a omniscient being in a world where "good" and "evil" are purely arbitrary social constructs, I've lost any desire to respond anymore. You did tackle some problems with positivism, but have still neglected the seriously flawed foundation of religion.[/quote]
I don't think my thoughts on rabbi's and scholars are speculation. Rabbi's were writing books before science was even in its infancy. Rabbi's were applying complicated logical arguments to spiritual ideas a thousand years before science even developed a peer review process. I don't know why you guys find this statement so laughable. If there were no scientists around in 300 BC, but there were rabbi's then the rabbi's certainly had to be more serious scholars. Unless you somehow propose that the nonexistant scientists were scholars (or anything at all for that matter)?
I am not suggesting that arguing about things empirically proves anything. However, I am arguing that there is proof apart from empirical proof. Obviously you cannot prove empirically that 1+1=2 or that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is pi, but you can prove it through argument. Not only that but mathematical proof is stronger than empirical proof.
We have to approach this one step at a time. I'm still trying to convince some people that the supernatural exists. Once they accept that then we can move on to logical discourse about the characteristics of the supernatural.
I am not neglecting the difference between positivism and faith. I agree that positivism is better. I also think that mathematical exactness is better than scientific positivism. We have to deal with what reality gives us though. We cannot stick our heads in the ground and pretend that scientific positivism will give us a complete picture of reality.
1) I think it is clear that your thoughts on rabbis and scholars, again, runs over the boundaries of speculation.
2) Arguing over ideas, in no way, shape, or form, suggests that they have been empirically proven. Think of the amount of discourse that occurs around something like Star Wars. While it is a film, many people believe that "Jedi" and "the force" are approachable forms of understanding, that mankind will someday grasp. Francesca Poletta and James Jasper wrote a fantastic piece on Collective Identity in the 2001 Annual Review of Sociology. While not quite the same concept as groupthink, it's certainly appropriate here.
3) By comparing religious discourse to scientific discourse, you are neglecting to take on the difference between positivism (the foundation of science, that which is shown to exist in the real world) versus faith (an arbitrary delineation between "good" and "evil" in order to acheive a positive metaphysical outcome).
myke.
...when I say "I end the argument here," I don't mean that what I say is irrefutable, but that, but your constant neglect of the fundamental differences between positivism and faith, not to mention failing to explain the presence of a omniscient being in a world where "good" and "evil" are purely arbitrary social constructs, I've lost any desire to respond anymore. You did tackle some problems with positivism, but have still neglected the seriously flawed foundation of religion.[/quote]
I don't think my thoughts on rabbi's and scholars are speculation. Rabbi's were writing books before science was even in its infancy. Rabbi's were applying complicated logical arguments to spiritual ideas a thousand years before science even developed a peer review process. I don't know why you guys find this statement so laughable. If there were no scientists around in 300 BC, but there were rabbi's then the rabbi's certainly had to be more serious scholars. Unless you somehow propose that the nonexistant scientists were scholars (or anything at all for that matter)?
I am not suggesting that arguing about things empirically proves anything. However, I am arguing that there is proof apart from empirical proof. Obviously you cannot prove empirically that 1+1=2 or that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is pi, but you can prove it through argument. Not only that but mathematical proof is stronger than empirical proof.
We have to approach this one step at a time. I'm still trying to convince some people that the supernatural exists. Once they accept that then we can move on to logical discourse about the characteristics of the supernatural.
I am not neglecting the difference between positivism and faith. I agree that positivism is better. I also think that mathematical exactness is better than scientific positivism. We have to deal with what reality gives us though. We cannot stick our heads in the ground and pretend that scientific positivism will give us a complete picture of reality.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']I'm still trying to convince some people that the supernatural exists. Once they accept that then we can move on to logical discourse about the characteristics of the supernatural.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']If there were no scientists around in 300 BC, but there were rabbi's then the rabbi's certainly had to be more serious scholars. Unless you somehow propose that the nonexistant scientists were scholars (or anything at all for that matter)?[/quote]
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.
[quote name='camoor']
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.[/quote]
Aai yai yai! I was just giving 300 BC has a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Obviously there were rabbi's before that.
Man you guys sure like to nitpick on one little side comment. Is this the only flaw that you can find? I argue for pages and pages and this is the biggest problem with my argument? If you've read what I wrote you would realize that this wasn't actually part of my argument at all. Myke just asked me to elaborate on my opinion of the scholarly tradition in religion compared to science. That was my comment and, as you pointed out, it really isn't relevant to the truth nor to my argument.
How about picking on one of my relevant points? You know, something on which my argument actually rests? If I am so spectacularly wrong then it should be easy.
[quote name='zionoverfire']
[/quote]
Well I have to say that your rolleyes certainly put to rest all of my observations and carefully reasoned logic. You should become a scientist, since you argue for scientific truth so eloquently.
Seriously though. If you guys want to talk about this then stop with the thinly veiled insults and prove me wrong. I put what I got on the table and unless I'm completely delunsional, it seems that no one has even attempted to seriously challenge it. Now it's your turn (that is whoever disagrees with me).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.[/quote]
Aai yai yai! I was just giving 300 BC has a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Obviously there were rabbi's before that.
Man you guys sure like to nitpick on one little side comment. Is this the only flaw that you can find? I argue for pages and pages and this is the biggest problem with my argument? If you've read what I wrote you would realize that this wasn't actually part of my argument at all. Myke just asked me to elaborate on my opinion of the scholarly tradition in religion compared to science. That was my comment and, as you pointed out, it really isn't relevant to the truth nor to my argument.
How about picking on one of my relevant points? You know, something on which my argument actually rests? If I am so spectacularly wrong then it should be easy.
[quote name='zionoverfire']
[/quote]Well I have to say that your rolleyes certainly put to rest all of my observations and carefully reasoned logic. You should become a scientist, since you argue for scientific truth so eloquently.
Seriously though. If you guys want to talk about this then stop with the thinly veiled insults and prove me wrong. I put what I got on the table and unless I'm completely delunsional, it seems that no one has even attempted to seriously challenge it. Now it's your turn (that is whoever disagrees with me).
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='camoor']
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.[/quote]
Aai yai yai! I was just giving 300 BC has a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Obviously there were rabbi's before that.
Man you guys sure like to nitpick on one little side comment. Is this the only flaw that you can find? I argue for pages and pages and this is the biggest problem with my argument? If you've read what I wrote you would realize that this wasn't actually part of my argument at all. Myke just asked me to elaborate on my opinion of the scholarly tradition in religion compared to science. That was my comment and, as you pointed out, it really isn't relevant to the truth nor to my argument.
How about picking on one of my relevant points? You know, something on which my argument actually rests? If I am so spectacularly wrong then it should be easy.[/quote]
How can one even have a philosophical conversation when you write drivel like this:
Your viewpoint sounds like dogma - you're taking the axiom that the supernatural exists and arguing from that point. It's nice that you have faith in the existence of the supernatural, but your faith doesn't prove anything. It's nice that you think that scientific positivism will not give us a complete picture of reality, but where is your proof of this?
I can't even tell if you want to play the part of the wide-eyed mystic or the humble Jewish dogmatist. If you want to expose others to your beliefs, then this is a great forum to have an open discussion. However don't expect others to accept your views as the truth just because you say so. I have enough problems with the whacko in the White House who denies rights to gays and wants to limit a pregnant woman's choices because of a book written in the Arabian desert over 2000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Even if Rabbis existed before scientists, this fact does nothing to prove that their viewpoint is somehow more truthful then the one of scientists. That would be like saying the Ancient Egyptian religion contains more truth then Judaism, for the sole reason that the Ancient Egyptian religion existed first. You were just so spectacularly wrong - well like I said before, you have to start somewhere.[/quote]
Aai yai yai! I was just giving 300 BC has a hypothetical to illustrate the point. Obviously there were rabbi's before that.
