Ethics and Religion

[Achilles]

In light of recent discussions, I thought that some of the findings discussed in this article might be relevant food for thought:

 

click me

[jonathan7]

I would tend to disagree. Scientists do not claim to have all of the answers to every questions. If something is unknown, the scientific community will say "we don't know right now" or "we're looking into it". That is not dogma.

 

If I had to take a guess, I would assume that most people that feel that science is dogmatic, say so because they want their arguments to have equal footing with scientific theory, but aren't willing to do the work. "I believe that God exists, but science refuses to accept God, therefore science is dogmatic".

 

Ok, I will slightly rephrase :-p Some scientists becoming dogmatic in thinking that science is the only way to explain the world, where as I take it as how something works but doesnt not explain why... e.g. science can tell us how the human body works but not why on a philisophical/intellectual level sophisticated enough for humans. If there is no God of course then there is no after-life etc etc, so the why is either we've evolved to this point... or life is utterly pointless as in the grand cosmological scale we are nothing than a tiny spec of dust that exsists for but a second. Do you get what I mean... you will have people who refuse to accept there is anything outside of science... which is surely dogmatic?? As you would say someone is dogmatic if the fail to accept there is something outside of their frame of referance. I also think that the reason science is no struggling in popular culture is its lost its sence of wonder (although this is another debate really, I dunno where you live, but science here is now struggling a fair bit, in terms of peoples understanding and knowledge of it, people no longer get exited over new discoveries anymore)

 

It's not that science refuses to accept God, so much as it is that the concept of God (as we understand it) has nothing to do with science. Furthermore, more often than not, there is a proven scientific explanation that doesn't even need to invoke supernatural causes in the first place.

 

I agree with both statements to a degree. I would argue with the first that the current evidence (to me at least) would point towards a creator God.

 

Spontanuos (I cant spell and its 3am in the UK) Generation is a scientific impossibility, SO AT THIS POINT there is only one other answer, reasonable or not.

 

Really? You can quote a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that states that abiogenesis (or Spontaneous Generation) is scientifically impossible? "Not being able to show something right now" does not equal "can never be shown". 200 years ago DNA was literally unknown yet today we have completely mapped the human genome. The Urey-Miller experiment showed that some amino acids can be formed "from nothing". This is not the same thing as showing as proving spontaneous generation, but it sure seems like a first step at showing that it's at least a possibility.

 

I'm a Psychology student, so although my range of reading is large (National Geographic etc) I'm not a science student so I don't read that many science journals... I'll see if i can dig out a Psychology journal with it in I have also caps locked part of my original sentance, as your trying to pidgeon hole me :-p so by saying "Not being able to show something right now" does not equal "can never be shown". so you've argued against something I never said I had already concedeed that in the future perhaps another reason could be put forward in my original statement.

 

I point this out merely to show that there is not "only one other answer". This, sir, is dogmatic thinking.

 

Nah, I'm not being dogmatic... see above argument for how what I had said had been taken slightly out of context.

 

Also take away your biased oppinions for a second as that is what is causing you to say the above. If the Christian God is the true God then those 2 will never actually come into conflict as they would basically become the same thing.

 

Please explain your thought process (when you have time, I know you mentioned that don't right now).

 

Well presume the Christian God is real, he created the world, Jesus was his Son etc and then you have science which seeks to explain and find truth and knowledge etc. Just because 2 things are true doesnt mean they can't co-exist. So for a simplistic anology a Glass is round, solid and see through. Neither of those things disproove the other. So if science is the quest for truth and understanding and the Christian God is real then they arent in competetion and maybe science would even lead you into believe there was a God due to experiment you do of the world around you. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Please don't mistake my comments for being based on personal experience (or at least personal experience alone). My arguments are leveled primarily at faith as a system itself. It's not that I don't like religious people, I don't like religion at all. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

Why do you dislike religion?

 

Similarly, I don't seek to defend a specific scientist or proclaim that all scientists are (forgive the expression) saints. Just as I seek to question religion as a system, I also argue for the scientific process. Some "scientist" don't follow the scientific process put want their place at the table (the names of everyone working for the Discovery Institute spring to mind).

