Hey guys!

actually, 'fact', as regards science vs religion, has been changing much longer than that - are you not aware of the travails of bruno and galileo?

and, the more we learn, the less likely yahweh seems to be . . .

 

Actually man... That's what cool about science. When we learn that something we previously thought we knew is false, we can adjust our belief to fit with our newfound knowledge. We don't take an astronamy textbook from ancient Greece and take that as fact, ignoring all other studies and insisting that the scroll we found must be correct.

It has somehow become a virtue in religion to have blind faith. I'm often told by Christians (not online) that they don't know the answers to my questions, but god is all knowing and they'll leave the answer up to him, becuase he doesn't need them to defend him.

The problem is, this is how cults work. You just keep telling yourself over and over that the leader knows what's best, he is perfect, and has a plan. Even if he is raping members of the congregation.

As long as this type of thinking continiues, we'll still have fucking suicide bombers thinking they're going to heaven, and people will keep drinking the cool aid.

 

I've had the same thing happen with atheists. They say they don't know how life began, the nature of consciousness, etc. But the answers from science are just around the corner. Would you call that faith?

 

actually, yes, glad to see we can agree on something

the main problem with science these days is "publish or perish", combined with somewhat weak peer review

[lots of crap put on paper]

we may never know "how life began, the nature of consciousness, etc.", and i'm just fine with that

 

It is faith, but I think it's a different kind of faith. It's not the belief that the invisible man in the sky knows everything, and that there are people who wrote a book for him, and if you listen to the special people that he picked to actually talk to, that you can live forever.

It's the belief that there are men who are doing research, and learning new things every day, and that these men will someday be able to know for sure how we got here. The difference is, the research isn't done by invisible scientists, who will only talk to certain people, and these people tell you what the scientists want you to do, and tell you that you have to follow the scientists every command, even though you've never seen these 'scientists' and don't even really know if they exist.

I guess I had "faith" that the bp spill would be cleaned up, and I have "faith" that renewable fuels will catch on once they discover the right one, but that's not the kind of faith that will prompt me to bomb anyone. So you tell me.

I'm coming off as a die hard atheist, which I'm not. I think that the existence of god is defenatly a posibility, and it's not insaine to believe in one. What I do find insaine are fundi Christians/muslims/anyone else that believes they know the will of god, and try to act on it.

 

Let's take some of the limits first. In a sense, its strengths are sometimes its limits. Science is the gold standard of human knowledge. It relies on rigorous empirical testing of refutable hypotheses subjected to peer review, and holds the findings tentatively pending future discoveries. So far, the theory of human evolution is holding up well. No rabbits in the Cambrian. All that is commendable, particularly in comparison with Creationist pseudoscience. But for the average Joe like me with a limited lifespan trying to make his way in an ambiguous world, there are limits.

First of all,there are many topics important to me that scientists aren't likely to address, because they're hard to test, or because there's no funding, or because the editors of the journals aren't interested. Second, science is built on a foundation of assumptions that seem reasonable but could be false: the assumption that there is an external realty that is accessible to our senses (I've debated folks on other Forums who aren't convinced; the insistence on naturalistic explanations (gravity instead of intelligent falling); use of rules of thumb like Occam's razor, rejecting the epicycles that could support a geocentric theory; that the burden of proof should be on the person making a claim; the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,etc. These assumptions seem so reasonable to me that I often forget they're assumptions, and I accept them all. In fact I proposed most of them in the Christian Sanctuary as criteria for evaluating Scripture (we'll see how that goes) But assumptions always have the potential for making an ass of u and me. (Sorry, that was terrible). Third, science tends to be reductionist, ruling out the possibility that the whole might be more than the sum of its parts: water is "nothing but' hydrogen and oxygen molecules, consciousness is "nothing but" neurons firing, etc. Third, science is concerned with avoiding Type 1 errors (excessive credulity), sometimes at the expense of Type 2 errors (excessive skepticism). This comes up quite a bit in discussions of various environmental controversies, eg., is there proof that climate change is caused by human activities, or that airborne led or passive cigarette smoke is dangerous to human health. If we wait for a conclusive proof, we may be dead.