Man you guys sure like to nitpick on one little side comment. Is this the only flaw that you can find? I argue for pages and pages and this is the biggest problem with my argument? If you've read what I wrote you would realize that this wasn't actually part of my argument at all. Myke just asked me to elaborate on my opinion of the scholarly tradition in religion compared to science. That was my comment and, as you pointed out, it really isn't relevant to the truth nor to my argument.
How about picking on one of my relevant points? You know, something on which my argument actually rests? If I am so spectacularly wrong then it should be easy.[/quote]
How can one even have a philosophical conversation when you write drivel like this:
Your viewpoint sounds like dogma - you're taking the axiom that the supernatural exists and arguing from that point. It's nice that you have faith in the existence of the supernatural, but your faith doesn't prove anything. It's nice that you think that scientific positivism will not give us a complete picture of reality, but where is your proof of this?
I can't even tell if you want to play the part of the wide-eyed mystic or the humble Jewish dogmatist. If you want to expose others to your beliefs, then this is a great forum to have an open discussion. However don't expect others to accept your views as the truth just because you say so. I have enough problems with the whacko in the White House who denies rights to gays and wants to limit a pregnant woman's choices because of a book written in the Arabian desert over 2000 years ago.
[quote name='camoor']
Your viewpoint sounds like dogma - you're taking the axiom that the supernatural exists and arguing from that point. It's nice that you have faith in the existence of the supernatural, but your faith doesn't prove anything. It's nice that you think that scientific positivism will not give us a complete picture of reality, but where is your proof of this?
I can't even tell if you want to play the part of the wide-eyed mystic or the humble Jewish dogmatist. If you want to expose others to your beliefs, then this is a great forum to have an open discussion. However don't expect others to accept your views as the truth just because you say so. I have enough problems with the whacko in the White House who denies rights to gays and wants to limit a pregnant woman's choices because of a book written in the Arabian desert over 2000 years ago.[/quote]
How can you possibly ask where is my proof? Did you even read this thread? My proof is on page 13. Where is yours?
How could you possibly say that my viewpoint sounds like dogma? I provided a proof that the supernatural exists. You have provided nothing. You are the one who's viewpoint sounds like dogma.
Where am I expecting people to accept my views just because I say so? I provide proof of my ideas and then you insult my intelligence by calling my statements drivel and attacking me with your dogmatic beliefs. Show me where I expect anyone to accept my views just because I say so?
And don't blame the president's actions on the bible. The president wants to limit the rights of gays and pregnant women because he is an idiot. It doesn't have anything to do with the bible.
Your viewpoint sounds like dogma - you're taking the axiom that the supernatural exists and arguing from that point. It's nice that you have faith in the existence of the supernatural, but your faith doesn't prove anything. It's nice that you think that scientific positivism will not give us a complete picture of reality, but where is your proof of this?
I can't even tell if you want to play the part of the wide-eyed mystic or the humble Jewish dogmatist. If you want to expose others to your beliefs, then this is a great forum to have an open discussion. However don't expect others to accept your views as the truth just because you say so. I have enough problems with the whacko in the White House who denies rights to gays and wants to limit a pregnant woman's choices because of a book written in the Arabian desert over 2000 years ago.[/quote]
How can you possibly ask where is my proof? Did you even read this thread? My proof is on page 13. Where is yours?
How could you possibly say that my viewpoint sounds like dogma? I provided a proof that the supernatural exists. You have provided nothing. You are the one who's viewpoint sounds like dogma.
Where am I expecting people to accept my views just because I say so? I provide proof of my ideas and then you insult my intelligence by calling my statements drivel and attacking me with your dogmatic beliefs. Show me where I expect anyone to accept my views just because I say so?
And don't blame the president's actions on the bible. The president wants to limit the rights of gays and pregnant women because he is an idiot. It doesn't have anything to do with the bible.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Your definition of supernatural makes your arguement trivial. You cite Godel's incompleteness theorem - if you are simply arguing that the system of science cannot prove that the system of science has discovered all truths of the natural world, then I would agree.
I'll go one further - Science is largely an empirical game (IE based on conclusions derived from our senses), there are relatively few pure a priori facts in the world. Descartes already theorized that we could all be hooked up to some Matrix-like system that feeds our brains false stimuli, thus fooling every sense we possess and rendering most of our scientific discoveries false.
OK, so science has not fully explained the workings of the entire universe. This does not prove that there are necessarily entities or physical/ethereal objects that operate outside of the boundaries of the rules of science (which is a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the word supernatural). Your assertion just means that it is possible that these entities or physical/ethereal objects exist, and science cannot currently prove otherwise. You want to label the fact that our current scientific understandings could be factually incorrect as supernatural. Sure. This definition of supernatural in no way proves or even suggests the existence of gods, demons, UFOs, nymphs, angels, bigfoots, ghosts, etc.
[quote name='eldad9']About that, have your work checked by somebody who knows a little about logic.[/quote]
Why don't you check it?
Or are you talking about some kind of holy priesthood of logicians. And what if they don't approve? Do the facts change just because the elite members in authority say they do?
Perhaps you also think that galileo should have had his work checked by someone who knows a little about the heavens (ie the leaders of the church)?
[quote name='camoor']
Your definition of supernatural makes your arguement trivial. You cite Godel's incompleteness theorem - if you are simply arguing that the system of science cannot prove that the system of science has discovered all truths of the natural world, then I would agree.
I'll go one further - Science is largely an empirical game (IE based on conclusions derived from our senses), there are relatively few pure a priori facts in the world. Descartes already theorized that we could all be hooked up to some Matrix-like system that feeds our brains false stimuli, thus fooling every sense we possess and rendering most of our scientific discoveries false.
OK, so science has not fully explained the workings of the entire universe. This does not prove that there are necessarily entities or physical/ethereal objects that operate outside of the boundaries of the rules of science (which is a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the word supernatural). Your assertion just means that it is possible that these entities or physical/ethereal objects exist, and science cannot currently prove otherwise. You want to label the fact that our current scientific understandings could be factually incorrect as supernatural. Sure. This definition of supernatural in no way proves or even suggests the existence of gods, demons, UFOs, nymphs, angels, bigfoots, ghosts, etc.[/quote]
I know it is trivial. That is what I meant when I said the supernatural is obvious and I think that my definition is pretty much exactly the same as the traditional definition of supernatural. If you think the two definitions are different then please point out the difference because they seem the same to me.
You are missing a subtlety though. It is not that science HAS NOT explained the workings of the entire universe. It CANNOT explain the workings of the entire universe. There is a difference. This does prove the necessity of entities outside the rules of science. That is the meaning of the incompleteness. That those parts that are incomplete need to come from some other system (some other set of rules). My assertion does not mean that such entities could exist; it means that they must exist. Otherwise science is complete (which we know is false).
It means that you always need to make assumptions. However, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth then these cannot simply be arbitrary assumptions. The theorem allows that such assumptions be proven statements from another system. Therefore, if you believe that there is absolute truth then the assumptions must be absolute truths that cannot be proved with science. In other words, if you believe that there exists such a thing as fact (absolute truth), then you must also accept that there are facts which science cannot prove.
I am in no way asserting that our current scientific understanding is incorrect; just incomplete. If you do not believe that there exists such a thing as a fact then the proof ends right there and so does science. However, if you do believe that there exists such a thing as a fact (which anyone who believes in science needs to believe) then that proves the existence of something outside the realm of science.
Now, can we say anything about the nature of that something? If we can then we might be able to say more specifically what it suggests the existence of.