 

No comments or points.

 

I'll try to cut through a lot of backstory here and simply say that most people that believe in the God of Abraham (Christians, Jews, & Muslims) will eventually says "God cannot be measured because he trancends space, time, physics, logic, everything". This is unfortunate because science (by it's nature) can only concern itself with that which is natural. Anything supernatural is automatically not allowed in the club.

 

Well why is that? Because of the scientific method. The process breaks down as soon as you try to apply it to something supernatural. Put anything observable in there and it works like gangbusters, so it's not the process, it's what you try to feed it.

 

To use your example, you might not have an apparatus to measure right then and there, but if you did, could you? If you had 50 people with 50 apparatuses in the room with you, would they be able to get the same reading as you (within a reasonable margin of error)? Measuring nitrogen in a room isn't beyond measure, it just is in your scenario. It's like saying the bus can never come because the bus isn't at your stop right now.

 

I won't move into the Scientific Method debate Well my kind of example was try to say that maybe one day in the future it might be possible to measure it if you had the right apparatus

 

If you can observe it, you can test it with the scientific method. However if you can get this far, then you automatically exclude the source from being supernatural; at some point all the "whys and hows" will point to a natural explanation.

 

This would go into the realms of what is natural, which is a debate I'm trying to avoid. Although it is somewhat pertinant to the Question. I would say that you want something to be repeatable... In that its something you can observe time after time. Where as supernatural events tend to be 'random' in nature, so its not like dropping an apple to observe there is gravity, as say someone seeing an angel doesnt occur everytime you want to test it. Of course this isn't to say it couldnt be explained in some other way for example Schizophrenia or other mental illnesses.

 

Of course it does. That exactly what all science does.

 

ROFL, yeh I know (hence me laughing ) What I mean to say is presume an event was completely and utterly random with no scientific reason for it or explanations... Science would never be able to explain simply because there isnt an actual answer. Dunno if you've understood me on that. I site Jade Goody... she's alive although were not quite sure as she doesn't have a brain so she shouldnt be alive or moving, she also doesn't have any function in the ecosystem and society and yet she still manages to live without any of these things, it defies scientific explanation (bad example but I hope it amuses you

 

*shrugs* why do we have to assume that there is no answer? Just because an answer isn't clear to us now does not preclude it from ever being known.

 

Well we as inquisative humans will always try to find an answer, but come outside the problem a second, imagine there is no answer to the problem. It doesnt matter how many times someone looks at it to solve the provlem, because there is no answer to the problem, an answer can never be found

 

If I could stick a probe into your brain and make you experience exactly what all of these "near-death survivors" describe, could we truly consider them evidence of an after life? Your argument assumes that the only possible explanation for "near-death experience" is an actual afterlife. Again, this is a prime example of dogmatic thinking (I'm still not hatin' though).

 

Not really, there just isnt any reason for people expierance the near death expierance. Its not dogmatic thinking as I pointed out near death expierences tend not to happen in some cases (I'm not sure on the figures of people close to death who have or hadn't had a near death expierance). You've put words in my mouth and presumed what I was saying, I was merely putting forward a cunudrum for you to explain. Most Psychological Para-normal phenomina can be easily explained however this is one of those things that can't be. On a side note, my all time 'favourite' Paranormal show, was this Ghost Hunters show where they went round to people's houses and sat them in the dark and recorded... IF you sit a bunch of people in a room in the dark for hours and they think the house is haunted what are they going to do??

 

I don't mean to strawman, but...clicky

 

Yeah, I know about such studies seen them before. My one slight point is imagine that the True God is the ancient Egyptian Gods, theyre hardly going to answer the prayers of anyone but there followers are they? I don't have too much to say on the subject it for you to decide for yourself what your analysis of why it occured.

 

Because medical science cannot explain all phenomeon that occur does not mean that experiences like yours are supernatural.

 

No but currently it defies explanation by science.

