|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2005 : 01:34:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dr. Dawkins said, "There is no evidence against all sorts of things, but we don't waste our time believing in them."
Honestly, who can argue with that? You know, Dawkins takes a lot of shit for his outspoken atheism, but I almost always find myself in total agreement with him.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 09:33:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote]Originally posted by CourseKnot
Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?
That depends on your application of the verb "adhere." If by that you mean that you make choices based upon nothing but facts and scientific conclusions, then yeah, you'll become less religious, but you'll also miss out on opportunities for love (for example), 'cause there's not much that science can tell you about that girl across the street (or whomever), and if you approach her "scientifically," you'll probably get locked up for stalking.
[/quote]
Religion didn't teach me anything about love. My girlfriend did.  |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
CourseKnot
Skeptic Friend
USA
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 09:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Please excuse me for messing up my posts. I'm gettin' there. |
Just flying through space with the rest of you... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 09:54:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by CourseKnot
Religion didn't teach me anything about love. My girlfriend did.
The choice isn't between science and religion, it's between science and everything which isn't science, a much broader category of unevidenced supposition than just religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 01:39:54 [Permalink]
|
Apples and oranges. First, science can tell you a lot about love from the physics of pheromones to the social structure of pair bonds. That doesn't mean science needs to invade your every waking thought and action.
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence for love and none for gods and other religious doctrines. Some like to claim religion gives us moral values but that's just plain bunk. Moral values come from social evolution.
If you actually look at the evidence you can only reach the conclusion there is no god, (despite Dave's and my long discussions on disproving god). Scientists who are also believers have to suffer a bit of cognitive dissonance to cope with the problem. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 21:41:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Apples and oranges. First, science can tell you a lot about love from the physics of pheromones to the social structure of pair bonds. That doesn't mean science needs to invade your every waking thought and action.
But that's what I was asking about! Was the question that CourseKnot posted ("Will you become less religious if you adhere to scientific facts?") referring to someone who strictly "adheres" to science or not? If yes - meaning this person demands that science "invade" their every waking thought and action - then he/she is out of luck in answering the question, "should I make romantic overtures towards person X," because science cannot answer that. There are far too many things which are currently unknown about the process right now.
So, apples and apples, I'm afraid. Along with making a person less religious, "adhering" to science will make a person a lot less likely to hold any belief which is unevidenced. Anything which is currently just a matter of taste (like "which rock band is 'best'?") would be left out of consideration.
Heck, such a person would probably be a real ass, since he would have evidence that people are capable of deceit, but he would have no evidence that any particular person he meets would not be deceitful. In other words, he wouldn't trust anyone - since trust is a leap of faith (much smaller than believing in a god, but a leap nonetheless).quote:
If you actually look at the evidence you can only reach the conclusion there is no god, (despite Dave's and my long discussions on disproving god).
I've got big problems with anyone who claims that only one conclusion is possible from any given set of evidence. Our knowledge at any particular time is limited, allowing for multiple, testable hypotheses from the same evidence, and thus science which progresses in sometimes unexpected ways. And the clear implication that those who've reached different conclusions from you haven't done their homework is particularly insulting, especially when half the problem I remember you and I having was due to the fact that we were talking past each other.quote:
Scientists who are also believers have to suffer a bit of cognitive dissonance to cope with the problem.
How many have you studied? It seems there are plenty who are completely aware of the differences between science and an unevidenced faith in something which created science, and is thus beyond it. Your statement would only be true if being a "believer" meant being a fundamentalist, and this gets back to our previous disputes. There are lots of "liberal" theists who believe that their god "set up" the universe with the laws it has, and has been "hands off" ever since the moment of the Big Bang, but collects the souls and judges them worthy (or not) of everlasting paradise. If I recall correctly, you dismissed this idea of god in our previous disagreements as not matching up with any actual religion, but the fact is that many scientists actually choose this sort of faith for themselves.
Cognitive dissonance entails an ability to hold fast to two or more contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The idea of god described above doesn't contradict any science, and in fact it cannot contradict science, as those who have these beliefs think that science is the process of discovering how god wrought his creation. It simply is not a problem for them, when the act of doing science itself gives glory to god. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 22:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad
No sciences say anything about god(s)/religion. Assuming a sensible person, there no reason for religion and science to conflict.
No, reason and religion conflict. As science sharpens your reasoning skills, the arguments for religion should become less and less persuasive. Again, assuming a sensible person.
