Ethics and Religion

[ET Warrior]

Actually, science is not in the business of proving truths...because there is no way to prove a truth. It is generally accepted that Gravity is a solid theory, because we have never managed to falsify it, but we must accept the fact that it is POSSIBLE at some point we will find evidence to falsify it, and once we do we reject the theory as incorrect.

 

Science works on the premise that if something can withstand a myriad of tests and analysis and still not be falsified, then that becomes a new working paradigm, but if it does become falsified we either refine the theory or move on.

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, science is not in the business of proving truths...because there is no way to prove a truth. It is generally accepted that Gravity is a solid theory, because we have never managed to falsify it, but we must accept the fact that it is POSSIBLE at some point we will find evidence to falsify it, and once we do we reject the theory as incorrect.

 

Science works on the premise that if something can withstand a myriad of tests and analysis and still not be falsified, then that becomes a new working paradigm, but if it does become falsified we either refine the theory or move on.

Good point, sorry I missed it. I never think of physical knowledge truths in "absolute" terms, so I guess I got a bit lax there (I said much the same thing the other day but got everything in that time -_-). Like you say, proving something "true" is simply making that statement more likely than various others, not showing it is ALWAYS true.

[SilentScope001]

The one that non-believing scientologists and atheists tend to favour is the disproven (which they mustn’t realise or not understand) theory of spontaneous generation, which is that life, arose from non-living matter.

 

Since when can you create life from non-living entitles? You can’t! It’s impossible! There never has been, and never will be, an authentic story or proven, witnessed event about the creation of a living thing from non-living matter.

 

Um, they did. According to my biology textbook, scientists realized that the first proto-cells were made by chemical compounds in the air, that soon manage to combine together to create the proto-cells. These proto-cells evovled into real cells, and real cells evolve into animals like we have today. They reproduced it in a lab, so therefore, they believe it to be true.

 

But of course, who made those chemical compounds?

 

Regardless, I don't like science, only because many scientists proclaim that their method will help figure out the truth. It is replacing one dictatorship (of religion) with the dictatorship of...science. The indivudal theories can be proven and disproven, but all that remains is observations which they trust...Which I dislike. Observations can be falisfied. We could all be brain in vats and we wouldn't know, no?

 

Problem? Yes? Christianity proclaims "free will" as it had something to do with it. It doesn't appear to; there is no room for any sort of free will, free motivation, even the Calvinist's free determination doesn't avoid the unescapeable conclusion: God chose what would happen, when it would happen, and he made things in such a way as that it would occur.

 

Well, I do sympathize with that sort of view. But God could artifically limit his power, if he wanted to. He's God, after all.

[Samuel Dravis]

Um, they did. According to my biology textbook, scientists realized that the first proto-cells were made by chemical compounds in the air, that soon manage to combine together to create the proto-cells. These proto-cells evovled into real cells, and real cells evolve into animals like we have today. They reproduced it in a lab, so therefore, they believe it to be true.

I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.

 

Regardless, I don't like science, only because many scientists proclaim that their method will help figure out the truth. It is replacing one dictatorship (of religion) with the dictatorship of...science. The indivudal theories can be proven and disproven, but all that remains is observations which they trust...Which I dislike.

Tell me something: how do you know the computer you're typing on is there? How can you tell there's someone on the other end, responding? How do you know you have a body? You simply percieve it to be true. That's hardly a definite proof that your computer exists, that your body exists. Yet, you believe it does. Why? Your experiences lead you to trust in that model, that idea. How is science doing the same thing any different? If you dislike just the idea of trusting in anything, well, I can't help you; I can't show you that your body exists. No one can, not even you. Have "faith" is all I can say about that.

 

Observations can be falisfied. We could all be brain in vats and we wouldn't know, no?

No, you wouldn't know if you were a brain in a vat. I'm curious why you think it would matter? Since there would be no effective difference, what's the point of the speculation?

 

Well, I do sympathize with that sort of view. But God could artifically limit his power, if he wanted to. He's God, after all.