 

Yes, in that scenario, I suppose it would be quite arrogant. It seems odd though that God could kill the whole debate right now with an appearance on CNN or BBC, but chooses not to. Unfortunately this tends to kick off a lengthy dialog about God hiding himself as part of the test, but revealing himself to some as snack cracker even though he's supposed to powerful to be percieved by us, etc, etc. And I'd really rather not have that dialog if that's ok.

 

Thats fine, although I probably wouldn't of gone down that path of discussion.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. As I stated earlier, I don't feel that any further discussion with SilentScope will bear fruit and talking about him is just rude. Hopefully you can understand and respect that.

 

Fair enuff, hes one of my favourite users, but were both very Philisophical and have a 'rapport' going as we believe the EU and the on going battle between Jedi and Sith is because GL wants to line his pockets with lots of money.

 

"One of Eintein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,

 

Quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then is is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

 

Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant."

 

<snip>

 

"Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion."

 

Quote:

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion

 

Quote:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and thus that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

 

Ahh, but I'm pretty sure in my original post I would have pointed out that Einstein believed there to be a intelligent creator but not a moral God. I don't ignore something just because it will contradict my argument.

 

As a future favour, please don't quote Dawkins at me, I consider the bloke a complete idiot who is in fact dangerous. Why?? Because religious people are foolish? He doesn't allow for differances in opinion. Whatever is the Truth is the Truth regardless of what any of us believe, which is why I have no issue with athiests, as they could be prooven right (although we get into a paradox as obviously I think I'm right) but I dont treat them as if they are stupid or thick because they disagree with me. And as for thinking religion causes all wars... He convienatly ignores things like the Zula Wars, both WW's, Vietnam etc... I would also put forward an argument that the motives for the Crusades from the aristocracy in Europe was not at all religious. It is my belief people like him lead to Hitler, Stalin etc simply because they think anyone that doesnt come into their line of thinking is stupid and inferior. He also conveniatly ignores that athiestic societies tend to end in tradgedy, like the purges, the Holocaust etc.

 

Anyways thats my response, will be interested to see what you have to say

[ZippyFreak]

hey guys i would like to enter the debate to make one statement and one statement only...

(unless people ask questions, then of course i will reply)

in relation to silentscope's comment on why god would leave satan alone and not end him well and truly, i will say simply this:

 

i believe that a man can only be responsable for himself and his own actions.

if he has defeated an enemy and kills the helpless enemy surely he becomes just as evil as an enemy that kills the helpless?

if the man helps the enemy and the enemy then goes onwards to kill again, can he who helped the enemy be blamed?

i dont believe so.

 

or in other words:

 

if you came across a man injured and dying in the road and found that it was an enemy who had wronged you, would leaving him to do die not make you just as bad?

if your belief is that you should help him, and you do, and in return for this he goes onward to hurt others, does this mean your beliefs are wrong?

i cannot be responsable that he chose to continue to hurt others, i can only be responsable for my own actions. not the actions of those that i help.

 

Christians preach peace and brotherhood, if god destroyed satan, where would that leave the beliefs that he founded?

 

hope this post made sense. i liked the debate guys.

[Achilles]

Ok, I will slightly rephrase :-p Some scientists becoming dogmatic in thinking that science is the only way to explain the world, where as I take it as how something works but doesnt not explain why... e.g. science can tell us how the human body works but not why on a philisophical/intellectual level sophisticated enough for humans.

I cannot presume to speak for all scientists. I feel that I have done an adequate job of explaining the scientific process and have gone so far as to explain why science is limited to what can be observed.

 

I'm sure you could find examples of dogmatic scientists (anyone supporting Intelligent Design, for instance), however those that adhere to the scientific model cannot be accused of following dogma.

 

If there is no God of course then there is no after-life etc etc, so the why is either we've evolved to this point... or life is utterly pointless as in the grand cosmological scale we are nothing than a tiny spec of dust that exsists for but a second.

I'm not sure I follow the dichotomy, but I'll try to address what I think you're saying.