However, first we need to agree that as long as we accept the idea of a fact then we must accept the idea that there is/are fact(s) outside the realm of science. Do we agree on that?
Why don't you check it?
Or are you talking about some kind of holy priesthood of logicians. And what if they don't approve? Do the facts change just because the elite members in authority say they do?
Perhaps you also think that galileo should have had his work checked by someone who knows a little about the heavens (ie the leaders of the church)?
[quote name='camoor']
Your definition of supernatural makes your arguement trivial. You cite Godel's incompleteness theorem - if you are simply arguing that the system of science cannot prove that the system of science has discovered all truths of the natural world, then I would agree.
I'll go one further - Science is largely an empirical game (IE based on conclusions derived from our senses), there are relatively few pure a priori facts in the world. Descartes already theorized that we could all be hooked up to some Matrix-like system that feeds our brains false stimuli, thus fooling every sense we possess and rendering most of our scientific discoveries false.
OK, so science has not fully explained the workings of the entire universe. This does not prove that there are necessarily entities or physical/ethereal objects that operate outside of the boundaries of the rules of science (which is a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the word supernatural). Your assertion just means that it is possible that these entities or physical/ethereal objects exist, and science cannot currently prove otherwise. You want to label the fact that our current scientific understandings could be factually incorrect as supernatural. Sure. This definition of supernatural in no way proves or even suggests the existence of gods, demons, UFOs, nymphs, angels, bigfoots, ghosts, etc.[/quote]
I know it is trivial. That is what I meant when I said the supernatural is obvious and I think that my definition is pretty much exactly the same as the traditional definition of supernatural. If you think the two definitions are different then please point out the difference because they seem the same to me.
You are missing a subtlety though. It is not that science HAS NOT explained the workings of the entire universe. It CANNOT explain the workings of the entire universe. There is a difference. This does prove the necessity of entities outside the rules of science. That is the meaning of the incompleteness. That those parts that are incomplete need to come from some other system (some other set of rules). My assertion does not mean that such entities could exist; it means that they must exist. Otherwise science is complete (which we know is false).
It means that you always need to make assumptions. However, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth then these cannot simply be arbitrary assumptions. The theorem allows that such assumptions be proven statements from another system. Therefore, if you believe that there is absolute truth then the assumptions must be absolute truths that cannot be proved with science. In other words, if you believe that there exists such a thing as fact (absolute truth), then you must also accept that there are facts which science cannot prove.
I am in no way asserting that our current scientific understanding is incorrect; just incomplete. If you do not believe that there exists such a thing as a fact then the proof ends right there and so does science. However, if you do believe that there exists such a thing as a fact (which anyone who believes in science needs to believe) then that proves the existence of something outside the realm of science.
Now, can we say anything about the nature of that something? If we can then we might be able to say more specifically what it suggests the existence of.
However, first we need to agree that as long as we accept the idea of a fact then we must accept the idea that there is/are fact(s) outside the realm of science. Do we agree on that?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='eldad9']About that, have your work checked by somebody who knows a little about logic.[/quote]
Why don't you check it?
Or are you talking about some kind of holy priesthood of logicians. And what if they don't approve? Do the facts change just because the elite members in authority say they do?
Perhaps you also think that galileo should have had his work checked by someone who knows a little about the heavens (ie the leaders of the church)?
[quote name='camoor']
Your definition of supernatural makes your arguement trivial. You cite Godel's incompleteness theorem - if you are simply arguing that the system of science cannot prove that the system of science has discovered all truths of the natural world, then I would agree.
I'll go one further - Science is largely an empirical game (IE based on conclusions derived from our senses), there are relatively few pure a priori facts in the world. Descartes already theorized that we could all be hooked up to some Matrix-like system that feeds our brains false stimuli, thus fooling every sense we possess and rendering most of our scientific discoveries false.
OK, so science has not fully explained the workings of the entire universe. This does not prove that there are necessarily entities or physical/ethereal objects that operate outside of the boundaries of the rules of science (which is a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the word supernatural). Your assertion just means that it is possible that these entities or physical/ethereal objects exist, and science cannot currently prove otherwise. You want to label the fact that our current scientific understandings could be factually incorrect as supernatural. Sure. This definition of supernatural in no way proves or even suggests the existence of gods, demons, UFOs, nymphs, angels, bigfoots, ghosts, etc.[/quote]
I know it is trivial. That is what I meant when I said the supernatural is obvious and I think that my definition is pretty much exactly the same as the traditional definition of supernatural. If you think the two definitions are different then please point out the difference because they seem the same to me.
You are missing a subtlety though. It is not that science HAS NOT explained the workings of the entire universe. It CANNOT explain the workings of the entire universe. There is a difference. This does prove the necessity of entities outside the rules of science. That is the meaning of the incompleteness. That those parts that are incomplete need to come from some other system (some other set of rules). My assertion does not mean that such entities could exist; it means that they must exist. Otherwise science is complete (which we know is false).
It means that you always need to make assumptions. However, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth then these cannot simply be arbitrary assumptions. The theorem allows that such assumptions be proven statements from another system. Therefore, if you believe that there is absolute truth then the assumptions must be absolute truths that cannot be proved with science. In other words, if you believe that there exists such a thing as fact (absolute truth), then you must also accept that there are facts which science cannot prove.
I am in no way asserting that our current scientific understanding is incorrect; just incomplete. If you do not believe that there exists such a thing as a fact then the proof ends right there and so does science. However, if you do believe that there exists such a thing as a fact (which anyone who believes in science needs to believe) then that proves the existence of something outside the realm of science.
Now, can we say anything about the nature of that something? If we can then we might be able to say more specifically what it suggests the existence of.
However, first we need to agree that as long as we accept the idea of a fact then we must accept the idea that there is/are fact(s) outside the realm of science. Do we agree on that?[/quote]
No way. Godel's theorem is about natural numbers, it does not talk about the understanding of the universe as a whole. How can you say that there will never be a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) that accurately predicts ever single action/event in the universe? It's true that details about the Big Bang are hazy, but then again details about atoms were hazy before this century. There is no way that a person can say with 100% certainty that supernatural objects/events/entities will always have the possibility of existing.
Why don't you check it?
Or are you talking about some kind of holy priesthood of logicians. And what if they don't approve? Do the facts change just because the elite members in authority say they do?
Perhaps you also think that galileo should have had his work checked by someone who knows a little about the heavens (ie the leaders of the church)?
[quote name='camoor']
Your definition of supernatural makes your arguement trivial. You cite Godel's incompleteness theorem - if you are simply arguing that the system of science cannot prove that the system of science has discovered all truths of the natural world, then I would agree.
I'll go one further - Science is largely an empirical game (IE based on conclusions derived from our senses), there are relatively few pure a priori facts in the world. Descartes already theorized that we could all be hooked up to some Matrix-like system that feeds our brains false stimuli, thus fooling every sense we possess and rendering most of our scientific discoveries false.
OK, so science has not fully explained the workings of the entire universe. This does not prove that there are necessarily entities or physical/ethereal objects that operate outside of the boundaries of the rules of science (which is a more traditional and widely accepted definition of the word supernatural). Your assertion just means that it is possible that these entities or physical/ethereal objects exist, and science cannot currently prove otherwise. You want to label the fact that our current scientific understandings could be factually incorrect as supernatural. Sure. This definition of supernatural in no way proves or even suggests the existence of gods, demons, UFOs, nymphs, angels, bigfoots, ghosts, etc.[/quote]
I know it is trivial. That is what I meant when I said the supernatural is obvious and I think that my definition is pretty much exactly the same as the traditional definition of supernatural. If you think the two definitions are different then please point out the difference because they seem the same to me.