I have trouble imagining the ways God could limit his omniscience and omnipotence and still be God. Doubtless he could choose to avoid interfering with some section of space or whatever, but how could he avoid being himself? Saying God does not know something when the very definition of God is a being that knows everything doesn't make sense to me.

[SilentScope001]

I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.

 

Hm...I think they said that those organic molecules could theortically be the building blocks of life, forming those proto-cells. That would explain the scientist experience above.

 

Tell me something: how do you know the computer you're typing on is there? How can you tell there's someone on the other end, responding? How do you know you have a body? You simply percieve it to be true. That's hardly a definite proof that your computer exists, that your body exists. Yet, you believe it does. Why? Your experiences lead you to trust in that model, that idea. How is science doing the same thing any different?

 

Actually, I don't believe that I am sitting here typing, but I can reasonably assume that. Still, it can be wrong, since I have no actual proof that I am typing. I am willing to accept the possiblity that my senses are wrong that I am not really typing.

 

I do devel into skepticism, yes...

 

No, you wouldn't know if you were a brain in a vat. I'm curious why you think it would matter? Since there would be no effective difference, what's the point of the speculation?

 

I think it prehaps would matter due to the fact that...if this is true, then everything is a lie. USA doesn't exist, democracy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't exist, the computer I'm typing at doesn't exist, even God doesn't exist...Everything that I have taken for granted is a big lie. The point of the speculation is to throw everything into doubt, to wonder that it may be impossible to gain real knowledge into what really is true...there will always be doubt.

 

I have trouble imagining the ways God could limit his omniscience and omnipotence and still be God. Doubtless he could choose to avoid interfering with some section of space or whatever, but how could he avoid being himself? Saying God does not know something when the very definition of God is a being that knows everything doesn't make sense to me.

 

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.

 

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil".

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, I don't believe that I am sitting here typing, but I can reasonably assume that. Still, it can be wrong, since I have no actual proof that I am typing. I am willing to accept the possiblity that my senses are wrong that I am not really typing.

 

I do devel into skepticism, yes...

Heh. Quite.

 

I think it prehaps would matter due to the fact that...if this is true, then everything is a lie. USA doesn't exist, democracy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't exist, the computer I'm typing at doesn't exist, even God doesn't exist...Everything that I have taken for granted is a big lie. The point of the speculation is to throw everything into doubt, to wonder that it may be impossible to gain real knowledge into what really is true...there will always be doubt.

Depends on what knowledge you're after. If you're going after some sort of transcendant truth, then you will not find it - at least you won't be sure that you've found it. If you're going after the best model for what you experience, then you can find it. The reason I ask why the brain-in-bowl scenario would matter is because... it wouldn't. How are you supposed to find the transcendant truth, see outside of your vat? You can't. Little point to speculation that lies outside of our possible reach because of our limited nature.

 

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.

Even if he did limit his actions with regard to us, there would still be no free will. The problem is with creation... since he created us, he knew what would happen in the future and even went so far as to plan on leaving us alone. This line of thought still gives no avenue for self-determination. By creating us, he already interfered.

 

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil".

In the scenario, there are no thoughts but God's, and God is an amoral concept at that point. It's meaningless to say something is good or bad when there is only one free entity in the universe. The rest are puppets on strings. They have no life other than that which the puppeteer gives them - they are simply extensions of his will, to be discarded or used however he sees fit.

 

So you see, determinism is pretty bleak. It's difficult to understand why people would want this sort of situation, but I suppose it takes all kinds...

[The Architect]

No one has ever observed life arising from non living matter. If life can be created from non-living matter, then why hasn’t anyone ever seen humans being created out of thin air?

 

Why would it happen to the first generation of humans only, and then stop, when those same chemical compounds in the air that existed so long ago exist to this day? If spontaneous generation was true, then what is to stop Dinosaurs from returning? Because life can’t arise from non-living matter, that’s why.

[Samuel Dravis]

No one has ever observed life arising from non living matter. If life can be created from non-living matter, then why hasn’t anyone ever seen humans being created out of thin air?