 

If God does not exist, then all it means is that meaning is intrinsic rather than extrinsic. That's not the end of the world considering that it happens everyday already (just not for a majority of the world's population). I don't need to feel as though I'm part of "God's plan" to have meaning. Furthermore, I would argue that this realization makes my sense of purpose more meaningful rather than less so.

 

Do you get what I mean... you will have people who refuse to accept there is anything outside of science... which is surely dogmatic??

Science is a method or process for making observations, not necessarily a set of tenets in itself. Therefore, by it's very nature, true science cannot be dogmatic (i.e. authoritative with no basis).

 

As you would say someone is dogmatic if the fail to accept there is something outside of their frame of referance.

There's a lot of supposition in that statement. Am I dogmatic because I fail to accept religion? You have to presume that religion is outside my "frame of reference" if you say yes. Religion is well within my "frame of reference" but I choose to reject it. Rejecting a premise is not the same thing as not understanding it.

 

In other words, rejecting religion (or religious explanations) does not automatically make one dogmatic.

 

I also think that the reason science is no struggling in popular culture is its lost its sence of wonder (although this is another debate really, I dunno where you live, but science here is now struggling a fair bit, in terms of peoples understanding and knowledge of it, people no longer get exited over new discoveries anymore)

I think the reason why science is struggling in popular culture is that most people aren't scientifically literate. They are enculturated (quite strongly in a lot of cases) into a religious tradition at a young age and do not received adequate scientific instruction in the public school system (I can only speak for the U.S. here, although studies would indicate that this is true in other developed nations as well).

 

It not that two equally viable options are getting equal time on a level playing field. Kids grow up with dogma, and then grow up to have children of their own, who most likely grow up with dogma as well. If children weren't exposed to religion until their critical thinking skills were adequately developed and were then given science and religion in equal parts, I'm sure that religion would sure die out in a few generations (being generous).

 

I agree with both statements to a degree. I would argue with the first that the current evidence (to me at least) would point towards a creator God.

There is no evidence of a creator God. None. Zero. Zilch.

 

You have a belief and that's fine, but that belief is not based on evidience. That's why it's faith.

 

You can very easily deflate my argument by proving evidence to the contrary (HINT: there is an entire organization of "scientists" call the Discovery Institute that is trying to do just this in regards to the evolution/creation debate. They are well funded and staffed by people with post-graduate degrees in applied sciences. This group cannot produce any evidence, so I will not hold it against you if you cannot either.)

 

I'm a Psychology student, so although my range of reading is large (National Geographic etc) I'm not a science student so I don't read that many science journals... I'll see if i can dig out a Psychology journal with it in

Actually, psychology is behavioral science so technically you are a science student Psychologist use the same scientific method that applied scientists use.

 

FWIW, I highly doubt that you'll find anything on abiogenesis in a psychology journal. Try Nature or it's ilk.

 

I have also caps locked part of my original sentance, as your trying to pidgeon hole me :-p so by saying "Not being able to show something right now" does not equal "can never be shown". so you've argued against something I never said I had already concedeed that in the future perhaps another reason could be put forward in my original statement.

Your logic is still flawed though. Absense of Explanation {A} does not mean that Explanation {B} is correct by default. Because we don't have a workable model of abiogensis does not mean that Creationism is the de facto explanation until one can be developed. Not the way it works

 

I didn't strawman your argument, I just understood it's implications maybe a little better than you did.

 

Nah, I'm not being dogmatic... see above argument for how what I had said had been taken slightly out of context.

Actually you are. "only one other answer, reasonable or not" is textbook dogma (if such a textbook exists ).

 

Again, I don't think you realized the implications of your argument.

 

Well presume the Christian God is real, he created the world, Jesus was his Son etc and then you have science which seeks to explain and find truth and knowledge etc. Just because 2 things are true doesnt mean they can't co-exist. So for a simplistic anology a Glass is round, solid and see through. Neither of those things disproove the other. So if science is the quest for truth and understanding and the Christian God is real then they arent in competetion and maybe science would even lead you into believe there was a God due to experiment you do of the world around you. Do you understand what I mean?