You are missing a subtlety though. It is not that science HAS NOT explained the workings of the entire universe. It CANNOT explain the workings of the entire universe. There is a difference. This does prove the necessity of entities outside the rules of science. That is the meaning of the incompleteness. That those parts that are incomplete need to come from some other system (some other set of rules). My assertion does not mean that such entities could exist; it means that they must exist. Otherwise science is complete (which we know is false).
It means that you always need to make assumptions. However, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth then these cannot simply be arbitrary assumptions. The theorem allows that such assumptions be proven statements from another system. Therefore, if you believe that there is absolute truth then the assumptions must be absolute truths that cannot be proved with science. In other words, if you believe that there exists such a thing as fact (absolute truth), then you must also accept that there are facts which science cannot prove.
I am in no way asserting that our current scientific understanding is incorrect; just incomplete. If you do not believe that there exists such a thing as a fact then the proof ends right there and so does science. However, if you do believe that there exists such a thing as a fact (which anyone who believes in science needs to believe) then that proves the existence of something outside the realm of science.
Now, can we say anything about the nature of that something? If we can then we might be able to say more specifically what it suggests the existence of.
However, first we need to agree that as long as we accept the idea of a fact then we must accept the idea that there is/are fact(s) outside the realm of science. Do we agree on that?[/quote]
No way. Godel's theorem is about natural numbers, it does not talk about the understanding of the universe as a whole. How can you say that there will never be a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) that accurately predicts ever single action/event in the universe? It's true that details about the Big Bang are hazy, but then again details about atoms were hazy before this century. There is no way that a person can say with 100% certainty that supernatural objects/events/entities will always have the possibility of existing.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Or you have the new Britney Spears "look at me" gimmick - she looks like one of those servant vampires from "Blade"
C'mon Britney - at least Madonna seems sincere...
C'mon Britney - at least Madonna seems sincere...
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Or you have the new Britney Spears "look at me" gimmick - she looks like one of those servant vampires from "Blade"
C'mon Britney - at least Madonna seems sincere...[/quote]
Madonna is also twice her age, remember Madonna in the 80's?
C'mon Britney - at least Madonna seems sincere...[/quote]
Madonna is also twice her age, remember Madonna in the 80's?
[quote name='camoor']No way. Godel's theorem is about natural numbers, it does not talk about the understanding of the universe as a whole. How can you say that there will never be a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) that accurately predicts ever single action/event in the universe? It's true that details about the Big Bang are hazy, but then again details about atoms were hazy before this century. There is no way that a person can say with 100% certainty that supernatural objects/events/entities will always have the possibility of existing.[/quote]
Science explains things using mathematical models, which are all extensions of the natural numbers. The idea of measurement contains the natural numbers. So there could very well be a grand unification theory that predicts everything, it just couldn't involve measurement. So by definition it can't be a scientific theory. Unless you consider unmeasurable and untestable theories science.
Science explains things using mathematical models, which are all extensions of the natural numbers. The idea of measurement contains the natural numbers. So there could very well be a grand unification theory that predicts everything, it just couldn't involve measurement. So by definition it can't be a scientific theory. Unless you consider unmeasurable and untestable theories science.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='camoor']No way. Godel's theorem is about natural numbers, it does not talk about the understanding of the universe as a whole. How can you say that there will never be a GUT (Grand Unification Theory) that accurately predicts ever single action/event in the universe? It's true that details about the Big Bang are hazy, but then again details about atoms were hazy before this century. There is no way that a person can say with 100% certainty that supernatural objects/events/entities will always have the possibility of existing.[/quote]
Science explains things using mathematical models, which are all extensions of the natural numbers. The idea of measurement contains the natural numbers. So there could very well be a grand unification theory that predicts everything, it just couldn't involve measurement. So by definition it can't be a scientific theory. Unless you consider unmeasurable and untestable theories science.[/quote]
Godel's theory is a theory in pure logic, it contains concepts like infinity which may or may not exist in the real natural world. Science does not accept these concepts without proof obtained through the scientific method.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?
Science explains things using mathematical models, which are all extensions of the natural numbers. The idea of measurement contains the natural numbers. So there could very well be a grand unification theory that predicts everything, it just couldn't involve measurement. So by definition it can't be a scientific theory. Unless you consider unmeasurable and untestable theories science.
[/quote]Godel's theory is a theory in pure logic, it contains concepts like infinity which may or may not exist in the real natural world. Science does not accept these concepts without proof obtained through the scientific method.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?
[quote name='camoor']Godel's theory is a theory in pure logic, it contains concepts like infinity which may or may not exist in the real natural world. Science does not accept these concepts without proof obtained through the scientific method.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?[/quote]
If there were ever a conflict between pure logic and observable phenomenon then I would certainly be inclined to think that it is the observations that are in error and not logic. Without logic there is no basis for thought. The scientific method depends on logic. How can you determine whether or not you are following the scientific method without logic? Science implicitly accepts the concepts of logic without scientific proof.
I also wouldn't say that Godel's theorems depend on the existence of a physical infinity in any way.
The misconceptions section from the wiki is not relevant to our discussion because it is talking about mathematical systems which are not strong enough to discuss their own validity. The systems mentioned are complete because they can prove all statements which they are capable of discussing. However, they aren't capable of discussing their own validity.
Science, on the other hand, is capable of discussing its own validity. If it were not then it would be unfalsifiable. The ability to question everything (even science itself) is essential to science.
Relating this to the natural numbers, the important point is not whether the system actually defines the natural numbers. What is important is whether it is capable of defining them, which is true of any system capable of discussing its own validity. Furthermore, we can observe this with science because science does define the natural numbers. A measurement is a rational number, defined in terms of two natural numbers x/y. As far as I know there is no way of defining a rational number without first defining the natural numbers. Of course this all sounds more complicated than it is. The idea is that in order to do science you need to be able to count. As you mentioned earlier, this is all really trivial, but as my professor once said, "a proof isn't to discover the truth, but to convince a stubborn person (of course that stubborn person may be yourself)."
Sorry about the roll eyes. In my writing it is difficult for me to distinguish between statements which I really mean and ones which are meant to illustrate a fallacy. The roll eyes were an attempt to do that. They are certainly insulting when not accompanied with a statement and I guess you also found them offensive the way I used them. In the future, I'll try to express myself differently.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?[/quote]
If there were ever a conflict between pure logic and observable phenomenon then I would certainly be inclined to think that it is the observations that are in error and not logic. Without logic there is no basis for thought. The scientific method depends on logic. How can you determine whether or not you are following the scientific method without logic? Science implicitly accepts the concepts of logic without scientific proof.
I also wouldn't say that Godel's theorems depend on the existence of a physical infinity in any way.
The misconceptions section from the wiki is not relevant to our discussion because it is talking about mathematical systems which are not strong enough to discuss their own validity. The systems mentioned are complete because they can prove all statements which they are capable of discussing. However, they aren't capable of discussing their own validity.
Science, on the other hand, is capable of discussing its own validity. If it were not then it would be unfalsifiable. The ability to question everything (even science itself) is essential to science.
Relating this to the natural numbers, the important point is not whether the system actually defines the natural numbers. What is important is whether it is capable of defining them, which is true of any system capable of discussing its own validity. Furthermore, we can observe this with science because science does define the natural numbers. A measurement is a rational number, defined in terms of two natural numbers x/y. As far as I know there is no way of defining a rational number without first defining the natural numbers. Of course this all sounds more complicated than it is. The idea is that in order to do science you need to be able to count. As you mentioned earlier, this is all really trivial, but as my professor once said, "a proof isn't to discover the truth, but to convince a stubborn person (of course that stubborn person may be yourself)."