Like I said, abiogenesis and "spontaneous generation" are two different things. I can't think of anyone that believes in spontaneous generation. The only people I know of that even think that people believe in it are usually some type of fundamentalist. Louis Pasteur is usually given credit for "disproving" the fact that life can't arise from the non-living, but he did no such thing. He just showed it was extremely unlikely for modern life to have arose from non-living organic material.

 

Abiogenesis (aka chemical origin of life) simply states that primitive self-replicating molecules could have formed and went on to form the life there is today. I suggest you read up on both to see why they're different.

 

Why would it happen to the first generation of humans only, and then stop, when those same chemical compounds in the air that existed so long ago exist to this day?

The starting conditions are different, of course. Besides the differing atmospheric and oceanic states, there's LIFE now, advanced life, with millions of years of evolution under it's belt. How could a more primitive form of self-replicating molecules even begin to compete when it'd be so out of date? It's components would probably be broken up and assimilated by something that already lives even if it did manage to form.

 

If spontaneous generation was true, then what is to stop Dinosaurs from returning? Because life can’t arise from non-living matter, that’s why.

Nothing stops dinosaurs from returning (albeit in a slightly different form) except evolutionary pressure, time and probably us. We wouldn't want T-Rex in the backyard and would probably kill anything that looked like it was becoming a threat. Think of the children, man!

[lukeiamyourdad]

Thank you to ET Warrior and Samuel Dravis for clearing things up on what science does and what science does not. It always amazes how little people know about it.

 

There was an argument earlier saying that scientists cannot prove the unexistence of a god or the existence of one either.

 

If I run a scientific experiment to either prove or disprove God exists it will fail - so again where are the facts that God doesn't exist? But if there is no God we will never know as no-one will ever return from death, also if there is no God life is utterly pointless as we are nothing but specs sand on a beach and whatever we do will ultimately have no effect.

 

The problem is that an actual scientist won't try to disprove god. A philosopher might, but not the scientist. By the way, philosophers are not scientists but scientists can be philosophers. Some people in European universities will try to kill me, but generally, it's accepted in North America that philosophers are necessary but not exactly scientists.

 

Anyway, back on the issue. The scientists never can claim that a god does not exist nor can he disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies. That's not the point. There is always a chance of a god existing and not existing. However, the religious folks make the claim that their god does exist. The scientist then asks for proof, which no one can provide. As such, science generally doesn't believe in the various incarnations of gods simply because no one has ever managed to gather conclusive evidence of his/her/its existence. Burden of proving that there is a or many gods is not on the shoulder of the scientists who ask for evidence, it's on those making the claim.

 

 

 

 

As for ethical relativism, as I work in social sciences, I have to take the context into consideration. I don't doubt that there are many Christians, Muslims, Jews and everything else also working in this branch of science, but you often have to "forget" that there is a right and a wrong so that your research won't be biased. You must never judge your subject because it's just unethical.

[jonathan7]

Thank you to ET Warrior and Samuel Dravis for clearing things up on what science does and what science does not. It always amazes how little people know about it.

 

There was an argument earlier saying that scientists cannot prove the unexistence of a god or the existence of one either.

 

Indeed, it has been an extremley interesting read, lots of interesting and varying views

 

The problem is that an actual scientist won't try to disprove god. A philosopher might, but not the scientist. By the way, philosophers are not scientists but scientists can be philosophers. Some people in European universities will try to kill me, but generally, it's accepted in North America that philosophers are necessary but not exactly scientists.

 

Well personally I would argue that both are vital seeing as scientists tend to find cure's for disease or invent stuff which would now be considered vital for today. While philosophers pose questions that cannot be answered and can expand peoples comprehention of the world.

 

Anyway, back on the issue. The scientists never can claim that a god does not exist nor can he disprove the existence of unicorns and fairies. That's not the point. There is always a chance of a god existing and not existing. However, the religious folks make the claim that their god does exist. The scientist then asks for proof, which no one can provide. As such, science generally doesn't believe in the various incarnations of gods simply because no one has ever managed to gather conclusive evidence of his/her/its existence. Burden of proving that there is a or many gods is not on the shoulder of the scientists who ask for evidence, it's on those making the claim.