I understand, but I don't agree. If two models are being offered to explain the same thing, one has to work better than the other. In your example, the two models would both support the hypothesis equally well, everytime. But this isn't how it works.

 

Why do you dislike religion?

It's unnecessary, therefore a waste of resources that could be devoted toward bettering mankind. In the human body, systems that behave this way are generally known as "cancer".

 

This would go into the realms of what is natural, which is a debate I'm trying to avoid.

You mean as in defining natural? There should be much to debate, should there?

 

Although it is somewhat pertinant to the Question. I would say that you want something to be repeatable... In that its something you can observe time after time. Where as supernatural events tend to be 'random' in nature, so its not like dropping an apple to observe there is gravity, as say someone seeing an angel doesnt occur everytime you want to test it. Of course this isn't to say it couldnt be explained in some other way for example Schizophrenia or other mental illnesses.

Exactly. Well put.

 

What I mean to say is presume an event was completely and utterly random with no scientific reason for it or explanations... Science would never be able to explain simply because there isnt an actual answer. Dunno if you've understood me on that.

Right because part of your hypothetical scenario is that no actual explanation exist. Of course a system that is designed to find explanations is going to break down. What else did you expect to happen?

 

Imagine I built a telescope that could never find stars. Isn't this a wonderful exercise in showing how pointless astronomy is? xp

 

I site Jade Goody... she's alive although were not quite sure as she doesn't have a brain so she shouldnt be alive or moving, she also doesn't have any function in the ecosystem and society and yet she still manages to live without any of these things, it defies scientific explanation (bad example but I hope it amuses you

I'm sorry, I don't know who Jade Goody is. I did a Google search, but the results came back for some television actress. Help?

 

Well we as inquisative humans will always try to find an answer, but come outside the problem a second, imagine there is no answer to the problem. It doesnt matter how many times someone looks at it to solve the provlem, because there is no answer to the problem, an answer can never be found

*taps the glass on his shiny telescope as he listens to jonathan7*

 

Not really, there just isnt any reason for people expierance the near death expierance. Its not dogmatic thinking as I pointed out near death expierences tend not to happen in some cases (I'm not sure on the figures of people close to death who have or hadn't had a near death expierance). You've put words in my mouth and presumed what I was saying, I was merely putting forward a cunudrum for you to explain.

Was or was not your point that near-death experiences are evidence of an afterlife?

 

If it was, my response was not a strawman and your example is an example of dogmatic thinking.

 

If it was not, then I clearly did not understand your message and I apologize for the strawman response.

 

Yeah, I know about such studies seen them before. My one slight point is imagine that the True God is the ancient Egyptian Gods, theyre hardly going to answer the prayers of anyone but there followers are they? I don't have too much to say on the subject it for you to decide for yourself what your analysis of why it occured.

To reference my earlier discussion with SilentScope, if you accept the existence of one god with no evidence, then you have to accept all gods (plus The Matrix, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Evil Demon, etc). How do you choose or do you decide to live your life appeasing them all? What if they conflict (Christianity and Islam, for instance)?

 

Ahh, but I'm pretty sure in my original post I would have pointed out that Einstein believed there to be a intelligent creator but not a moral God. I don't ignore something just because it will contradict my argument.

Even if Einstein was a Deist, your argument is still guilty of being an Appeal to Authority.

 

As a future favour, please don't quote Dawkins at me

I quoted Dawkins quoting Einstein. I don't see what thoughts of Dawkins were offered for you to bristle at.

 

I consider the bloke a complete idiot who is in fact dangerous. Why?? Because religious people are foolish? He doesn't allow for differances in opinion.

 

I know another guy like that...

 

Exodus 22:19

2 Chronicles 15:12-13

Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Deuteronomy 13:7-12

Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Deuteronomy 17:12

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

 

- God, The Holy Bible

 

Whatever is the Truth is the Truth regardless of what any of us believe, which is why I have no issue with athiests, as they could be prooven right (although we get into a paradox as obviously I think I'm right) but I dont treat them as if they are stupid or thick because they disagree with me.