Uh ... what Dave said I guess.
Many non-scientific things are simply outside the scope or science and logic. Reason doesn't conflict with religion either. Certain aspects of religion conflict (6 day creation since all the evidence says it's BS), but not religion per se (is there a God for which there is no real evidence either way - science or logic simply do not apply here).
At best, certain unanswerable aspects become less likely. I think the only reasonable thing to do is sit on the fence. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 23:08:57 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, I'd be interested in learning what H. meant by "arguments for religion." Is that refering to the particulars of any specific religion, or a general "one should be religious because..." sort of thing? Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the latter sort of argument without having a specific religion in mind, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 23:22:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd be interested in learning what H. meant by "arguments for religion."
I took it to mean the insertion of supernatural cause into the explanation of things not yet understood.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2005 : 23:40:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, I'd be interested in learning what H. meant by "arguments for religion." Is that refering to the particulars of any specific religion, or a general "one should be religious because..." sort of thing? Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anybody make the latter sort of argument without having a specific religion in mind, anyway.
Yes, I was meaning to expand on this.
I meant that there isn't any argument for a god/gods I've ever heard that isn't equally or more convincing when the reverse is considered.
I'll provide an example. Let us assume that everything must have a cause. Then the Universe must have a cause. Theists say God caused the Universe. But if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. Logically, then, invoking God does not solve the problem of causes. At most, it "pushes" the cause back one step, but to a step that is completely unevidenced. Thus, invoking a god is logically unnecessary and thus, unsatisfactory.
Now, let us assume the reverse. Everything does not need a cause. Now, God need not be caused. But then, neither does the matter and energy which makes up the Universe. Since we are aware of the Universe's existence and not aware the existence of any Creator, God again is logically unnecessary.
Now, let us examine what most theists believe: The Universe needs a cause but God does not. This is contradictory and obviously merely playing favorites with a preferred outcome, and so is logically unsatisfactory.
Thus, the God hypothesis fails any reasonable test of logic in this instance. As I said, it is but one example. I am unaware of any that actually work out in God's favor. A few are a wash, such as "the argument from design." It is as easy to think of the Universe as designed as it is not.
And so, if one were to make a rational conclusion based upon all the evidence and arguments presented, one must conclude that their is no evidence for God, and discard the notion. (It is unreasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence).
Anyone who believes in God despite these conclusions is not being rational. Now, like Dave, you may think this no bad thing. Perhaps you believe it is like "love." Faith is just something you have to feel in your heart. I have no problem with that idea, since a feeling isn't something I can argue.
But, like love, belief in God is irrational and illogical. Anyone who thinks faith does not conflict with reason is kidding themselves.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2005 00:05:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 08:06:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Now, let us examine what most theists believe: The Universe needs a cause but God does not. This is contradictory and obviously merely playing favorites with a preferred outcome, and so is logically unsatisfactory.
I'm not sure that that is what most theistic scientists believe. The ones I've read more believe that whatever "caused" god is, like god, untestable and so unassailable by logic. The answer isn't that god doesn't have a cause, but that any attempt to find a reason for god's existence is doomed to failure because it is scientifically unanswerable.quote:
Thus, the God hypothesis fails any reasonable test of logic in this instance.
Which is why no liberal theist I'm aware of even pretends that god is a hypothesis or logically testable. You, H., are the one trying to drive the square peg of faith into the round hole of science in this case, not those who have faith in a "hands off" deity.quote:
And so, if one were to make a rational conclusion based upon all the evidence and arguments presented, one must conclude that their is no evidence for God, and discard the notion.
Only those who are unreasonable would claim that faith is something which one finds through rational conclusions.quote:
(It is unreasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence).
So Wegener, at the time he proposed continental drift, was unreasonable, even though he was right. As scientists like to say, a fact is something which so well-evidenced that disbelief would be unreasonable, but you've turned that around and I'm not sure your formulation is correct.quote:
Anyone who believes in God despite these conclusions is not being rational.
Of course, it's a far cry from being insane.quote:
Now, like Dave, you may think this no bad thing. Perhaps you believe it is like "love." Faith is just something you have to feel in your heart. I have no problem with that idea, since a feeling isn't something I can argue.
On this, perhaps we agree.quote:
But, like love, belief in God is irrational and illogical. Anyone who thinks faith does not conflict with reason is kidding themselves.