 

Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist. As I and the Architect have stated above Spontaneous Generation was disproved over 100 years ago, and from the quotes I posted above many scientist believe that there is only one other theory to explain what happened... Therefore I would argue that was enough proof to infer God's exsistance, but I'm sure people will argue against that

 

As for ethical relativism, as I work in social sciences, I have to take the context into consideration. I don't doubt that there are many Christians, Muslims, Jews and everything else also working in this branch of science, but you often have to "forget" that there is a right and a wrong so that your research won't be biased. You must never judge your subject because it's just unethical.

 

Amen to that (forgive the pun ) I would however argue if there is no God then ethical relativism comes into being as who says what is right and wrong?

 

No, i haven't read the bible but its a famous book and there are quotes from it all over the net, the movies and everywhere really and i can comment on those quotes

 

No, i got the point of the discussion though you went into the bing bang stuff in an attempt to prove that a god created the world which was entirely offtopic

 

Its agreed that if gods doesn't exist then there is moral relativism

 

And your point is that if god exists then moral relativism can't exist because god is the only entity that can decide whats good and what isn't

Thats however your biased christian opinion

Your church teaches you that the christian god is the only god

I as an atheist can be unbiased in this situation and its only logical that if greater powers exist then they're more then one

One or more for each religion actually

And since each religion fights for supremecy and more followers most of the religions deny the existence of other gods then their own

Which is logical for them to do but to a person thats unbiased its obvious that if greater powers exist they are more then one

I hope i made myself clear enough this time

 

Perhaps now you see my point?

 

Oh and don't worry

I took no offence and i meant none in case you took one

 

I see where your coming from a bit better now, but as for you being unbiased your biased to disprooving God :-p We are all human so we will automatically bias to our expierance and understanding of the world. So I'm a psychology student but it is argued that all psychology studies are automatically biased as the person behind the study has their own baises, if that make sense.

 

Personally speaking I still only believe in one God as I believe the way you get to heaven is by believing in Jesus Christ. Now perhaps you could argue say the devil is a lesser God but ultimatly I believe God will defeat him. I still believe there is just one God :-p. Also just because there are many religions doesn't mean there are many Gods... e.g. if I invent a new religion that follows the Potatoe God, does that actually mean that there is a potatoe God? Lets assume for a second however there are multiple Gods, I would expect that if they were warring for supremacy that you would see many miracles of this war yet we don't. I would argue that other religions are cults (please don't be offended by that if anyone is of another religion) and only people are drawing them in. Feel free to disagree, but this isn't a winnable argument its only theoretics and ultimatly comes down to what people believe and there experiances of the world.

 

I'm not offended by anything you have said, I'm used to having such debates with lots of friends from all diferent backgrounds, from Athiests to Muslims, so they can get heated sometimes, but at the end of the day its just a discussion

[Jae Onasi]

I remember an experiment that produced organic molecules, yes. However, none that I know of to date have produced life from those compounds.

 

The Miller-Urey experiements where they try to recreate the 'primordial soup' part of the planet's history to see if they can make any of the building blocks for life. They've been able to make some amino acids, but only the most simplest ones (glycine and alanine) of the 20 needed for life were made in any kind of amount greater than a parts-per-million ratio, and it was a mix of the right and left-handed versions of these, and only the left-handed version works in human life. They have also been unable to create any nucleotides or nucleosides, which are the building blocks for DNA and RNA, and obviously no DNA or RNA itself. The RNA/DNA bases were formed but without combining with the sugar backbone to turn them into nucelotides/nucleosides, they're useless. No proteins (chains of amino acids longer than polypeptides), polysaccharides (chains of sugar molecutes, needed for life), lipids (a fatty molecule needed for cell walls, among other things), or nucleic acids (needed to form DNA and RNA) have ever been formed in these experiments.

 

You knew you were all dying for a biochemistry lecture today, right?

[JediMaster12]

Yes Jae. You brought me right back to BIO 101 and 102 and 11th grade biology.