Yes, he has an abrasive style, but that doesn't meant that all of his points are wrong.

 

And as for thinking religion causes all wars... He convienatly ignores things like the Zula Wars, both WW's, Vietnam etc...

I cannot think of any place where I've heard him say that, but if he did, he would probably be wrong on that point.

 

I would also put forward an argument that the motives for the Crusades from the aristocracy in Europe was not at all religious.

Possible, but not necessarily correct.

 

It is my belief people like him lead to Hitler, Stalin etc simply because they think anyone that doesnt come into their line of thinking is stupid and inferior. He also conveniatly ignores that athiestic societies tend to end in tradgedy, like the purges, the Holocaust etc.

You might want to spend some more time on this one. I think there might be some gaps in your thinking.

[SilentScope001]

I respectfully decline to continue this dialog with you, SilentScope001. I cannot tell if your contradictions and fallacies are an intentional attempt to "troll" or if you truly are not interested in having a rational discussion. Either way, I gain nothing by repeating myself further. Thank you for your time.

 

Hm...I apologize if I appear irrational or "trolling". I did not mean for that to happen. I guess we just reached an impasse in discussion.

---

Maybe I should just inform everyone that arguments aren't just made to convince others that you are right. It's impossible. Sooner or later, you come across warrants that cannot be proven right or wrong, they're just assumptions, which are, to me, the greatest impediment to logical discussion.

 

Arguments, however, exist to explain your viewpoint to others. Argument orginally meant to "clarify".

 

Sometimes, arguments can allow you to learn what other people believe, to broaden your horizions, to understand others. I learnt a lot of stuff from Samuel, Achilles, JediMaster21, and johnantan7 about the many different theories and beliefs concering religion, science, and the concept of free will than I would learn via other methods. Each belief and religion may or may not be right, but I don't care much about that. I care about learning what other people believe, and why they believe it, and I felt that this argument was very succesful in that goal.

 

I don't think we will ever know the answer, to be able to simpfily everything into one paragraph. Even if there is a God that exist and pass judgment on us and can be verifed via observations and the Scientific Method, I'm sure the dezines of Heaven and Hell will still question if the God really did exist, if observations of the existance of God really is true, or if they are still brain in vats. Does God really exist, or is he just a hallcuation brought about after you are dead? The endless questions will continue to spawn endless questions.

 

And if God does not exist, and there is a proof via the Scientific Method that finally prove the nonexistance of God, then what is the point of living? Why have a moral system? Why treat people with respect? The endless questions will continue to spawn endless questions...

 

Achilles, I really liked talking to you, as with everyone else. I learnt a lot of stuff from you, and I hope that you learnt a lot of stuff from me.

[Samuel Dravis]

I arbtirally accept something. I prefer the Holy Book over Kant. The Holy Book tells me to obey it by stating that I am indeed weak and patheic, that in fact, I have no value, and that's about it. Kant talks about the respect of humanity, and how great it is...and if I don't accept Kant's arbitrary belief, then I see no need to follow Kant.

If I said you were weak and pathetic and you have no value, would you obey me? I essentially say the same thing as what you apparently believe, so belief in one or the other is of equivalent value. I would tell you to do my homework for me.

 

Then again, the absence of proof does not mean the proof of absence, which is somewhat key in skepticism.

True, it doesn't mean "proof" of absence. I don't care about that because I have no hope of finding the ultimate truth. I just want to find out whether one idea is more likely than another. If none are more likely than any others, I might just choose not to think a specific way about it until I have more information.

 

Er...yes.

 

With all the talk about the war on terrorism, the battle for freedom, the Clash of Civilization, the enviromentalist crusade against global warming, etc. you kinda think that there has to be some objective thing that makes us important. When I realized that it didn't mean anything, that really did hit me like a ton of bricks.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it doen't mean anything. It might, just that I'm not sure if there is a way to know what that meaning if there is one. That's why I said it's everything subjectively earlier, because I know of nothing truly objective.

