|
On July 16 2008 03:11 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote:
You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point). Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 02:56 Fwmeh wrote:On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote:
Look it's really simple:
People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail. No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing. I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having.
"Look it's really simple:"
That was the first line of the post I quoted. I fail to see how that scientifically proves that humans need the freedom of speech. I doubt anyone else here does either.
You have still posted no proof. A scientist must be required to present proofs, so that his fellow scientists can study it at their leisure, and find anything that might be missing. You calling me names will not change this.
On July 16 2008 03:07 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote:
Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can. Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone. Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes). Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory.
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On July 15 2008 18:24 MyLostTemple wrote:
the earth is 65 billion years old.
Lol, where did you get this figure from? 
The universe is estimated to be only ~14 billion years old. Earth is estimated to have formed ~4.5 billion years ago.
You're probably thinking of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ~65 million years ago, which caused the (non-avian) dinosaurs to go extinct as well as many other species.
|
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have.
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
|
On July 16 2008 02:54 Polemarch wrote:
Uhh sorry that's a nice, pat sounding theory, but it sounds totally hokey to me.
e.g. you could make the same argument the other way around. Scientists are more concerned with being able to predict the outside world (outer yang), whereas religious people are more about dealing with the inner souls and personal redemption/consolation (inner yin).
I wouldn't even really call these two complementary... the naturalist and religious worldviews seem pretty much one-or-the-other to me, at least for those who have their minds made up.
you're mising the point. it's not about what you do, it's about what/whom you satisfy doind what you do. the means of achieveing ones needs depends on so many things and it's different from person to person on so many levels that it becames useless to drag it in conversations thus irrelevant. still, doesn't it seem fair to you that yin would satisfy it self trough yang and vice-versa?.
actually i dont understand your point  . the meaning doesnt change if you switch names (yin with yang). they will still be different and have different ways to satisfy their needs. it's so subjective everything you said that i dont know where to put it.
you would not have said the last phrase if you viewed some of those videos. (ex. in the debate dawkin with the mcgrath)
i dont care about how. i care about why, because if i know why i can trigger how.
and i know why.
|
On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got. I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have. Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom. I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions.
I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
|
On July 16 2008 05:23 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got. I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have. Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom. I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions. I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view.
I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field.
That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert.
|
On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:
Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom.
nice post I have wanted to say exactly this multiple times, but have never been able to put it quite as concisely as this.
|
On July 16 2008 06:03 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 05:23 Fwmeh wrote:On July 16 2008 04:00 Funchucks wrote:On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:
That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got. I think evolutionary biologists in general get more credit than they deserve. Darwin said all there was to be said on the principles, and he said a lot more than he should have. Concepts like selfish genes or punctuated equilibrium are trivial. Evolution operates at every level and on every timescale. Even evolution evolves; overly static genomes will be surpassed and outcompeted, while unstable ones will lose advantages as quickly in times of ease as they gain them in times of trouble. Enumerating the levels and emphasizing particular ones is a waste of time and a departure from wisdom. I don't think Dawkins's work deserves to be called science. He has never risen above rambling about vague principles. It is because he failed as a true scientist, and succeeded as a champion of quasiscientific ideas, that he eventually moved into a career as a prophet of the Religion of Science and a champion in its competition with other religions. I do not disagree, but I feel reluctant to acknowledge any canon that explicitly answers the question of Job as a religion, but rather as a quasi-religion. I feel that his question is one that must be raised, as most people will ask it, but to give it a "complete and unique" answer is impossible in my view. I call what he promotes "religion" because he asks for unquestioning deference. As I complained before, he doesn't tell people to go out and do science, he proclaims the virtues of the scientific method for the sake of demanding that people not only accept the findings of scientists, whose work they haven't personally audited, but also defer to their opinions outside of their field. That's not science. That's the Cult of the Expert. I'm not aware of dawkins ever asking people or explicitly suggesting that they should follow the leader on non-scientific issues so much as that they should be independantly rational in their forming of all opinions. Is that really true?
As for his leading of a religion, i think he means well, he just gets carried away, he's a fairly good debater and one of few loud voices speaking for popular atheist issues, and as proof that there are dumb people in all followings even if they're based on rationallity, some take his more sensational banterings too seriously and he ends Up with a cult following and just goes along with it 'cause he likes the attention or something. Not that it really matters since i suppose in the end he's kind of a dick that way.
What i really find strange about him is that he seems to uncommonly if ever mention philosophy as an alternative to religion. He never says that there's no objective force guiding the universe to define a purpose for us, but being self-respecting persevering creatures that we are we can find it in ourselves to live meaningful lives in a reasonable subjective sense. He just says that science itself is beautiful, and talks about it as if that is our main purpose in life. Which i find somehow naive and hypocritical.
I still like listening to him speak though.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 16 2008 03:31 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 03:11 VIB wrote:On July 16 2008 01:55 Jibba wrote:
You say that, yet there are scientists in the National Academy of Science and people with doctorates who are far more educated than you or I, who still believe there is a supernatural being.
Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? Both are not mutually inclusive. The first is a physiological consequence of genetic data and the second is the result of your memory (a different genetics) interacting with the environment. Environmental interaction won't affect your born genetics physiology (well, unless someone cut your brain into pieces, but that's beyond the point). On July 16 2008 02:56 Fwmeh wrote:On July 16 2008 01:38 VIB wrote:
Look it's really simple:
People believes in god/mysticism -> people does not accept logic/reason as an argument -> arguing with said people using logical arguments makes no sense
This is simple math, as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not gonna argue back to the ones trying to argue with me saying "but I'm not dumb" or "but I believe in both" because it's the whole point of what I'm saying that arguing back is futile.
There is no excuse to not use scientific method in any circumstance. Those saying the contrary simply cannot comprehend logic and will believe whatever the feel the most fuzzy with no matter what evidence says. So this whole thread and any other discussion trying to convince mystical people that mysticism does not exist will always fail. No. You are not answering me not because I cannot be argued with, but because you have no arguments. If you do in fact have scientific proof that man should have freedom of speech, let us hear it. And I want a proof worthy of being put in Nature. If you cannot comply with this, you either admit that man should not have freedom of speech, since it cannot be proven we must, due to your arguing that nothing should be done unless there is scientific proof for it, or you just shut up. Both might boil down to the same thing. I already answered you in the first line of the post you quoted. I had answered you before in the post you quoted before. You're still arguing with me and want me to post it again, so you can not understand again, ask me to argue again ad infinitum. There is no better proof that you cannot be argued with reason than this argument we're having. "Look it's really simple:" That was the first line of the post I quoted. I fail to see how that scientifically proves that humans need the freedom of speech. I doubt anyone else here does either. You have still posted no proof. A scientist must be required to present proofs, so that his fellow scientists can study it at their leisure, and find anything that might be missing. You calling me names will not change this. Show nested quote +On July 16 2008 03:07 Funchucks wrote:On July 16 2008 02:59 Fwmeh wrote:
Please describe to me how the model of memetics can be either proven or disproved. I am genuinely curious, because I do not see how you can. Memetics is just a way of looking at things. I think it is demonstrably true from logical principles and indisputable facts alone. Ideas (memes) are generated in the brains of individuals. The ideas (memes) are conveyed to other individuals through communication (meme reproduction). In the passage of time, some ideas are remembered and spread (memes flourish) while others are forgotten (memes go extinct). Sometimes, ideas inspire new ideas or are misremembered (memes mutate). Those ideas which are more memorable to the minds they have access to are more likely to be remembered, and the opposite also holds true (survival of the fittest memes). Memetics is just a particular way of looking at things, not a falsifiable scientific theory. That is precisely how I see it too. And I have actually read Susan Blackmore's The Meme machine, but didn't find it worthy of all the attention it got.
there is ethical proff. it's not a scientific matter. don't swap categories.
|
On July 16 2008 08:04 zobz wrote:
I still like listening to him speak though.
I like listening to him talk about specific things in biology. He is quite good at explaining them.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 16 2008 03:39 Bill307 wrote:Lol, where did you get this figure from? The universe is estimated to be only ~14 billion years old. Earth is estimated to have formed ~4.5 billion years ago. You're probably thinking of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event ~65 million years ago, which caused the (non-avian) dinosaurs to go extinct as well as many other species.
sorry i miss typed it, i was writing in a hurry. the earth is definately not that old lol. but anyways the point i was making was still there.
|
Sorry if this is now off-topic, but I feel a need to make this VERY clear.
Science is not a religion. Science is nothing like a religion. The systems of the scientific method are used in every aspect of life whether we realize it or not, and it is absolutely critical to every creature's understanding of their world.
For clarity, Science does not 'disprove' God. If you've ever taken a statistics course, you'd know it's actually impossible to completely disprove something, merely to reject a given hypothesis in favor of a more likely one. We use probability and logic to make these choices.
The way belief systems work: you don't believe something unless you have evidence. If I said there's a magic bag in my house that's always full of money, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. You'd want to believe its true, but you'd want verification before you actually assigned any credence to it. Evidence comes in many forms: body language, trust developed from previous experience, and physical raw data taken in by your senses. You need evidence before you assign a truth value to a statement, and the same holds for religious beliefs.
The notion of a god doesn't has to be 'disproven'. By default it is not accepted as truth, nor was the bag of money. I taught several Sunday school classes for young 4-5 year old children back when I was a Christian, and I don't think I've ever heard so clearly how unreasonable an idea god is. So until I see reasonable, logical proof of a deity, I simply choose not to believe, which makes me not an agnostic, but an atheist.
Thank you.
|
There is a problem with Christianity. It has a history of establishing itself as a rational faith. This believf that Christianity is ultimately a rational choice that leads it to disaster and conflict with science.