In the messier place we call the real world, we rely on courts and administrative agencies, which use lesser standards of proof--a preponderance of the evidence (in the toxic torts case) or substantial evidence, in the administrative case. And the "evidence" consists of conflicting testimony and circumstantial evidence with judges or bureaucrats making the final call--crude in comparison with science, but better than nothing. I use the substantial evidence test in making most of my life decisions, e.g., who to vote for. And the "evidence" I accept includes hearsay and inferences from personal experience. The full bureaucratic term is "substantial evidence on a record taken as a whole," which means that a position can be supported by substantial evidence even though there's equally good evidence on the other side. And the decisions are based on my own judgment, often based on hunches and intuitive risk-taking. But I at least try not to contradict science, and like scientists, I hold my beliefs tentatively, in light of the best evidence available to me. Science can provide lots of reliable information about a lot of things, but it's not helpful in answering questions of ultimate meaning. That's where religion, philosophy and the "soft" sciences come in. In the absence of scientific proof, we basically have two choices: (1) suspend judgment (which may be forever) or choose arbitrarily; or (2) go on the basis of judgment based on the best evidence available, realizing that there's a high probability for error. For example, if Sarah Palin were running for President I could suspend judgment and play golf on election day, because there really isn't scientific proof she's an idiot; or make and educated leap of faith, based on substantial evidnece that she is, and do my patriotic duty, and cast my one pathetic vote to save the country, in hopes others will do the same. The harder question re the plausible hypothesis and its function I'll save for a later time, when I'm less tired and my mind is clearer. (Not a dodge, I promise). As for your happiness, I'm happy for you and your inquiring mind.

 

As I'm sure you know from your participation in the Christian Sanctuary, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

.

 

Okay, I'm back and ready to consider the rest of your questions. You asked what is my plausible hypothesis. (Didn't your mother tell you never to invite a vampire or a Born Again Christian into your house?) I'll try not to violate the rule against proselytizing. I have no intention to try to convert you to my way of thinking, since I believe an equally valid case could possibly be made for yours.

The hypothesis I was referring to is that Progressive Christianity offers a viable alternative to Backward Christianity. Unlike the backward, legalistic kind, Progressive Christianity believes that Jesus' example and teachings are more important than his death; that unity with God exists outside of time and can be experienced on this earth (the kingdom is spread out everywhere upon the earth and we do not see it); that salvation doesn't depend on believing unbelievable doctrines; that the Bible is best should be read critically, intelligently, and metaphorically in light of its historical and cultural contex; that the mind is God's most precious gift, to be exercised by thinking critically and independently; that practices which seem evil, like genocide, slavery, homophobia, etc., cannot be condoned simply because the Bible might seem to endorse them; that God is Love, and is best understood in terms of the agape principle; and that Jesus was about unconditional, non-judgmental love for everyone, especially the outcasts or rejects of society. The hypothesis is tested by seeing how it works in the world, in comparison with the opposite belief system.

As for the God hypothesis, like other Progressive Christians I see God as a positive force in the cosmos rather than a bearded Sky God: a felt presence of positive energy or Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being." This is metaphysics rather than science, and although I find substantial evidence in its favor, I agree with astrophysicist Paul Davies that: "In the end, Occam's razor compels me to put my money on design, but as always in matters metaphysics the decision is largely a matter of taste rather than scientific judgment".

 

Saying something to denounce external reality is like pretending not to understand your first lauguage. If we cant even agree on this, every human might as well stop talking to one another. We are social creatures yes, but one human doesnt need another to think, provided he is already born.

Semantics.
You propose we dont know which it is, but reguardless, we put a man on the moon. We can calculate the trejectory of an asteroid millions of miles away. Intelligent falling and gravity are the same thing.

This technique is used to prevent assumptions actually. more later.

science doesnt lack the ability to denounce unsupported claims. Its just easier to show someone how to identify compatible ideas by suggesting they have proof first.

You wouldnt take a blade of grass to a diamond store and ask them to inspect it. You would first evaluate the stone.

To answer a question of ultimate meaning you have to first assume there is one. Not assuming there is a ultimate question answers it just as effectively, if not exceedingly effectively.

I'm outside on a laptop in 110 degree wether, I apoligise for the extremely vague and incomplete answers but i gotta lol. + my battery is almost out. It will probably be ~10 days before i get back to anything here.

 

I can agree on readily enough on that assumption, but I've debated people in these forums who can't. One of them insisted that external material reality was an illusion, and that only consciousness is real. I suggested that he put it to the test by jumping off the roof of a tall building. I never did hear back from him, and I'm kinda worried. Then there are the ones who think that the moon disappears when nobody's looking at it (they call it "Quantum Consciousness"). And the ones who take serioulsy Bertrand Russell's suggestion that we might have come into existence fifteen minutes ago with whiskers and complete false memory tracks of our childhoods. Not to mention Kirk Cameron's banana (the atheist's worst nightmare!) And somewhere out there the Flying Spaghetti Monster might be sipping its morning tea from the Celestial Teapot. And how do we know, man? How do we know? I'm willing to bet my life that none of those "problems" needs to be taken seriously. Why? Not because of scientific proof, but because of judgment, which is foundational for science--which is another name for experience grounded in intuition. But then again...

No, man. Gravity just happens. Intelligent falling is by design (heh, heh). Yes, we can do all kinds of cool stuff with science (at least I think so). But that doesn't necessarily mean science can do everything, or that if it ain't science, it's shit.

