On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
On July 14 2008 18:27 Groslouser wrote: A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists. Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge. There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins? Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him? One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
did you watch any of the videos? if so; which ones?
you need to avoid the linguistic error of saying "people put faith in science" faith is trusting something which can't be proven. i don't have "faith" that when i drop my pen it will fall, i have overwhelming evidence that i can drop my pen a million times and it will fall to the ground. Dawkins isn't arguing that science should replace everything. he's just saying that beliefs imposed by religion that can be disproven by scientific claims should hold more weight. Science can't fill every void, but it may have much better, cleaner and more reviseable facts that religion can offer.
why don't you just watch the videos if you want to know what type of person he is. this is not a thread where you get the beg a question as if there isn't information right in front of your face where you can educate yourself about it.
On July 14 2008 14:20 Bozali wrote: In response to LuckyOne: Eventually it comes down to cause and effect. Things happen for a reason. If someone moved a piece of paper with their mind I would not surrender and say science isn't always applicable. I would start investigating it and try to find out how it happened.
To me it seems like you don't understand how dynamic the scientific model is. If it were to happen that it actually was magic that moved the paper, then that would be included in new scientific theories.
magic things that cant be explained by science. or else it would be science. if you could do anything you want with magics what would you need science for
Here's something i wrote awhile back in a blog. When it comes to religion, i use a passive stance because although i don't believe in a religion or a god, some good does come out of it. I also have such a stance because i accept that i know nothing. Anyway:
When someone says, "I believe in God" i think..."ok and out of the thousands of gods created, which one do you believe in again?" Many civilisations throughout time have their own collections of gods. If they haven't created their own, then they probably worship a batch that has been introduced to them by a different nation. All of these gods have their own stories of how they came about, what they can do and such, and i rate all of these stories, just because the sheer amount of them, to be all on the same level, even as modern religions such as christianity. You might think a monkey king helping out a blue person is insane, but to me i rate that just as insane as jesus coming back to life. I'm not saying they are 100% false, but are just as likely to be wrong as each other, no matter how jazzed up it is. That's not to say i don't believe in anything like that though. It's the same with people that are certain that there is no afterlife, no gods, no soul no nothing. If we don't exactly know how we got here or what the universe is, then i think it's pretty stupid to rule absolutely anything that you can't see as false. That being said, you could use that to argue the case of God, but i believe that for endless amount of anything that is entwined with life, i think it's pretty stupid to limit that thing as to one entity such as God. It could be so much more than God (no matter how all powerful you say he is) or it could be so much less.
"Richard Dawkins considers himself able to eliminate the possibility of anything outside the range of the current human conceptual system having any reality by pointing out that the concept of God held by large populations of people did not prevent them from doing various things to one another of which modern politically correct academics disapprove." - Celia Green
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
I'm dissapointed you feel that way. Dawkins would agree with my position. I agree my post was stinging but I hope the mods will see that it is in context with the discussion. Sam Harris talks alot about the rules we allow in conversation. We should challenge those who hold beliefs that cannot be explained. If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
Just a small clarification. I do not believe that you are a bad person at all. It is just the fact that you're doing things which have no apparent effect (ex. praying) for an unprovable reason that I think we have to address in the 21st century.
Well, first of all, also in the same post, I just want to say that I don't believe war is a necessity for the future either. I don't understand why you think I would.
Why does it affect you if I pray, ESPECIALLY if it has no purpose that you see? I mean, if I started praying for shit, and I started manipulating world events, then yeah, then maybe we've had a problem we have to Address. But especially seeing as how it has no effect for you, isn't that, literally and scientifically, harmless? I admit I pray for a reason that I cannot prove to you, but I defend quite strongly my right to do it... especially seeing as how it does not affect you.