Sorry about the roll eyes. In my writing it is difficult for me to distinguish between statements which I really mean and ones which are meant to illustrate a fallacy. The roll eyes were an attempt to do that. They are certainly insulting when not accompanied with a statement and I guess you also found them offensive the way I used them. In the future, I'll try to express myself differently.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk'][quote name='camoor']Godel's theory is a theory in pure logic, it contains concepts like infinity which may or may not exist in the real natural world. Science does not accept these concepts without proof obtained through the scientific method.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?[/quote]
If there were ever a conflict between pure logic and observable phenomenon then I would certainly be inclined to think that it is the observations that are in error and not logic. Without logic there is no basis for thought. The scientific method depends on logic. How can you determine whether or not you are following the scientific method without logic? Science implicitly accepts the concepts of logic without scientific proof.
I also wouldn't say that Godel's theorems depend on the existence of a physical infinity in any way.
The misconceptions section from the wiki is not relevant to our discussion because it is talking about mathematical systems which are not strong enough to discuss their own validity. The systems mentioned are complete because they can prove all statements which they are capable of discussing. However, they aren't capable of discussing their own validity.
Science, on the other hand, is capable of discussing its own validity. If it were not then it would be unfalsifiable. The ability to question everything (even science itself) is essential to science.
Relating this to the natural numbers, the important point is not whether the system actually defines the natural numbers. What is important is whether it is capable of defining them, which is true of any system capable of discussing its own validity. Furthermore, we can observe this with science because science does define the natural numbers. A measurement is a rational number, defined in terms of two natural numbers x/y. As far as I know there is no way of defining a rational number without first defining the natural numbers. Of course this all sounds more complicated than it is. The idea is that in order to do science you need to be able to count. As you mentioned earlier, this is all really trivial, but as my professor once said, "a proof isn't to discover the truth, but to convince a stubborn person (of course that stubborn person may be yourself)."
Sorry about the roll eyes. In my writing it is difficult for me to distinguish between statements which I really mean and ones which are meant to illustrate a fallacy. The roll eyes were an attempt to do that. They are certainly insulting when not accompanied with a statement and I guess you also found them offensive the way I used them. In the future, I'll try to express myself differently.[/quote]
To me, Godel's theory is like one of those Russian Babushka dolls, except you start with the smallest doll and keep expanding outwards forever. To prove this system you need a bigger system, to prove the bigger system you need an even bigger system, ad infinitum. Therefore it relies on the fact that there is never going to be a system that can explain everything, because it will always rely on a bigger system to prove itself, and therefore the final all encompassing self-proving system is infinitely far away.
I'm not a mathematical realist and I've never seen any undeniable proof that the entire universe works according to strict mathematical models or even our understanding of logic. I don't know if science will ever discover all of the truths of the universe, but I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that it will never prove or disprove the existence of beings and entities that are labeled with the term "supernatural" today.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Link
And what's with the rolling eyes. Are you trying to follow in Scrubking's illustrious footsteps?[/quote]
If there were ever a conflict between pure logic and observable phenomenon then I would certainly be inclined to think that it is the observations that are in error and not logic. Without logic there is no basis for thought. The scientific method depends on logic. How can you determine whether or not you are following the scientific method without logic? Science implicitly accepts the concepts of logic without scientific proof.
I also wouldn't say that Godel's theorems depend on the existence of a physical infinity in any way.
The misconceptions section from the wiki is not relevant to our discussion because it is talking about mathematical systems which are not strong enough to discuss their own validity. The systems mentioned are complete because they can prove all statements which they are capable of discussing. However, they aren't capable of discussing their own validity.
Science, on the other hand, is capable of discussing its own validity. If it were not then it would be unfalsifiable. The ability to question everything (even science itself) is essential to science.
Relating this to the natural numbers, the important point is not whether the system actually defines the natural numbers. What is important is whether it is capable of defining them, which is true of any system capable of discussing its own validity. Furthermore, we can observe this with science because science does define the natural numbers. A measurement is a rational number, defined in terms of two natural numbers x/y. As far as I know there is no way of defining a rational number without first defining the natural numbers. Of course this all sounds more complicated than it is. The idea is that in order to do science you need to be able to count. As you mentioned earlier, this is all really trivial, but as my professor once said, "a proof isn't to discover the truth, but to convince a stubborn person (of course that stubborn person may be yourself)."
Sorry about the roll eyes. In my writing it is difficult for me to distinguish between statements which I really mean and ones which are meant to illustrate a fallacy. The roll eyes were an attempt to do that. They are certainly insulting when not accompanied with a statement and I guess you also found them offensive the way I used them. In the future, I'll try to express myself differently.[/quote]
To me, Godel's theory is like one of those Russian Babushka dolls, except you start with the smallest doll and keep expanding outwards forever. To prove this system you need a bigger system, to prove the bigger system you need an even bigger system, ad infinitum. Therefore it relies on the fact that there is never going to be a system that can explain everything, because it will always rely on a bigger system to prove itself, and therefore the final all encompassing self-proving system is infinitely far away.
I'm not a mathematical realist and I've never seen any undeniable proof that the entire universe works according to strict mathematical models or even our understanding of logic. I don't know if science will ever discover all of the truths of the universe, but I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that it will never prove or disprove the existence of beings and entities that are labeled with the term "supernatural" today.
One can never be argued into faith. I could never convince someone to follow Christ through debate. All it would take is someone better than me at debating to convince a person the other way.
Do what you will friends, but whether you believe it or not, there is a heaven and there is a hell and you go to one place or the other.
Do what you will friends, but whether you believe it or not, there is a heaven and there is a hell and you go to one place or the other.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Reading chunk's posts, it appears that his reasoning is "religion provides more answers than science, therefore religion is more accurate". Aristotle provided a complete worldview as well, doesn't mean he was very accurate.
I think moreso that chunk is trying to fill the gaps that science has not done. His is a view of faith, which can be very powerful. But it is simply that. Faith is a belief whether proven or not, the logic does not apply. However there are some points worth mentioning.
Science within the realm of the supernatural points to some strange results. For example, the exist of "ghosts" or other entities using scientific equipment such as EKG produce higher readings at certain times of night and at certain locations, almost consistently with reports of "hauntings." It does not prove existance, but it does shed some light that perhaps science has yet to enter certain realms of understanding.
The powers of the human mind are also interesting. Experiments with human patients in telekinesis and other powers of the mind have yielded mixed results. The plausable theory being that we have yet to tap into the realm of supernatural completely, and as yet, we label it so, until someone can break the barrier of understanding and bring a scientific approach to it.
It could be best summed by a seeing dog. Simply because a dog cannot see color, it does not negate the fact that color exists.
Nikkai does point to another sad truth. A basis on only faith or only science makes it a partisan issue, and the best balance relies on the moderate who juggles both for what they are - works in process.
Science within the realm of the supernatural points to some strange results. For example, the exist of "ghosts" or other entities using scientific equipment such as EKG produce higher readings at certain times of night and at certain locations, almost consistently with reports of "hauntings." It does not prove existance, but it does shed some light that perhaps science has yet to enter certain realms of understanding.
The powers of the human mind are also interesting. Experiments with human patients in telekinesis and other powers of the mind have yielded mixed results. The plausable theory being that we have yet to tap into the realm of supernatural completely, and as yet, we label it so, until someone can break the barrier of understanding and bring a scientific approach to it.
It could be best summed by a seeing dog. Simply because a dog cannot see color, it does not negate the fact that color exists.
Nikkai does point to another sad truth. A basis on only faith or only science makes it a partisan issue, and the best balance relies on the moderate who juggles both for what they are - works in process.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I can't agree that basing something solely on science, or religion, makes it a partisan issue. We all believe in science to some extent, and relying on evidence isn't exactly partisan. Besides, that would make atheists, and many non religious and agnostics all partisan, when they can be found on both sides of the spectrum, or right in the middle.