 

From my understanding this topic, based on the heading was about religion and ethics. I have read some arguments and again the science comes back in with any topic remotely related to this. I have said it before and I'll say it again, science does not prove, it disproves. Using for example evolution and natural selection, nothing has been shown to disprove it therefore we have it called as a theory which has more explaining power than facts and Laws. Jae's example with the primordial soup mix is a good example of possibly disproving the idea seeing as they didn't get nucleotides and the like to create RNA and DNA.

 

With regards to religion, I wrote out a definition in another thread where I defined religion that was written by Geertz in that religion is a set of beliefs and belief systems that are described through symbols. There is no mention of the word gods or goddesses but the word symbol. Symbols could mean anything from a god, to a plant, to an animal, etc. That's just to clear things up.

 

With morals, yeah we have morals. As to where those come from, as an anthropologist, I could argue that it comes from learned behavior of a group, hence saying that it is a part of culture. Of course there could be other arguments maybe philosophically and the like. The point is, there probably is no definitive answer to that. The interesting thing is that what guides most of our laws today are based upon what we in general say is moral and immoral.

 

I see where your coming from a bit better now, but as for you being unbiased your biased to disprooving God :-p We are all human so we will automatically bias to our expierance and understanding of the world.

That I agree with. There is no truly unbiased person, no true objectivity. In anthropology, we talk alot about cultural relativism because one of the things we study is culture and we have to be able to put aside the ethnocentrisim to study the group that is in the focus of study. In the field most of the time is strictly observation. We try to minimize the damage we do in contacting a society. We do get faced with issues of ethics in whether or not to do something but we accept that it is largely a judgement call. Often that judgement is influenced by our own morals and definition of what is riht and wrong but also it is based upon the forseeable consequences of the action should we take it.

I admit that some people, mainly my family, have questioned my decision into studying anthropology because they are traditionally Catholic and they have their own ideas about things. They ask me if I believe that we descend from monkeys. To be honest I weave my way around that kind of thing and explain what the subject is so in the end they forget what they ask me and come out learnign something new. I accept that as part of the ethnocentrism that accompanies alot of people when they meet a new group. I know I have biases because I find it gross and wierd that people like to eat chocolate covered grasshoppers yet I find it fascinating. Call me liberal I guess but that is just me. I like learning what makes one person different from the next. I may not agree with them but I respect them.

As to disproving or proving the existence of God, there is no exact science that prove faith. We all have to some at some point. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, aethiest, Agnostic, etc., you use it. Whether it is to believe that you'll pass your qualifications for whatever or you'll get a new job, you are placing faith in yourself and your talents. It is no different from placing it in a diety of some sort. Faith is not defined by science. There are things that science can't prove.

[Samuel Dravis]

Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist.

Just a quick comment on this. A person who is honestly seeking greater understanding wouldn't ask you to "prove" beyond doubt that a God exists. They might ask for some reason that makes your statement more likely than others, but not for proof. It would be reasonable for them to ask this of you; most people don't just go around believing everything someone says. If you can't honestly provide a viable answer, then you should begin to wonder why you believe it in the first place.

 

The problem being, of course, that there are many religions and each differ. Is there truly something that makes yours more reliable than any given other? Or do you believe something just because that's what you've always done, or perhaps because it makes you feel better, etc.?

 

I've thought about this sometimes and I've come to the conclusion that only things that relate in a real world context would be useful in determining that reliability. In particular, things that you yourself observe and can later use. For example, if a person of X religion (and only X religion) was able to predict the outcome of any given series of events 90% of the time, wherever they were and without any possible previous knowledge of the circumstances, that would be interesting. Very interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever demonstrated this sort of thing, or even close to it. People have good reason to be skeptical of religion's claims (really, this applies to any other circumstance which involves no reason given to believe it). There's a thread on this topic in the Senate.

 

Oops, guess it wasn't all that short.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well personally I would argue that both are vital seeing as scientists tend to find cure's for disease or invent stuff which would now be considered vital for today. While philosophers pose questions that cannot be answered and can expand peoples comprehention of the world.