Your wish to deprive me, or others of this harmless act, is similar to me trying to take SC away from you because you play too much. Is SC bad simply because people spend so much time with it? Is world of Warcraft evil? Absolutely not. They are harmless, and indeed have a lot of benefits within them if you try it, but there are correlations between the activity level of computer gamers and, say, soccer players. I mean, you really have to look past the shallow associations and see the good, instead of focusing on the bad cases and trying to lobby an activist movement against it.
personally i'm all about freedom of thought. no one has the right to tell someone else how to organize their thought process. i think dawkins raises some larger points though about how religion can end up damaging to the thought process. for instance one of the super rules for most religions is that it's critical you believe and adhere to it's rule set. now imagine if you were a homosexual but were raised (perhaps even indoctrinated) into believing that God hates homosexuality; that you'll burn in hell for eternity if you give in to your temptations which are generated by the devil. imagine the amount of guilt and shame you would carry with you everywhere you went.
people are unlikely to think this way unless these ideas are forced upon them when they are younger. many people may never be able to escape this cage of thought their entire lives simply out of fear that they will be punished harshly by the creator of the universe.
as far as i see it, prayer is just an internal monologue, but it's critical that that internal monologue be set up in a healthy fashion. either way i think it's healthiest to believe your just talking to yourself. that way your more likely to focus on problem solving and less likely to end up asking for help from something/someone that might not exist at all.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
ok this is another example of someone being a dumb ass on the fourm.
stop posting if you can't make coherent arguments. don't get my thread closed.
I'm dissapointed you feel that way. Dawkins would agree with my position. I agree my post was stinging but I hope the mods will see that it is in context with the discussion. Sam Harris talks alot about the rules we allow in conversation. We should challenge those who hold beliefs that cannot be explained. If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
i just thought the last line was a bit harsh, then again i suppose it's not that bad. i do agree with you though. someone should be challenged if they believe in a virgin birth but also think that science and religion are somehow completely separate.
anyways i'm gona go clubbing, i'll be back tonight or tomorrow.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
Give me evidence for civil behaviour, then? If you cannot find any, will you agree that there is no reason to behave civil? And "because others will treat you the same" is really inconsequential, it does not say anything about right or wrong.
Most of our everyday actions are based on belief and feeling. It means that they cannot be measured by science, but it does not make them pointless, or even uninteresting.
In the some Richard Dawkins videos (not sure if it's listed) they thoroughly go through how social behaviors can have evolved the darwin way and I can try to give you examples if you want. How it can be a good feat in the process of natural selection to be good to one and another. It feels to me that you just say that actions are based on beliefs and feeling with no evidence or argument to support it.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
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.
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..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
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.
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..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
Believing in astrology is showing complete arrogance to the world since there is no evidence at all to support it. And yeah that is why it is not correct. Currently there is nothing scientific or anything strange about it at all so I fail to understand where it fit in our discussion.
On July 14 2008 17:29 Fwmeh wrote: Overall, I do not think it is fruitful to try and place god in areas which science does not fully explain yet, because 1, they probably will, sooner or later, and 2, it is missing the point entirely.
Now, for the interesting notion that it is dangerous that people act based on faith. Nothing else is possible. Even the most hardcore atheist has to, because such things as morality cannot be based on science. Science cannot prove if an action is morally right or wrong, it is out of the scope of science entirely.
Tasteless said a couple of pages back that he believed that he has one life, that he should be allowed to live as freely as possible, as long as his freedom doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. I think that most people would agree that this is a sympathetic stance. But can he scientifically prove that this is right? Of course not, science has no way of dealing with such issues. Therefore, he lives out his life, according to these rules, based on faith, or belief, with no scientific basis on which to found that belief. And I don't think very many people are afraid of him.
Listen to what people actually believes, before judging them. And no, them saying that they are Christians is not enough, people with extremely different views call themselves Christians. In fact, that word have been so disused, it is almost meaningless now, which is very sad imho.
Some wise words, and I agree. You cannot trust someone just because they call themselves a Christian. Just like you shouldn't mistrust someone just because they.. well.. Call themselves a Christian.
Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values and I believe every human being is worth a chance to speak for themselves before being judged.
Do you admit to being unreasonably Nintu? Would you concede you aren't logical, and that you follow ideas based on nothing more than feeling?
Because if not then you need to simply answer the question: What evidence do you have to justify your specific type of religion? This includes beliefs and actions.
If the evidence holds weight, then a lot of people might be converted right here, myself included.