Most Christians I talk to reject the mystical and mysterious appreciation of God and insist that he must be understood in the head (I thuink that's a load of crap, but that's irrelevant at the moment).
The main reason Christians put their God in the logical sphere is to give a logical precedence for Biblical morality. In their reasoning, God's existence is logically justifiable and therefore the weight of Morality comes from a solid and logically based entity.
Evolution is the single most dangerous scientific princple to come around . . . ever. Evolution seems to establish random chance is the precipitator of life and to destroy the notion of a plan and therefore the base of morality that Christians base their lives around.
Rather than adapting to this new way of being, Christians have chosen to fight science here. I think that this is a grave error. Scientifically, Evolution is beyond reproach. Efforts to logically and scientifically combat evolution have been repeatedly proven ridiculous.
The end effect of this misguided crusade is to make Christianity subject to the burderns of proof and logic; a battle that they will clearly lose. So rather than swaing in the wind, Hardcore Christians have made it a choice between their way or science. The evidence continues to pile up for evolution, and this hardcore christianity will die. They might linger for fifty or even a hundred years insisting that evolution is wrong, but no sect that has so vehemently rejected science and progress has survived long.
There is another way. We accept the divine plan and Darwin's theory. We simply reject the notion that evolution has happened by random chance, and see that God's fingerprints are all over evolution. I think evolution is a singularly beautiful theory - and it restores my confidence in God. A god who has a single mechanism to create a biwildering array of life is the sort of God I put my faith into. The essence of God is complexity emerging from simple interations, and evoultino is tops
|
I think that what you must answer GeneralStan is what type of God you believe in. Does he care about what happens to you in a personal way, or is your deity merely some kind of 'essence of the universe' or 'clockmaker god' who set the universe in its path and let it unwind, withuot interfering?
I could make a case against either, but I will simply say that the 2nd is something like "Spinoza's God" to whom Einstein and many other brilliant thinkers refer, though its not a deity in the traditional sense, merely a 'way of things', or an 'order'. I personally find no need for such a force in the universe, but I do feel a since of wonder when I think about the universe, so maybe what you would call God I would call Awe and Wonder?
|
United States22883 Posts
I think Stan is referring to a deck stacking God, which is different from Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God is not good or bad, it simply is and we are all part of it (since God is the only thing that exists.)
The deck stacking believer can believe in evolution and any scientific principle, and possible Heaven/Hell as well, because God set everything in motion a certain way from the very beginning (perhaps he caused the Big Bang), and does not interfere in normal life.
I see as much reason to believe Spinosa's crazy theory as I do the deck stacking one. Our bodies are clumsy and inefficient and poorly designed, and 1,000 years from now whatever humans are left will likely be stronger, faster and smarter than we are today.
|
On July 17 2008 06:50 Jibba wrote:
I see as much reason to believe Spinosa's crazy theory as I do the deck stacking one.
i believe both at the same time
|
He's not my God, and I don't know how he operates.
It can't be said that it hasn't forseen all things, nor can it be said that the future is preordained. Time and causality are meaningless to an entity beyond physical being in this universe.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 17 2008 07:14 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2008 06:50 Jibba wrote:
I see as much reason to believe Spinosa's crazy theory as I do the deck stacking one. i believe both at the same time
I should stress it's also different from Buddhism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
spinoza's thing is not really religious but is primarily motivated by a desire for foundationalistic ontology/metaphysics.
|
[QUOTE]On July 17 2008 01:49 SirKibbleX wrote:
The way belief systems work: you don't believe something unless you have evidence. If I said there's a magic bag in my house that's always full of money, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. You'd want to believe its true, but you'd want verification before you actually assigned any credence to it. Evidence comes in many forms: body language, trust developed from previous experience, and physical raw data taken in by your senses. You need evidence before you assign a truth value to a statement, and the same holds for religious beliefs.
QUOTE]
False. A belief doesn't need evidence to become a belief, our brains believe ideas that it repeatedly sees or hears, whether those ideas are true or not is irrelevant.
Belief = an idea with emotion attached to it. The stronger the emotion, the stronger your belief in that idea.
Once you put your faith in an idea your brain will then LOOK for evidence to support that idea and depending on how much faith you have in it, will discard evidence of any other opposing idea.
Why do anorexic girls think that they're fat? Because they repeatedly tell themselves that they are. Over the years they FEEL horrible about themselves, this negative emotion builds and builds until they completely believe they are fat, and no amount of telling them otherwise or having them look in the mirror will change that as the belief system resides prominantly in the emotional brain, not the logical brain.
There is no evidence that God exists, so why do people kill themselves in his name? Because they believe he does. They have so much emotion attached to the idea of a God and redemption in the afterlife conditioned from early childhood. All those years they have been convinced and convinced themselves by putting huge amounts of emotional faith in this idea that no simple intellectual understanding can remove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