 

Yes, both are linked, as without philosophers, social scientists don't have any definitions to work with but at the same time, definitions are always easily debatable and because of the inability to find one that all would agree on makes them unscientific. A weird thing to understand, but that's the way things are.

 

 

 

Well, see if an athiest ask's me to proove God exsists I ask why must I proove he exsists and challenge them to proove he doesnt exsist. Essentially its the same argument as I would challenge a scientist who doesnt believe in God to proove that God doesn't exsist. As I and the Architect have stated above Spontaneous Generation was disproved over 100 years ago, and from the quotes I posted above many scientist believe that there is only one other theory to explain what happened... Therefore I would argue that was enough proof to infer God's exsistance, but I'm sure people will argue against that

 

The problem is that burden of proof is not on the scientist's shoulders. Generally, we never try to prove a negative (i.e. "God does not exist"). So considering that, you make the statement that God exists, it's your job to prove it to the rest of community. It's not the scientific community that has to disprove you. Only when you come up with a big reasoning, then it can be refuted but since you have admitted the inability of man to prove something like that, in the eyes of the scientific community, there is no evidence of God's existence.

 

 

 

 

Amen to that (forgive the pun ) I would however argue if there is no God then ethical relativism comes into being as who says what is right and wrong?

 

 

I really like Émile Durkheim's definition of education as a set of teachings given to a person to properly live in his society (translating from French and quoting from memory, not exactly that, but it's the main idea). Basically, ethical relativism is a necessity for every individual to be comfortable in his society. That's why gladiatorial fights are wrong now, but a cool thing back in the Antiquity.

 

Honestly though, I could care less. I try to forget my own values when I analyze some event or anything else, so I have no choice but to apply ethical relativism to avoid a normative judgment. And philosophy has never been my favorite subject of debate, since again, there is no definite answer that might come out of such a debate.

[JediMaster12]

I really like Émile Durkheim's definition of education as a set of teachings given to a person to properly live in his society (translating from French and quoting from memory, not exactly that, but it's the main idea).

That is a working definition of culture, at least how anthropologists do. Culture is learned and is not static. It does change through time with innovation and invention. Then we have cultural relativism. I can't help but wonder if ethical relativism and cultural relativism are the on the same plane.

 

The problem being, of course, that there are many religions and each differ. Is there truly something that makes yours more reliable than any given other? Or do you believe something just because that's what you've always done, or perhaps because it makes you feel better, etc.?

Yes there are many religions each saying that theirs is the supreme one. Hence we've got ethnocentrisim. It is the way how one views the world we live in. Often it is equated with narrowmindedness. As to your last question again I defer to culture, that it is a learned thing. You aren't born with culture. Why do believe in what you do? You have your reasons and they are influenced by your view of the world as you see it. Again it is one of those things that says truth is relative. Truth is truth from your point of view.

[SilentScope001]

For example, if a person of X religion (and only X religion) was able to predict the outcome of any given series of events 90% of the time, wherever they were and without any possible previous knowledge of the circumstances, that would be interesting. Very interesting. Unfortunately, no one has ever demonstrated this sort of thing, or even close to it. People have good reason to be skeptical of religion's claims (really, this applies to any other circumstance which involves no reason given to believe it).

 

Answer: Discordianism (religion disguised as satire disguised as religion), and the Law of Fives.

 

The Law of Fives is summarized on page 00016 of the Principia Discordia:

 

The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.

The Law of Fives is never wrong.

The Law of Fives includes the word "Five" five times.

 

Like most of Discordianism, the Law of Fives appears on the surface to be either some sort of weird joke, or bizarre supernaturalism; but under this, it may help clarify the Discordian view of how the human mind works; Lord Omar is quoted later on the same page as having written, "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."

 

Appendix Beth of Robert Shea's and Robert Anton Wilson's The Illuminatus! Trilogy considers some of the numerology of Discordianism, and the question of what would happen to the Law of Fives if everyone had six fingers on each hand. The authors suggest that the real Law of Fives may be that everything can be related to the number five if you try hard enough. Sometimes the steps required may be highly convoluted.