I've stated many times that I believe in something that cannot be explained by logic. I've also stated that it's not my burden to prove my belief to you, because I don't have the ability, or desire, to prove the existence of God to you. Again, I'm just repeating myself. I've said all this and more in my previous posts.
You just stated it's ok to believe something that cannot be explained by logic. In which case you are a fool. I don't respect the views of anyone who doesn't feel the need to explain himself.
If you can't explain a belief to someone else, you shoudln't be able to explain it to yourself. You have conceded you are illogical and irrational.
With a set of beliefs like yours you can justify anything in your own mind, including such horrors as suicide bombing. You are exactly what logical people are afraid of and the reason we need to have discussions like this.
This post is absurd. No single person follows logic all of the time, and failing to do so is not a slippery slope to suicide bombing.
If someone says they don't believe the Holocaust happened, you can't take them seriously from then on. The same rule should be applied to those who claim a man was born of a virign.
These are gravely different examples, one based on recent, recorded history.
If you want irrationality at its finest, look at most football fans. There's a number of social factors that cause people to be dangerous moreso than faith, and in same cases faith can have the opposite effect. Your earlier post essentially has no merit.
Longish post coming. I only read about eight also pages (4 in the beginning, and 4 in the end) so please bear with me if I've actually repeated what a few people have said previously.
First, from the posts that I've read, it's clear that a lot of people from both sides of this argument (although notably more from one side than the other and also towards bystanders do not really understand what science is. I've seen a lot of 'place faith in science,' 'place faith in theories,' and the such, and statements like this make me cringe simply by nature of myself being a science major and doing fun fun lab work just about every weekday. I'd like to invite people to do a little digging on what science means through the use of Wiki and other sources but for those of you too lazy, or require my definitions as bits for your own rebuttals (to my incoming points), here it is.
Science is a form of analyzing and explaining data made from empirical observation. In my limited understanding of science, there are two main facets to this; falsifiability and reproducibility. Conjecture and theoretical work aside, science cannot address things that it cannot prove wrong and science generally cannot address things that cannot be reproduced in a controlled environment. The latter is easy to explain; generally things that cannot be reproduced do not work off of one distinct variable, making science rather useless in being able to explain the factors that cause such a natural phenomena; hence, it is fruitless to try and perform a real 'scientific investigation' if one cannot bring it down to something one can repeat over and over and control factors each time to determine the mechanism and so forth and so one.
The former is harder to explain, but essentially, science does not deal with things one cannot prove wrong. The existence of God falls squarely in this category, which is why 'faith based' pseudoscience such as Creationism, etc, are not really scientific theories and are dismissed by most of the world's scientists as useless pieces of dribble. If you cannot prove something wrong, you cannot check its validity; therefore, there is no systematic way to prove whether your initial hypothesis was right or wrong to begin with. In other words, in order to measure the accuracy of one's problems within inductive reasoning, one must be able to find a hypothetical 'possible observation' that would prove it wrong; it must be able to be proven false. In the case of God, there is no singular way to prove God is wrong (at least, not a way that we know now as a bone to throw to the more creative-minded among you), and therefore God is not part of science in this fashion.
The classic example is the 'all swans are white' statement. If one encounters a billion swans in their lifetime, one would believe all swans are white through inductive reasoning. However, if one can find a black swan, this proves the above reasoning false, and the statement is shown to be falsifiable. Hence, in order to test one's belief that all swans are white, one might travel around the world to look for a non-white colored swan because the possibility still exists and can be verified through observation evidence. Incidentally, this above process is similar to how a theory develops, which is after say five trillion swans, there is still no black swan.
With God, however, there is no counterstatement; thus, it isn't a valid scientific discussion. If one encounters God in their lifetime, one would believe that there is a God; however, one cannot then 'not encounter' a God to prove the ideal false. The idea is not falsifiable, but the reverse is (again, a bone to throw at the more creative minded among you), that is to say that you can go through life not encountering God and suddenly encounter Him to prove your previous inductive reasoning is false. However, please note that these statements tie in with the reproducibility of science, and thus, cannot be valid if they cannot be reproduce. If one could 'reproduce' a holy encounter, then it suggests that God is more of a manifestation of different factors and that detracts from the original notion. I don't think I need to go on in this vein, but God is not an ideal or an object able to be proven by science.