 

Then you resolve the problem. You finally find something objective to latch yourself onto. There are endless possiblities, and endless other belief systems that I can join and subscribe myself to, so I randomly choosen one and then stick with that. Plus, I has the rare possiblity that I can be right, and that I could get beniefts from that belief. But I guess the main point of religion here is to add meaning to one's life. It's totally arbitrary.

Yep, it doesn't resolve that problem.

 

Yep. Arbitrainess rears its ugly head once more, and as well as my artibrary fear that life has no meaning...(Why should life have meaning?, one can reply). Sooner or later, one has to adopt something arbitrary and stick with it, and I might as well choose this one, since I given up on my crusade to get rid of warrants, seeing how impossible it is.

I'm curious why you would choose an abstraction of untrustworthy senses, if you're concerned about knowing the most you can. Religion is present only in what we percieve. You don't start thinking about God inherently, but only in context of perception - things that are "inexplicable." Since "god" is an apparent product of that perception, why would you choose to believe that over just simple acknowledgement of perception? That would eliminate a link in the list of things that could be wrong.

 

Ah. Still, with logic being comrpomised by what is known as warrants, with our base assumptions and desires that cannot be justified or proven, I feel that my own thinking may be unreliable.

Indeed. Solipsism can be taken quite far. "I think therefore I exist" >>> Do *I* think? >>> Something COULD be creating a mind that percieves it is thinking, while the actual thoughts are simply a progression of newly created minds with different perceptions >>> I do not know if *I* exist >>> Nothing is known.

 

...at which point it becomes untenable. If you don't know that you exist, then there's no point being afraid of dying because there's no reason to suppose you aren't already. So just think you're dead and you'll be fine. After all, dead people probably have nothing to lose.

 

Moreover, if you accept that logical thought does not exist, then you also accept that the idea of skepticism is...not wrong, not right. It just would be, (if you were "thinking" about it); but such "thoughts" as you had wouldn't have meaning. Literally nothing would have meaning at that point, and your clinging to such a degree of skepticism wouldn't make sense, as any other position is equally likely and some are not as depressing.

 

True, but then again, abscene of evidence does not mean evidence of abscene.

Right. It simply means absence of reason to belive in one idea over another within a system.

 

And of course, the main reason why I embrace science, since it seems to be true. But it might not be true. I'm sort of paranoid and worried of that. There is no preceptions that indicate otherwise, but then again, you can be worried about preceptions being controlled and working together. So, skepticism still exists.

It does. However, that sort of skepticism doesn't provide any useful outcome (useful being determined by results I percieve, which are the only thing I have to use to determine it), so I just discard it. That way of thinking just doesn't MEAN anything. It doesn't mean anything to me, it doesn't mean anything to you. It can't, that's its nature.

 

When I lift up my hand, I see something. I know I have perception. This leads me to think that there is something there for me to see. When I think about moving this hand, I see it move. If it moved without me willing it, then I might revise the supposition that it's MY hand, or refine my knowledge of what works on that hand for it to move in the way it did.

 

I percieve - and what I percieve is there. I'm not conciously making up the world by imagining it. I don't have any reason to think that someone else is, because I know of nothing other than that perception and my response to it. I've never existed, to my knowledge, without perception.

 

So you see, I believe my perception is as close to truth as I will get. I think other things are real because I percieve them and because nothing I know of even so much as implies that they aren't real.

 

An example: I am against abortion because I am part of that group that wants that respect of life. Others might not be human, but *I* could not make an alternate decision when what I percieve leads me to believe they are. I think it's PROBABLE that others are indeed human, and since I consider myself human and I want to be treated in a way that respects my life, I will respect what is probably theirs.

 

No, I can't prove they are worthy of that respect. But then, I'm not even going to try. The way it appears to me makes me act in the way I do.

 

You got your idea of being afraid of death through your perception. Is there any reason to trust your perception? Yes, because it is, as far as you can tell, "not you." If it is "not you," then it is other. If it is other, then it can be what it is and what it isn't. You don't have any reason to think it is other than what you see >>> Occam's razor >>> it is as you see it.