[quote name='camoor']To me, Godel's theory is like one of those Russian Babushka dolls, except you start with the smallest doll and keep expanding outwards forever. To prove this system you need a bigger system, to prove the bigger system you need an even bigger system, ad infinitum. Therefore it relies on the fact that there is never going to be a system that can explain everything, because it will always rely on a bigger system to prove itself, and therefore the final all encompassing self-proving system is infinitely far away.
I'm not a mathematical realist and I've never seen any undeniable proof that the entire universe works according to strict mathematical models or even our understanding of logic. I don't know if science will ever discover all of the truths of the universe, but I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that it will never prove or disprove the existence of beings and entities that are labeled with the term "supernatural" today.[/quote]
I agree with your description of Godel's theory, but it seems to me that this description is very similar to the concept of supernatural. There is a reason why it is called supernatural and not unnatural or undernatural.
In any case, if you don't think that the universe works according to mathematics and logic then you won't believe science either. Almost all significant scientific developments of the past 100 years have relied very heavily on mathematical inference. If you are not a mathematical realist then the evidence in support of relativity, quantum mechanics, and most other scientific discoveries is almost nonexistent.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot both accept science and reject the existence of the supernatural. If you accept one then you must accept the other. Of course you could reject both, but I think that most people would agree that you are crazy if you reject science.
[quote name='nikkai']One can never be argued into faith. I could never convince someone to follow Christ through debate. All it would take is someone better than me at debating to convince a person the other way.[/quote]
Good point. However I am not trying to argue someone into faith. I am just trying to persuade empirical fundamentalists to be a little more flexible.
For many of them, faith is not an option because they feel it is inconsistent with their worldview. I'm just trying to open up that option. Of course they could reject that option, but at least there will be no doubt in their minds that they are rejecting it because of personal motivation and not because it is unreasonable or irrational.
[quote name='neopolss']I think moreso that chunk is trying to fill the gaps that science has not done. His is a view of faith, which can be very powerful. But it is simply that. Faith is a belief whether proven or not, the logic does not apply.
Nikkai does point to another sad truth. A basis on only faith or only science makes it a partisan issue, and the best balance relies on the moderate who juggles both for what they are - works in process.[/quote]
Logic does apply to faith. You cannot have thought without logic. You cannot have faith in two conflicting ideas. For example, you cannot believe that logic both does apply and does not apply to faith. Such things are contradictory to thought and without thought you can neither believe nor reason about anything at all.
I agree completely that the best balance relies on moderation between faith and science. However, there are many empirical fundamentalists who don't agree. They think that science can fill its own gaps. I am not trying to fill these gaps. Instead I am trying to prove that these gaps can't be filled with science alone.
I'm not a mathematical realist and I've never seen any undeniable proof that the entire universe works according to strict mathematical models or even our understanding of logic. I don't know if science will ever discover all of the truths of the universe, but I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that it will never prove or disprove the existence of beings and entities that are labeled with the term "supernatural" today.[/quote]
I agree with your description of Godel's theory, but it seems to me that this description is very similar to the concept of supernatural. There is a reason why it is called supernatural and not unnatural or undernatural.
In any case, if you don't think that the universe works according to mathematics and logic then you won't believe science either. Almost all significant scientific developments of the past 100 years have relied very heavily on mathematical inference. If you are not a mathematical realist then the evidence in support of relativity, quantum mechanics, and most other scientific discoveries is almost nonexistent.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot both accept science and reject the existence of the supernatural. If you accept one then you must accept the other. Of course you could reject both, but I think that most people would agree that you are crazy if you reject science.
[quote name='nikkai']One can never be argued into faith. I could never convince someone to follow Christ through debate. All it would take is someone better than me at debating to convince a person the other way.[/quote]
Good point. However I am not trying to argue someone into faith. I am just trying to persuade empirical fundamentalists to be a little more flexible.
For many of them, faith is not an option because they feel it is inconsistent with their worldview. I'm just trying to open up that option. Of course they could reject that option, but at least there will be no doubt in their minds that they are rejecting it because of personal motivation and not because it is unreasonable or irrational.
[quote name='neopolss']I think moreso that chunk is trying to fill the gaps that science has not done. His is a view of faith, which can be very powerful. But it is simply that. Faith is a belief whether proven or not, the logic does not apply.
Nikkai does point to another sad truth. A basis on only faith or only science makes it a partisan issue, and the best balance relies on the moderate who juggles both for what they are - works in process.[/quote]
Logic does apply to faith. You cannot have thought without logic. You cannot have faith in two conflicting ideas. For example, you cannot believe that logic both does apply and does not apply to faith. Such things are contradictory to thought and without thought you can neither believe nor reason about anything at all.
I agree completely that the best balance relies on moderation between faith and science. However, there are many empirical fundamentalists who don't agree. They think that science can fill its own gaps. I am not trying to fill these gaps. Instead I am trying to prove that these gaps can't be filled with science alone.
[quote name='chunk']
Logic does apply to faith. You cannot have thought without logic. You cannot have faith in two conflicting ideas. For example, you cannot believe that logic both does apply and does not apply to faith. Such things are contradictory to thought and without thought you can neither believe nor reason about anything at all.
I agree completely that the best balance relies on moderation between faith and science. However, there are many empirical fundamentalists who don't agree. They think that science can fill its own gaps. I am not trying to fill these gaps. Instead I am trying to prove that these gaps can't be filled with science alone.[/quote]
Faith can exist in conflicting areas to a degree. One can believe in miracles even though they cannot scientifically or rationally exist. Yet many still believe anyway.
I agree that relying on only science is a mistake. Religion although inaccurate in many regards, also provides a wealth of historical, sociological, and patternization of human history. Deeply rooted are many recurring themes that can shed light into new areas where science can explore. Religion actually helps science in many regards by providing direction into new ideas and theories. The supernatural also has helped fuel scientific growth, along with wive's tales and urban myths.
Logic does apply to faith. You cannot have thought without logic. You cannot have faith in two conflicting ideas. For example, you cannot believe that logic both does apply and does not apply to faith. Such things are contradictory to thought and without thought you can neither believe nor reason about anything at all.
I agree completely that the best balance relies on moderation between faith and science. However, there are many empirical fundamentalists who don't agree. They think that science can fill its own gaps. I am not trying to fill these gaps. Instead I am trying to prove that these gaps can't be filled with science alone.[/quote]
Faith can exist in conflicting areas to a degree. One can believe in miracles even though they cannot scientifically or rationally exist. Yet many still believe anyway.
I agree that relying on only science is a mistake. Religion although inaccurate in many regards, also provides a wealth of historical, sociological, and patternization of human history. Deeply rooted are many recurring themes that can shed light into new areas where science can explore. Religion actually helps science in many regards by providing direction into new ideas and theories. The supernatural also has helped fuel scientific growth, along with wive's tales and urban myths.
[quote name='neopolss']Faith can exist in conflicting areas to a degree. One can believe in miracles even though they cannot scientifically or rationally exist. Yet many still believe anyway.
I agree that relying on only science is a mistake. Religion although inaccurate in many regards, also provides a wealth of historical, sociological, and patternization of human history. Deeply rooted are many recurring themes that can shed light into new areas where science can explore. Religion actually helps science in many regards by providing direction into new ideas and theories. The supernatural also has helped fuel scientific growth, along with wive's tales and urban myths.[/quote]
Of course there can be faith which contradicts logic. There can also be science which contradicts logic. However, such things are false. I am talking about the truth, not fallacies.
While I see what your saying regarding the social value of fallacies, that isn't what I am talking about. I think your missing my point. The supernatural is fact, unlike wife's tales and urban myths.