Science can denounce unsupported claims until it's blue in the face, but will never get through to True Believers. Just last night in the Christian Sanctuary: "...our logic and culture are human and can be wrong (or usually is.)" Logic is "usually" wrong she sez. What can we do but throw up our hands? Can you disprove her scientifically? In our heart, we know she's wrong. Or at least that if she's right, it's all hopeless--which is possible.

?? No, man. I'd probably take it to Lowe's.

You lost me on the last part, but yep, I'm willing to assume ultimate meaning, although willing to concede it's probably subjective. (See Viktor Frankl)

Hey, tell me about it. Do you live in Oklahoma, too, or are we both in Hell. Seriously, I'm not jerking you around. I'm just not used to debating rational people. It's kinda refeshing.

 

No fucking way I'm reading this book of a thread. OP outtie.

Duces.

 

Its kind of unproductive to propose things to denounce external reality because we are observing and talking about the exact same thing no matter how someone chooses to explain it.

sigh....

This is more ad hominem like the illusionary reality proposal.

I wouldn't call them false memory's though.

Well, since "everything" would include things that universal constants like gravity and thermal dynamics work against, I think it goes without saying science cant do everything.

It also confuses my brain to think of science as something that can "do" something, Since it really cant. Science is just a name for information about the universe. A sort of users manual.

You could inform her that she used logic to reach her conclusion about logic, and then ramble about the ramifications of doing something like that.

I am fortunate (and humble) enough to understand that when I cant answer a question, it isn't because there is no answer. I also have to believe other people are capable of believing things the way I do, because there are so many others that already meet that criteria. I have to believe that our brains are just as capable as Einsteins or Newtons because we are all in fact, human.

I have to believe these things because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting we are all basically the same. I can be convinced, provided there is substantial evidence, logical or otherwise, because i am concerned with understanding, and learning things.

Calling myself the product of an evolutionary denomination of thinkers would be an insult to millions of years of evolution. Not to mention, it wouldnt stand up to criticism at all.

I dont understand how an ultimate meaning is even possible. I got this from not being able to understand how or why people think gods existence creates purpose and meaning when it really doesnt.

I cant even think of a feasible explaination as to how an ultimate meaning can exist.

And I dont think I'm being unclear at all when attempting to transmit statements like these either. My four word explaination for not believing something is so simple that aparently, it repelles the mind.

It(1) does'nt(2) make(3) sense(4).

I can go into rediculous detail about why something doesnt make sense to me because.

1. I believe alot of things.
2. I understand everything I believe.

The only conclusion I can possibly draw from this is that they dont understand what they believe either.

No, im from the Mojave desert.
hell would have less sand, and more lawyers.

 

Technology: the practical application of science to commerce or industry

 

I totally agree. of course, I'm also a Christian, but I don't fit the "pound you over the head with the Bible" description. I may have been like that 40 years ago, but I learned 39 years ago that no one is won over by force. Not only that, but I believe that if you are you are, if you ain't you ain't. If you seek, you find.

I can tell you my experience (whoever may be interested) but I would never force anyone to believe me much less listen. It's your choice, my choice. Nuf said.

 

More accurately, a process and procedure for obtaining information.

I don't think she used logic. I think she just emoted, and as a matter of fact said that was the only way to go--to let the Spirit do the thinking for her. What I did tell her was that without faith in logic, it was futile to try to engage in a discussion.

But some a lot more so than others.

All things are possibile through Christ. God is (according to Tillich) the Ground of Being, which is another way of saying the ultimate of ultimates. Everyone has values, which rest on other values, etc., etc. When you get to the end of the road, you've reached the Ground of Being--aka God. If this doesn't create a sense of purpose or meaning for you, maybe you need a better God (or non-God).

It might not. Existence is a property of being. Does "Justice " exist? Dewey defined God as the summation of human ideals. Do human ideals "exist"?

Why is that holding you back?

lol. Excellent!

 

atheism and christianity require a level of arrogance for one to truly have faith in either

 

I assume we could extend the faith part to all religions not just christianity.

So Is not being firm in your beliefs a better option?

 

I think it's important to be firm in what you believe, in the sense that you have an opinion. It is however, just as important to know that you could be wrong, and be willing to adjust your beliefs or change them completely if you find they no longer make sense. (unless you belong to a faith where logic is prohibited, the founders of those religions were fucking geniuses)

 

I agree. But it's so hard to deal with these interesting subjects within the bounds of the thread topic, which was:"Could you please stop fucking with the Christians like some little Bill Maher clones?" So I'm startin' a new thread where you can fuck with me all you want (sounds like fun) as long as you seriously debate the existence or non-existence of God.