Perhaps my problem is with the word "conflict," especially since you seem to be saying that if I entertain the assumptions in the Star Wars movies while watching them, in order to appreciate the story being told, doing so "conflicts" with being rational.
In other words, I've got the ability to let go of the need for science and evidence for the sake of entertainment, without suddenly becoming unreasonable. Why would you deny this ability for those who have faith in a deity, yet are professional scientists? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 11:12:57 [Permalink]
|
Suppose Bill is an intelligent, rational person with excellent potential to be a good scientist, with the sole exception being that he ferverently believes in the tooth fairy. Can Bill be a good scientist? I think that he can, as long as he contributes in areas that are unrelated to his paranormal belief. Bill would be practically useless in an investigation into missing teeth, but in other areas he could make significant contributions.
In the same way a young earth creationist, even if completely rational in all other respects, cannot be a good scientist with regard to biology, geology, cosmology and most other scientific fields. There are a few areas where such a person could make contributions, computer science or mathematics perhaps.
Imagine Sally is an intelligent, rational person with excellent potential to be a good scientist. She does, however, believe in a personal God. She believes that God provides her with strength and comfort in adversity, and was the impetus behind the big bang, but is otherwise completely hands off. Can Sally be a good scientist? In most current areas of science, yes she can. However in a scientific investigation into how people deal with adversity, or in an investigation into the cause of the big bang she would be practically useless. Unless, of course, she were willing to change her beliefs.
When people speak of a 'hands off' deity they rarely mean completely hands off. There's really no point in a completely hands off deity. Usually they mean hands off with regard to areas already explained by science. But the scope of science is always growing. Supernatural beliefs that are not in conflict with science today may very well come into conflict with science in the future. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 12:09:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by woolytoad:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by woolytoad
No sciences say anything about god(s)/religion. Assuming a sensible person, there no reason for religion and science to conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, reason and religion conflict. As science sharpens your reasoning skills, the arguments for religion should become less and less persuasive. Again, assuming a sensible person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh ... what Dave said I guess.
Many non-scientific things are simply outside the scope or science and logic. Reason doesn't conflict with religion either. Certain aspects of religion conflict (6 day creation since all the evidence says it's BS), but not religion per se (is there a God for which there is no real evidence either way - science or logic simply do not apply here).
At best, certain unanswerable aspects become less likely. I think the only reasonable thing to do is sit on the fence.
Belief in a diety may not conflict with reason, but I think it is beyond (or outside of) reason. Where the conflict with reason begins is when someone claims to know for certain that the diety exists and/or claims something about that diety beyond its mere existence. And the more detailed the claim, the more unresonable (or ridiculous) it is. If a diety or creator exists, it hasn't shown any evidence of its existence that can't be explained just as well, or better, by a creatorless explanation. So belief in it is a leap of faith. Certainty of its existence and of any characteristic(s) of it is completely against reason. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 12:49:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So Wegener, at the time he proposed continental drift, was unreasonable, even though he was right. As scientists like to say, a fact is something which so well-evidenced that disbelief would be unreasonable, but you've turned that around and I'm not sure your formulation is correct.
Comparing god to something like continental drift is disingenuous.
Alot of hypothesis, when first presented, are based on little hard evidence. When means to test them are employed you verify or discard them.
Obviously continental drift has been verified by observation. The BIG difference, the reason why it isn't rational to compare god to continental drift, is that when we looked for continental drift we found it, and if we hadn't found evidence for it, is there ANY doubt in your mind that we would have found evidence for something else?
You can't say any such thing about god. Humans have been searching for their various dieties for thousands of years. Never in all that time has there been a finding that holds up, never in all that time has there been an argument that withstands logical evaluation. Also all the failed searching hasn't led to any alternate hypothesis. Not only have people not found their various dieties, they have found nothing.
Also in every instance when people have honestly investigated something attributed to a diety, they have discovered a natural explanation.
quote:
In other words, I've got the ability to let go of the need for science and evidence for the sake of entertainment, without suddenly becoming unreasonable. Why would you deny this ability for those who have faith in a deity, yet are professional scientists?
Because science and religion aren't entertainment. They are both attempts to describe objective reality. They are, in case you hadn't noticed, in conflict over this description.
Its like going to a Star Wars movie, but taking with you the premises of Star Trek. Hyperspace or Warpdrive?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2005 : 12:58:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave, are Storm's beliefs in ghosts rational or are they irrational, and how are they different from the "scientifically untestable" beliefs of scientists in god?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