I agree that relying on only science is a mistake. Religion although inaccurate in many regards, also provides a wealth of historical, sociological, and patternization of human history. Deeply rooted are many recurring themes that can shed light into new areas where science can explore. Religion actually helps science in many regards by providing direction into new ideas and theories. The supernatural also has helped fuel scientific growth, along with wive's tales and urban myths.[/quote]
Of course there can be faith which contradicts logic. There can also be science which contradicts logic. However, such things are false. I am talking about the truth, not fallacies.
While I see what your saying regarding the social value of fallacies, that isn't what I am talking about. I think your missing my point. The supernatural is fact, unlike wife's tales and urban myths.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Huh? I think you forgot to convince me of that.
I can't see a living dinosaur, but if I want to prove they exist I can look at fossil remains. I'm waiting for some conclusive evidence on the supernatural thing, not "well, we can't describe what it is with science so therefore it must be of the supernatural". Appeals to ignorance aren't the most effective ways to prove a point.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chunk']In any case, if you don't think that the universe works according to mathematics and logic then you won't believe science either. Almost all significant scientific developments of the past 100 years have relied very heavily on mathematical inference. If you are not a mathematical realist then the evidence in support of relativity, quantum mechanics, and most other scientific discoveries is almost nonexistent.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot both accept science and reject the existence of the supernatural. If you accept one then you must accept the other. Of course you could reject both, but I think that most people would agree that you are crazy if you reject science.
[/quote]
That is an over-simplification of my position. I never stated that the universe never works according to mathematics and logic. I stated that it has not been conclusively proven that our current fundamental understanding of mathematics, logic, and science will eventually completely describe how the universe works (this includes Godel's proof, I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to the finidings of this proof that was made in formal logic)
Pythagoreans (arguably the world's first mathematic realists) were devastated when they discovered that irrational numbers exist, and their philosophy was temporarily abandoned. Since numbers were absolute, how could a proof involving numbers produce an irrational conclusion? The problem seemed insurrmountable.
Plato set the stage for the later emergence of mathematical realism by postulating that there is an alternate universe populated with idea forms, and that these idea forms can be conceived in our minds. Plato also put forth that our physical universe is just a close approximation of this idea form universe. Mathematical realism has matured since then, evolving in new and interesting ways, however it is very possible that there are more earth-shattering revelations in the fields of logic and mathematics that will completely illuminate the mysteries of the universe and transform the way we think. We would not be correct in stating that mathematics, logic, and science will never explain the workings of everything in the universe any more then the Pythagoreans were correct in abadoning their mathematical realist philosophy because they discovered that irrational numbers exist.
However you do not have to be a mathematical realist to accept that certain branches of mathematics accurately depict many of the workings of the universe. Indeed, many people would think pure mathematical realists who buy Plato's concept of the alternate idea form universe are at least a little off their rocker. I find it much more plausible that certain mathmatical fields like trigonometry and boolean logic are useful approximations of universal mechanics/physics, while other mathematical fields that deal with esoteric issues such as "infinite soap bubble formations" are interesting thought exercises, but no more then that.
So in conclusion I believe it is an entirely consistent position to believe that science will evolve to explain the entire workings of the universe without having to also cede a belief that there will always be "supernatural" events or entities that elude explanation via science.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot both accept science and reject the existence of the supernatural. If you accept one then you must accept the other. Of course you could reject both, but I think that most people would agree that you are crazy if you reject science.
[/quote]
That is an over-simplification of my position. I never stated that the universe never works according to mathematics and logic. I stated that it has not been conclusively proven that our current fundamental understanding of mathematics, logic, and science will eventually completely describe how the universe works (this includes Godel's proof, I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to the finidings of this proof that was made in formal logic)
Pythagoreans (arguably the world's first mathematic realists) were devastated when they discovered that irrational numbers exist, and their philosophy was temporarily abandoned. Since numbers were absolute, how could a proof involving numbers produce an irrational conclusion? The problem seemed insurrmountable.
Plato set the stage for the later emergence of mathematical realism by postulating that there is an alternate universe populated with idea forms, and that these idea forms can be conceived in our minds. Plato also put forth that our physical universe is just a close approximation of this idea form universe. Mathematical realism has matured since then, evolving in new and interesting ways, however it is very possible that there are more earth-shattering revelations in the fields of logic and mathematics that will completely illuminate the mysteries of the universe and transform the way we think. We would not be correct in stating that mathematics, logic, and science will never explain the workings of everything in the universe any more then the Pythagoreans were correct in abadoning their mathematical realist philosophy because they discovered that irrational numbers exist.
However you do not have to be a mathematical realist to accept that certain branches of mathematics accurately depict many of the workings of the universe. Indeed, many people would think pure mathematical realists who buy Plato's concept of the alternate idea form universe are at least a little off their rocker. I find it much more plausible that certain mathmatical fields like trigonometry and boolean logic are useful approximations of universal mechanics/physics, while other mathematical fields that deal with esoteric issues such as "infinite soap bubble formations" are interesting thought exercises, but no more then that.
So in conclusion I believe it is an entirely consistent position to believe that science will evolve to explain the entire workings of the universe without having to also cede a belief that there will always be "supernatural" events or entities that elude explanation via science.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I can't see a living dinosaur, but if I want to prove they exist I can look at fossil remains. I'm waiting for some conclusive evidence on the supernatural thing, not "well, we can't describe what it is with science so therefore it must be of the supernatural". Appeals to ignorance aren't the most effective ways to prove a point.[/quote]
It is not an appeal to ignorance, it is the definition. I define the supernatural as that which cannot be explained by science and I think it is pretty much the generally accepted definition. Do you define it otherwise?
I think that I have presented some conclusive evidence in this thread, but apparently you disagree. What do you define as "conclusive evidence"?
[quote name='camoor']That is an over-simplification of my position. I never stated that the universe never works according to mathematics and logic. I stated that it has not been conclusively proven that our current fundamental understanding of mathematics, logic, and science will eventually completely describe how the universe works (this includes Godel's proof, I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to the finidings of this proof that was made in formal logic)
Pythagoreans (arguably the world's first mathematic realists) were devastated when they discovered that irrational numbers exist, and their philosophy was temporarily abandoned. Since numbers were absolute, how could a proof involving numbers produce an irrational conclusion? The problem seemed insurrmountable.
Plato set the stage for the later emergence of mathematical realism by postulating that there is an alternate universe populated with idea forms, and that these idea forms can be conceived in our minds. Plato also put forth that our physical universe is just a close approximation of this idea form universe. Mathematical realism has matured since then, evolving in new and interesting ways, however it is very possible that there are more earth-shattering revelations in the fields of logic and mathematics that will completely illuminate the mysteries of the universe and transform the way we think. We would not be correct in stating that mathematics, logic, and science will never explain the workings of everything in the universe any more then the Pythagoreans were correct in abadoning their mathematical realist philosophy because they discovered that irrational numbers exist.
However you do not have to be a mathematical realist to accept that certain branches of mathematics accurately depict many of the workings of the universe. Indeed, many people would think pure mathematical realists who buy Plato's concept of the alternate idea form universe are at least a little off their rocker. I find it much more plausible that certain mathmatical fields like trigonometry and boolean logic are useful approximations of universal mechanics/physics, while other mathematical fields that deal with esoteric issues such as "infinite soap bubble formations" are interesting thought exercises, but no more then that.
So in conclusion I believe it is an entirely consistent position to believe that science will evolve to explain the entire workings of the universe without having to also cede a belief that there will always be "supernatural" events or entities that elude explanation via science.[/quote]
What is conclusive evidence? Do you think that seeing something with your eyes is more conclusive than a logical proof? What if you go blind?
I think I see where we disagree. I said earlier that if empirical observation were ever to contradict logic then it is the empirical observation that is wrong, not logic. However, if I understand you correctly then you think that the logic would be wrong.