 

Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

 

So, in some cases, I doubt your test of 90% accuracy would work. I mean, if it does, I would follow Discordianism and start saying "Fnord" wherever I want. I mean, how come every car has 5 tires (4 for driving, one as a spare)? Has to be the Rule of Fives, and because of that, Discordianism (or any other religion with rules that people believe in and justify a lot) is correct.

===

As for the "Proof of God" that Scientists wants, here is one taken from St. Augustine (I think). This is a Totally Scientific proof (according to those days):

 

1. I move.

2. Something must have made me move.

3. Something must have made that thing made me move.

4. Something must have made that thing which made that thing made me move.

5. This is an infitie cycle that repeat endlessly.

6. Surely, there can't be something that continues endleesly. There must be a Prime Mover that is not moved by anything else, but what causes everything else to move.

7. That Prime Mover is God.

 

Problem: We already found the Prime Mover...the Big Bang. But what causes that? Why, if you believe in string theory...strings. So that theory (of God existing since I move) goes pretty awry. And what if there is an inifinte chain of events, each thing moving something else, and it is a chain that will never end?

 

Another proof...from Descartes (the inventor of the "evil demon" argument, the predecssor of the infamous "Brain In Vat" experiment):

 

Medidation 5 ontological argument

1. God's prefection entails existence (existence is a perfection).

2. So someone who thinks of God without also thinking that God exists contradicts himself.

Therefore, God exist.

 

This is an argument also used by a person named Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury in the late 11th and early 12th centuries.

A being that is all powerful and all knowing and perfectly exists exists.

A being wo is all powerful and all knowing and perfetly good and exists does not exist.

 

Problem: The argument would seem to be apply to anything.

A golden mountain that exits does not exist. This is contradictory but that doesn't prove that a golden mountain exist. It just shows that if you say it exists and then deny it exists you have contradicted yourself.

 

Rebuttal: We didn't say that a perfect being exists, adding the notion of existance to the notion of a perfect being. But it wasn't added on--the notion of aboslute perefection already including the notion of existing. To deny it exists is more like denying that a triangle has three angles euqal two right angles.

 

Mathematical concepts express "true and immutable essences" and they are not fictions. WHen we prove something about a true and immutable essence it is true indepedents of our thoughts.

 

Another Objection: Perfect island-Suppose we imagine a perfect island that does not exist. A more perfect island would be one that is just like that island but also exist. (Gaunilo's objection) That couldn't be a way to prove a way to prove the existance of perfect island.

 

That above proof also uses philopshy, but Descartes felt that it was quite easy to see that God exist thanks to that proof, and to deny it would be like denying a triangle has 180 degrees.

[JediMaster12]

Descartes also said 'I think therefore I am.'

 

So, in some cases, I doubt your test of 90% accuracy would work. I mean, if it does, I would follow Discordianism and start saying "Fnord" wherever I want. I mean, how come every car has 5 tires (4 for driving, one as a spare)? Has to be the Rule of Fives, and because of that, Discordianism (or any other religion with rules that people believe in and justify a lot) is correct.

Five is considered one of the most powerful numbers. It is often associated with the divine feminine. Seven is another number and that is used in the Bible citing the perfection of heaven. Then there is three which is associated with the Holy Trinity and the Triple Goddess. Another number that is found even in science is the Golden Ratio or the Divine Proportion. Don't tell me I got it from the DaVinci Code. I actually have a mathematician for a friend and I never met anyone who loves math more than she. The reason I say it exists everywhere well take the length from your shoulder to your elbow and divide by the length from your shoulder to your fingertips. You get 1.618, the Divine Proportion. Because this number occurred so frequently, early scientists believed that it was a divine number. Your Laws of Five are very intereesting but haveyou considered why people like things in threes, fives and sevens. They are all odd numbers but yet they are prevalent in many religious cultures ranging from the pagans to the Western world.