Thus, if God and science are separate, the issue then arises on whether the two can coexist; indeed, I believe they can. One can have faith in God and yet still be a man of logic and science, as neither interferes with the other. I feel that conflicts only occur when one starts mixing the two together, being unable to handle perhaps the fact that faith intrinsically requires no basis. Thus, I do not believe that creationists and the like are truly faithful, simply because they require some form of 'justification' or 'evidence' for their faith; if there is no proof, then it somehow 'disappears'? Must faith be validated through hard evidence? This is not a facet of religion, which requires some sort of 'physicality' of faith to maintain legitimacy, that I agree with or subscribe to. Faith can be held by anyone without a shred of evidence at all.
That said, it is also important in my view to look at things objectively and through logic. Perhaps faith requires no justification, but one must be careful about what they believe in solely because if a given ideal that one believes in can be proven right or wrong through the use of empirical evidence, that should supercede any form of 'faith.' In cases like the existence of a divine being, this point is moot. In smaller cases, like the belief that dogs and cats rain from the sky, or that we can fly if we really want to, logic and the scientific mindset should prevail. Often times, people fall into the trap of mixing what they have faith in (if I do/do not do this, I believe so and so will/will not happen) instead of learning about the given situation and applying newfound knowledge to how to run their lives. I suppose the best parallel I can come up with this early in the morning while slacking off at work is science itself.
People claim to have 'faith' in science when it is something that one should explore the validity of, read up about, and so forth; this causes a form of 'mysticism' to pervade through popular culture of science being similar to a religion and so forth and so on. To those of you who believe that science is somehow a mystical thing, or a new form of religion (colloquially used as a 'faith based' belief system or organization), I ask you read and explore science yourself if you have the time. I assure that it is both more accessible and easily understandable than the average layman believes. One does not 'believe' in science any more than one has faith that a pen will fall; one reaches science through logic, and knows a pen will fall because a billion times before, the pen has fallen. However, there is always the chance that the pen will not fall, and any real scientists encountering this would jump for joy as it means a new revolutionary paper and possibly a Nobel prize.
Logic, falsifiability, and reproducibility are all aspects of science. They should not be mixed up with this big construct we call 'faith;' in the end, the two are separate.
What do I believe about Dawkins? I think Dawkins has some great ideas and despite the bitter delivery, in the end, he probably is about as spiritual as some of the pastors Christians go to. In one of this books, Dawkins addresses his own belief on whether or not God can or cannot exist; he chose a 9/10 that God doesn't exist but also was clear that he didn't know. It is possible that he suddenly has a revelation, and the implication is that Dawkins both knows and understands this fact, but based on the rest of his observations, God doesn't exist.
It is perfectly alright to have faith in something that is illogical; it is not alright when there is empirical evidence. People are people; we are all prone to being irrational at different times and perhaps it is our hallmark as living things that there is a randomness that pervades our lives. At times, we require guidance and we require the feeling that things are going to be alright; I think this aspect of what faith lends us (not necessarily religion) is a beautiful thing, and something science doesn't offer comfort on. However, on the flip side, one must not cling onto their faith in the face of logic as the domain and definition of faith itself requires no empirical basis. When there is evidence for the contrary, one must discard their faith and adopt a rational view.
To the kid who mentioned suicide bombers, it is not the fact that someone has faith that caused them to go off and kill people. I do not believe faith is the sole factor in these sorts of actions; it is, instead, the overwhelming disregard for the empirical evidence that doing this will hurt someone else. The fact that people choose faith over logic is the problem, not that faith exists.
I guess the brain is a magical artifact as well since there is a lot we can't understand about it yet. Therefore, it must be magic.
You say placebo can be measured. So how can it be magical? How is the placebo effect inherently in defiance with the laws of nature? You call yourself a naturalist? Doesn't that exclude all 'magic'?
On July 14 2008 18:27 Groslouser wrote: A part of the problem is that most people need something to have faith in in order to live. They need to see an order in this world, or a justification for everything, and the fact is, without religion 90% of the time another faith appears.
