EPTActually they do explain why things happends, Mostly cause and effect. B happend because A happned and affected B in this way etc.
The Richard Dawkins Thread - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
Actually they do explain why things happends, Mostly cause and effect. B happend because A happned and affected B in this way etc. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
not only does religion not answer how, it doesnt answer why either. It proposes ideas but not answers. | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote: Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview. On July 14 2008 10:21 Funchucks wrote: [...]You don't need millions of years for evolution to happen, it's just that dramatic, species-changing events are rare. I guess that all of these modern things might be a stronger "selection pressure" than anything in our ancestral environment, but I still don't think that it'd speed up evolution to a point where it'd become relevant to us. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 10:23 MyLostTemple wrote: ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards. it did watch the 1st one i dont see how it answers anything(the whole point of this video is to make fun of other ways of thinking + some drama) there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet.. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote: I guess that all of these modern things might be a stronger "selection pressure" than anything in our ancestral environment, but I still don't think that it'd speed up evolution to a point where it'd become relevant to us. Problem is that 75% of the people have missunderstood how broad the term evolution really is. Evolution is about adaptation. And it goes beyond just changes to a species body, like growing out hair because its colder. The most rapid evolution is Information Technology. 20 years ago it was none-existent. Today people get rabid if their high speed connection goes down a whole week. We are also growing smarter for every year. And not just IQ-wise. If you go to youtube you will find self made movies. Some of them are very well made. The creators are also very young. This has caused problems since the creators are using already existing content that is copyrightet and simply re-create new content from already existing content. And sometimes the quality is just as good as the original content. This didn't exist before the Internet. Nor did previous generation have the tools, the know how or the brains to execute it. This is also evolution, even though it has nothing to do with body evolution. | ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote: i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion. I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course. What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods. Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence. So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us. On July 14 2008 11:22 Wonders wrote: Although science doesn't really have anything to say about meaning, it's hardly done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. It doesn't set out to contribute anything to meaning, but anyone can draw meaning from its conclusions. It's told us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe and that humans are just animals with a vastly complicated brain. Don't say that that hasn't contributed *anything* to your worldview. You are assuming that life has to have a meaning and based on this assumption you conclude that God has to exist. The fault is in the assumption. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 08:13 BlackStar wrote: Since isn't a set of dogmas. It's a method for making models that describe reality. isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe | ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:36 LuckyOne wrote: isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe Ask yourself, what is science? It is a method for making models based on theories and then trying to prove / disprove them. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:22 LuckyOne wrote: there is still major problems in science that we didnt solve as long as we dont know everything the next step could prove us we were wrong all this time, like we were in the past. So i dont see why we want to kill other ways of thinking, yet.. Science has actually been "wrong" on various subjects. One of the biggest i believe was provened by relativity theory, which proved that allot of the fundamentals of physics had allot of errors in it. however these errors would only show up if you examined extremes. Like the speed of light or some other phenomena that you never would try to do in a normal situation.Furthermore the new way of actually calculating was wayy to complicated. Since the error actually didn't show up in normal calculations physics kept the faulty bit of physics while the more correct part only was used for calculations that it was actually needed. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:36 LuckyOne wrote: isnt a method similiar to a dogma in a way btw anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a fixed set of ideas it could be a method for making models that science doesnt describe A method is the scientific way of describing something.... if you can't describe it in a scientific way then it isn't a method  | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:34 Bozali wrote: I would like to ask yourself a question that Sam Harris raises in one of his debates. Can you think of any question that earlier has been answered by science to which there now is a better answer coming from religion? The opposite is easy of course. What I mean is that religion is a static set of rules to which there is no real development. People blindly believe that it's true and don't really care about what other people believe since what they believe is not appreciated by their Gods. Science however is dynamic and changes with time new models and theories are discussed all the time and a little now and then it takes a leap forward with new evidence. So for not having evolution taught in schools (Yes, evolution is considered fact if you still don't believe this please watch the videos people have offered.) is just a leap backward in science and consciousness about the world around us. anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc.. btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact" | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:43 Integra wrote: Science has actually been "wrong" on various subjects. One of the biggest i believe was provened by relativity theory, which proved that allot of the fundamentals of physics had allot of errors in it. however these errors would only show up if you examined extremes. Like the speed of light or some other phenomena that you never would try to do in a normal situation.Furthermore the new way of actually calculating was wayy to complicated. Since the error actually didn't show up in normal calculations physics kept the faulty bit of physics while the more correct part only was used for calculations that it was actually needed. what if those faulty bits that keep accumulating create bugs at some point. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:45 Integra wrote: A method is the scientific way of describing something.... if you can't describe it in a scientific way then it isn't a method method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something. doesnt say it has to be a scientific way | ||
|
Polemarch
Canada1564 Posts
Maybe it's actually optimal if only the brightest 10-20% of the world (with a chance to contribute to the advancement of science) were educated and the rest of the people are easily tricked into believing in crackpot healthcare. Does education kill? At what price do we want mass rationality? | ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:49 LuckyOne wrote: anything that isnt science doesnt have to be a static set of rules and can be dynamic and evolve even religion are evolving, belief in ghosts, ufo, astrology etc.. btw im not saying i dont believe in evolution. i do atm till proven wrong so its not really a fact just a "atm fact" Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact". I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:54 LuckyOne wrote: method (plural methods) 1. A process by which a task is completed; a way of doing something. doesnt say it has to be a scientific way What are the main reasons for creating a process? 1) to be able to measure the result. 2) to be able to get feedback from the measurments. 1 and 2 leads to that the process can be maintained and improved so each result to be as close as the ideal thougth out result. What do yo think is the best way to go on about for 1 and 2. what would provide the best reliable measurements and feedback. Maybe a scientific approach?? Processes are by nature Scientific. | ||
|
Bozali
Sweden155 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote: I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any. Well, to take belief in ghosts for example, it used to be that people only reported sightings of traditional sorts of ghosts. But that superstition has evolved. Now people are starting to report sightings of ghosts which were invented especially for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, such as allips and liches. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 11:57 Bozali wrote: Well of course we only believe things until they're proven wrong. So everything we believe is what you call "atm fact". I would like you to give me examples of how these things you brought up evolve. Because I can't really think of any. religion being more loose on the texts(yeah but by 7days we mean 1 day= xxxx year) , religious rock band, religious documentary, see they try to attract new crowd to not die out. they cant update the bible but what they do is say these text are vague , hidden meaning so in fact they update the meanings in a dynamic way whenever they see fit. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 14 2008 12:05 Bozali wrote: I feel that there is only LuckyOne over here who challenging the way of science. We have no other none-science and/or pro-religous people to step up? All tho I am going to bed soon hmmmm im pro science and not religious funny how i get thrown in the other "camp" lol | ||
| ||