Such a proposition is ridiculous. You said, "I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to [logic]". Well here is a logical proof: You have not seen conclusive evidence implies that you have not seen conclusive evidence.
However, you want to propose that logic may be incorrect. So maybe that proof is incorrect. So then it might be true that: You have not seen conclusive evidence implies that you have seen conclusive evidence.
So maybe you have seen conclusive evidence after all!
By now it should be clear how ridiculous your idea is. It is so nonsensical that it is barely possible to discuss it.
You deceptively use the word irrational to connotate that the pythagoreans came to a similarly nonsensical conclusion, but that isn't the case. Irrational numbers were unpleasant to the pythagoreans, but it was a political problem, not a mathematical one.
There is a fundamental difference between a problem like irrational numbers and saying that logic is false. If you have irrational numbers then you may not like it, but it ends there. However, if any part of logic is false then you can prove any statement.
The pythagoreans were numerologists. They weren't mathematicians. Mathematics is not about numbers. Mathematics simply looks at patterns that arise in logic and one of those patterns happens to be numbers. So for a mathematician nothing changes if a new kind of number is discovered tomorrow. Mathematics cannot discover new things which disprove old findings. Unlike science, old findings can never be disproven in mathematics. You are projecting the pitfalls of science onto mathematics.
You are misunderstanding mathematics. There is no such thing as a mathematical field that deals with soap bubbles. Mathematics deals with things in general. It could be anything. The existence of these things in the real world is not relevant to the mathematical facts relating to them. No physical discovery can change mathematics because mathematics also discusses those things which are impossible in the physical world. In other words, the mathematics of infinite bubble formations would still be true even if such a thing as bubbles didn't exist.
However, if something is impossible in mathematics then it is really impossible. Why is this? Because anything in impossible boils down to the definition: "those things which are impossible"
Obviously there is no physical circumstance nor anything at all that can change this. If it could then those things wouldn't be impossible, therefore it wouldn't be any change at all.
Your position basically boils down to: "This is what I believe and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and not pay attention to any proof otherwise."
You stance is akin to people who believe the earth is flat saying, "Well science has been wrong before and it could be wrong again. Therefore, it is consistent for me to believe the earth is flat." Only yours is worse because mathematics has never been wrong.
Fine, if that is the stance that you want to take then I will not argue with it.
Of course you may say that we might discover that the physical world is unrelated to mathematical truths. So mathematics is irrelevant. Well, as long as science contains the concepts of true and false it cannot avoid mathematics. So maybe you will say that we will discover a kind of science that doesn't even distinguish between true and false. Well, maybe, but I certainly wouldn't consider such a thing a science.
It is not an appeal to ignorance, it is the definition. I define the supernatural as that which cannot be explained by science and I think it is pretty much the generally accepted definition. Do you define it otherwise?
I think that I have presented some conclusive evidence in this thread, but apparently you disagree. What do you define as "conclusive evidence"?
[quote name='camoor']That is an over-simplification of my position. I never stated that the universe never works according to mathematics and logic. I stated that it has not been conclusively proven that our current fundamental understanding of mathematics, logic, and science will eventually completely describe how the universe works (this includes Godel's proof, I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to the finidings of this proof that was made in formal logic)
Pythagoreans (arguably the world's first mathematic realists) were devastated when they discovered that irrational numbers exist, and their philosophy was temporarily abandoned. Since numbers were absolute, how could a proof involving numbers produce an irrational conclusion? The problem seemed insurrmountable.
Plato set the stage for the later emergence of mathematical realism by postulating that there is an alternate universe populated with idea forms, and that these idea forms can be conceived in our minds. Plato also put forth that our physical universe is just a close approximation of this idea form universe. Mathematical realism has matured since then, evolving in new and interesting ways, however it is very possible that there are more earth-shattering revelations in the fields of logic and mathematics that will completely illuminate the mysteries of the universe and transform the way we think. We would not be correct in stating that mathematics, logic, and science will never explain the workings of everything in the universe any more then the Pythagoreans were correct in abadoning their mathematical realist philosophy because they discovered that irrational numbers exist.
However you do not have to be a mathematical realist to accept that certain branches of mathematics accurately depict many of the workings of the universe. Indeed, many people would think pure mathematical realists who buy Plato's concept of the alternate idea form universe are at least a little off their rocker. I find it much more plausible that certain mathmatical fields like trigonometry and boolean logic are useful approximations of universal mechanics/physics, while other mathematical fields that deal with esoteric issues such as "infinite soap bubble formations" are interesting thought exercises, but no more then that.
So in conclusion I believe it is an entirely consistent position to believe that science will evolve to explain the entire workings of the universe without having to also cede a belief that there will always be "supernatural" events or entities that elude explanation via science.[/quote]
What is conclusive evidence? Do you think that seeing something with your eyes is more conclusive than a logical proof? What if you go blind?
I think I see where we disagree. I said earlier that if empirical observation were ever to contradict logic then it is the empirical observation that is wrong, not logic. However, if I understand you correctly then you think that the logic would be wrong.
Such a proposition is ridiculous. You said, "I have not seen conclusive evidence that the world must work according to [logic]". Well here is a logical proof: You have not seen conclusive evidence implies that you have not seen conclusive evidence.
However, you want to propose that logic may be incorrect. So maybe that proof is incorrect. So then it might be true that: You have not seen conclusive evidence implies that you have seen conclusive evidence.
So maybe you have seen conclusive evidence after all!
By now it should be clear how ridiculous your idea is. It is so nonsensical that it is barely possible to discuss it.
You deceptively use the word irrational to connotate that the pythagoreans came to a similarly nonsensical conclusion, but that isn't the case. Irrational numbers were unpleasant to the pythagoreans, but it was a political problem, not a mathematical one.
There is a fundamental difference between a problem like irrational numbers and saying that logic is false. If you have irrational numbers then you may not like it, but it ends there. However, if any part of logic is false then you can prove any statement.
The pythagoreans were numerologists. They weren't mathematicians. Mathematics is not about numbers. Mathematics simply looks at patterns that arise in logic and one of those patterns happens to be numbers. So for a mathematician nothing changes if a new kind of number is discovered tomorrow. Mathematics cannot discover new things which disprove old findings. Unlike science, old findings can never be disproven in mathematics. You are projecting the pitfalls of science onto mathematics.
You are misunderstanding mathematics. There is no such thing as a mathematical field that deals with soap bubbles. Mathematics deals with things in general. It could be anything. The existence of these things in the real world is not relevant to the mathematical facts relating to them. No physical discovery can change mathematics because mathematics also discusses those things which are impossible in the physical world. In other words, the mathematics of infinite bubble formations would still be true even if such a thing as bubbles didn't exist.
However, if something is impossible in mathematics then it is really impossible. Why is this? Because anything in impossible boils down to the definition: "those things which are impossible"
Obviously there is no physical circumstance nor anything at all that can change this. If it could then those things wouldn't be impossible, therefore it wouldn't be any change at all.
Your position basically boils down to: "This is what I believe and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and not pay attention to any proof otherwise."
You stance is akin to people who believe the earth is flat saying, "Well science has been wrong before and it could be wrong again. Therefore, it is consistent for me to believe the earth is flat." Only yours is worse because mathematics has never been wrong.
Fine, if that is the stance that you want to take then I will not argue with it.
Of course you may say that we might discover that the physical world is unrelated to mathematical truths. So mathematics is irrelevant. Well, as long as science contains the concepts of true and false it cannot avoid mathematics. So maybe you will say that we will discover a kind of science that doesn't even distinguish between true and false. Well, maybe, but I certainly wouldn't consider such a thing a science.
bread's done