Oh, its not called a "religion", still it exists. Like those people who have faith in science : basically science become their religion, a faith they blindly follow, thinking it will solve every problem in this world, they don't try to understand it for it is an incomprehensible power beyond their knowledge. There are many other replacement solutions: astrology, no-religious sects, communism, anarchism... it just has to be something wich can describe our world/future/goals/whatnot, it will always lose its essence (if there was one in the begining anyway) since people aren't here to learn but want something to believe in .
And smart peoples will always find ways to use these belivers to have some power should they have faith or not.
The sad thing is that it will never change because living truly without have faith in something is hella difficult, it raise a ridiculous amount of painful question. One cannot blame people for believing in something, at least they've got something to build their live on.
I'll also ads that believers are not always "evil", people are quite eager to forget what they brought to us. Like, in france christianism spread with monks who created monasterys everywhere, once they were created, monks taught people farming, safer way to build, they dried a lot of swamps (and their were plenty here back in the dark age), while building church everywhere they gave employment to the population during centuries. The list could go on. And for every major religion it is the same.
Nah the problem is those who surrender their free will to other humans, losing their criticism thus accepting everything even if its plainly stupid (ie: "dont vaccinates your childs") or will harm other people who had nothing to do with you (ie: "go crash a plane on this tower", "lets beat the shit out of saddam, he has weapon of mass destruction and he ordered 09/11").
Now, one can wonder: what kind of people is Dawkins? Is he someone wanting people to use their brain or does he believe he knows the Truth and that all should listen to him? One attitude would make him a great man, the othe would lower him to the same level as some lambda religious zealot.
did you watch any of the videos? if so; which ones?
you need to avoid the linguistic error of saying "people put faith in science" faith is trusting something which can't be proven. i don't have "faith" that when i drop my pen it will fall, i have overwhelming evidence that i can drop my pen a million times and it will fall to the ground. Dawkins isn't arguing that science should replace everything. he's just saying that beliefs imposed by religion that can be disproven by scientific claims should hold more weight. Science can't fill every void, but it may have much better, cleaner and more reviseable facts that religion can offer.
why don't you just watch the videos if you want to know what type of person he is. this is not a thread where you get the beg a question as if there isn't information right in front of your face where you can educate yourself about it.
I've watched The Enemies of Reason , The Virus of Faith and the debate in lynchburg so its not like i've spoken without knowing the subject, still i won't dare to say i know who he is and what he thinks.
Besides, i totally agree with what he says for i am an atheist and scientist so i'm not arguing with the ability of science to prove that most religion/superstition are wrong.
As for the faith point, i was not mistaken with my choice of words. Of course dealing with simple subjects people will roughly understand but when they are in front of more complicated issues its not the case. When talking about faith in science i was thinking about medicine: most people believe is should be able to cure everything and are hopeless if a treatment don't work. So what's left to them? Rational people would think about a smart way to spend their remaining time, other will find its a good occasion to come back to the church.
This exemple to show that science can do a lot, explain a lot, but its answer to question are often harsh to hear: it's highly probable you'll die soon, you're nothing but a pack of oxygen carbon hydrogen nitrogen and some metals, you're here for a second in this universe and nothing will follow, etc etc etc... After that science in fact tells you that you have to find your own way to live, your own way to stand in our world, that no providence will back you. Dawkins said in The Virus of Faith that religion (in the catolicism part) is a confortable belief and that it gives a huge group feeling, he may never be more right, this sole assertion explain the fundamental goal of religion.
So superstitions will never disappear and it's up to us (scientist) to deal with obscuratism even if it's not a fair fight. Do you really think a scientist could gather several thousand people every weeks like this american pastor (this one erally piss me off, speaking of arrogance when he belongs to the worst kind of arrogant asshole) and convince them? it's quite unlikely even if i'am glad there are people like him to do debates on the subject.
To sum up: i think he's right even if he may win one or two battles against obscuratism, but not the war. Then again, the desesperate fights are the one wich need the most to be run.
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote: i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is.
To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
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.