[SilentScope001]

Five is considered one of the most powerful numbers. It is often associated with the divine feminine. Seven is another number and that is used in the Bible citing the perfection of heaven. Then there is three which is associated with the Holy Trinity and the Triple Goddess. Another number that is found even in science is the Golden Ratio or the Divine Proportion. Don't tell me I got it from the DaVinci Code. I actually have a mathematician for a friend and I never met anyone who loves math more than she. The reason I say it exists everywhere well take the length from your shoulder to your elbow and divide by the length from your shoulder to your fingertips. You get 1.618, the Divine Proportion. Because this number occurred so frequently, early scientists believed that it was a divine number. Your Laws of Five are very intereesting but haveyou considered why people like things in threes, fives and sevens. They are all odd numbers but yet they are prevalent in many religious cultures ranging from the pagans to the Western world.

 

Reread again. The Rule of Fives is supposed to be a joke to satrize how people can see things (like conspiracy theories) if they just look for them. That was the reason I posted it here, to prove that just because a religion "predicts" something 90% of the time...it doesn't really mean that it is right.

[JediMaster12]

I saw the satire. I was being serious

 

I am well aware that there is truth but truth is not always what it appears.

[Allronix]

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books," as well as a throwback for worshipping ancient Gods. It is not a conclusion I came to lightly. For years, I thought there was something wrong with me because I put a lot of effort into trying to follow the Christian faith, but kept coming up with too many questions.

 

I stumbled into the wrong room when looking for a writers' worskshop and ended up meeting a Gardnerian priestess. After a few hours of talking, I found there was a name for what I believed in my heart. Just to be sure, I read the King James cover to cover before putting that book down and declaring myself Pagan.

 

The fundamental of the faith is the Rede. "If it harms none, do as thou wilt." However, "harm none" is the BIG key. It includes harming yourself, and it expands to include all creatures and the Earth. And if you do something stupid, you pay for it in one form or another. There's no "devil made me do it" here. It's all about consequences and if you can live with them.

[Jae Onasi]

Works pretty well with the 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

[Salzella]

Ah, religion. I prefer to avoid it altogether, except to occasionally point it with a pointy stick

[SilentScope001]

The fundamental of the faith is the Rede. "If it harms none, do as thou wilt." However, "harm none" is the BIG key. It includes harming yourself, and it expands to include all creatures and the Earth. And if you do something stupid, you pay for it in one form or another. There's no "devil made me do it" here. It's all about consequences and if you can live with them.

 

...But I want to harm myself or harm others, to punish myself or to punish others. I think this sort of "harming", punishment, is excluded from your definition (since it prevents 'greater harm'), but still...

[Darth InSidious]

Question:

 

A definition of religion can be 'a set of beliefs based around an unprovable central belief or beliefs.' - If anyone objects to this, feel free to say so

 

So...What is science?

 

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

 

But can we?

 

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In this situation, the universe is created in one instant by a deity or deities who will henceforth be known as The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos. The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos creates something very similar to Earth, but instantly. And then The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos leaves the universe to its own problems and solutions, never to return.

 

Now in this universe, on this not-quite-Earth, which we shall call Tellurius, there is a single island-colony of humans. There is one main difference between them and humans in our universe - these humans are all blind from birth. They have no concept of sight, as they have never had it, never perceived using it, they don't know of its existence.

 

They build their society on a similar model to ours, fighting their wars, learning their knowledge, and building their understanding of the universe. But. They can't see.

 

And so, how do they learn things only learnt by sight? They can't. Or, they learn in a more inefficient manner.

 

And somewhere along the line, a fundamental mistake is made. So fundamental that it is completely ignored as being impossible to be wrong.

 

So how do they know that their perception of the universe is flawed if they have no concept of what they are missing?

 

Let me put it another way: We perceive the world through five senses, it is generally agreed. Others may or may not exist -that I'm not going to delve into here.

 

But is the world as we perceive it the world as it really is? What if our perceptions are coloured, or flawed, because of something we are incapable, and have no concept of exists as a further method of perception?

 

In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

 

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

[Q]

Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

Absolutely. Complete with its own zealots.