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..
well i think the point of the video is not to laugh at other peoples beliefs. but to show that when tested they do not metaphysically reflect the nature of the universe. that alot of the functioning behind these modes of thinking can be shown false. the example of the pasture reading the minds of the dead and channeling them to the living is obviously something that is fake and also damaging. while, generally speaking, astrology is less harmful it may not be very pragmatic to understand the world via this lense. did you know regan made a lot of his political decisions based off horoscopes?
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
i think he does the way he mention "primitive" to refer to anything that isnt science
science is revisable. that's why dawkins thinks it should be the mechanism for our reasoning. if we turn out to be wrong, we can go back and change our understanding of things.
what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology like if they could predict the future successfuly even tho it makes no scientific sense. or something like telekinesis
science couldnt go back and revise itself since these things make no scientific sense.
nazis us,and soviets explored these ways during the wars. to try to get an edge.
also the ressources spend into science is way more than those alternative ways (which makes sense since its the most useful for now)
what if we pay 1million ppl to try and move a piece of paper with their mind all their lives.
also of course there are alot of faker since their thing dont work yet kind of like some scientists make fake evidence to get their funding.
i feel like you just keep missing the point of that video.
"what if the correct way of thinking turned out to be astrology." But it's not. if it was correct it would prove to be positive in tests. this is like the first myth dawkins destroies in the movie. how can astrology be the correct metaphysical approach the universe if it can't even stand up to basic testing.
and if you really did watch that video you would remember dawkins talking about how much money is alternative medicine and things like astrology are making.
I don't mean to sound like a dick but, do you understand what the scientific method is? if so can you explain it just briefly.
maybe its not correct because it hasnt evolved enough yet
Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
why did i even bother, last time in a religion thread + Show Spoiler +
luckyone, you are giving astrology as much credibility as science that it simply does not and cannot deserve. what i'm about to post has been repeated over and over in this thread but i hope to make the point as simple as possible.
to build a castle, you need a foundation, which all the discoveries and research that collectively make up 'science' always back up with attempts at understanding and replication of results. with a system like this, it's easy to see how it can build upon itself to where it is now.
looking at astrology, has anything in that 'field' ever been found to be consistent and practical to be applied in everyday use? i am not very familiar with the origins of astrology but hasn't it remained stagnant despite enormous improvement in education over the past several thousand years? there is nothing there to build upon, because the fundamentals are already so doubted.
science was not simply given a chance and by blind luck made it to the mainstream. there is always a mind-boggling amount of work put first into finding the basis behind phenomena, and then many times more that effort put into convincing other intelligent human beings that what you believe is true. it is slow but very powerful, a complete opposite from the disciplines you seem to be blindly supporting.
On July 14 2008 23:55 redmourn wrote: Hmm before we go any further I'd like to add something. I think some people don't think about the implications of excepting athiesm as alot, or absoulte fact. And also the implactions of the responsibility of an athiest to be envovled in eugenics, somthing that I've always struggled to undersatnd is the arbitaryness of athiests to say "I don't have to belive in spirituality to have a morality.". An the whole "you can't tell me I can't have morals because i am an athiest". Well yes, i can. There are very serious questions to be asked about evolution and what accepting it with no spirituality involves (btw im not a creationist and im not on about that).I'm not saying that you cant belive in evolution and not belive in a God but i am sayimng you can no way by any means accept the society of "you should help others", this is surely COMPLETELY against what you belive, and any refute of that is just denial. Here's a better explaination of what i mean:
are you christian? are you responsible for the crusades? the inquisition? centuries of discrimination against jews? god knows how much else? (if you're not christian just substitute in atrocities commited in the name of your religion of choice)
why do you have to be spiritual to have morals? i know i dont like it when people steal from me, so i dont steal from other people because it would make them feel bad and i have no desire to make other people feel bad. or, if you want to be more cynical, i know if i steal from someone its gonna piss them off (because being stolen from pisses me off) and theyd likely seek revenge, which would be harmful to me. where does spirituality enter in to any of that?
where is god needed in evolution? all thats needed are the mechanics of genetics/reproduction and the selective pressure caused by limited resources in any given environment, and both of those are accounted for.
EPT