 

I don't think that there's anything to be afraid of in dying, however, because by definition you won't care after you're dead. The only possible ends are for you to exist or you don't. Neither option would be bad if you were worried about existing. The first you would continue on, and in the second you wouldn't be around to care.

 

Sometimes, arguments can allow you to learn what other people believe, to broaden your horizions, to understand others. I learnt a lot of stuff from Samuel, Achilles, JediMaster21, and johnantan7 about the many different theories and beliefs concering religion, science, and the concept of free will than I would learn via other methods. Each belief and religion may or may not be right, but I don't care much about that. I care about learning what other people believe, and why they believe it, and I felt that this argument was very succesful in that goal.

That's exactly why I post on threads like this. It's the ONLY reason I post, actually. Plus you can put down the occasional flamer by not talking in caps or with thousands of exclamation marks.

 

 

Edit: replying to a bit more...

 

And if God does not exist, and there is a proof via the Scientific Method that finally prove the nonexistance of God, then what is the point of living?

Why should there be a point other than what you want to do? Is there any reason to suggest there is?

 

Why have a moral system? Why treat people with respect? The endless questions will continue to spawn endless questions...

Like I had posted above, my moral system is based on probability of what I will experience. I don't like being stuck in the foot with a nail (yes that has happened to me before), and since I consider other people to be the same class as me (human), I surmise that they wouldn't like it either. If there's a conflict I can balance it out between us, because I consider both of equal value. Why do I care about what they experience? See below...

 

I treat them with respect because I like to be treated with respect. As far as I can tell, only humans have the capacity to treat people with respect (or without it), and I have experienced them do both. However, that experience has been weighted: more people treat me with respect when I do the same to them. Ergo, I treat them with respect. In an unfamiliar situation, I would go with whatever I think is the best idea that doesn't cause harm. This same model applies to any other attribute or action.

[SilentScope001]

If I said you were weak and pathetic and you have no value, would you obey me? I essentially say the same thing as what you apparently believe, so belief in one or the other is of equivalent value. I would tell you to do my homework for me.

 

Most likely not, but that's because I seem to be having a good life. In case of an economic downturn, and with no dependents, I may be forced to join a cult in order to keep my self-esteem high, and I'll might consider your offer of doing homework.

 

Plus, artifically putting people down, while likely accurate, is not a good way to get people to join a cult. Promise prehaps a way to rise in stats, maybe creating a concept of Heaven or Hell...

 

True, it doesn't mean "proof" of absence. I don't care about that because I have no hope of finding the ultimate truth. I just want to find out whether one idea is more likely than another. If none are more likely than any others, I might just choose not to think a specific way about it until I have more information.

 

The problem is that how do one know if something is "more likely" to occur than another? Don't you need to form some sort of standard to evaulate certain belief systems, and thereby decide between the belief systems? And then, you have to have some proof to prove that that standard indeed works (and a proof of that proof, etc.)...otherwise it is simply artibrary.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say it doen't mean anything. It might, just that I'm not sure if there is a way to know what that meaning if there is one. That's why I said it's everything subjectively earlier, because I know of nothing truly objective.

 

Okay.

 

Yep, it doesn't resolve that problem.

 

Usually, you don't go and think through a desicion. Doing so defeats the purpose of arbitrally chossing a religion randomly.

 

I'm curious why you would choose an abstraction of untrustworthy senses, if you're concerned about knowing the most you can. Religion is present only in what we percieve. You don't start thinking about God inherently, but only in context of perception - things that are "inexplicable." Since "god" is an apparent product of that perception, why would you choose to believe that over just simple acknowledgement of perception? That would eliminate a link in the list of things that could be wrong.

 

"Simple" acknowledge of preception is not very...simple, to me. It seems sort of hard to grasp something and then to accept it totally on face value.

 

And, maybe in the past, religion is invented to explain preceptions...but not for me, and not today. Preceptions, and science in general can create a system by which God is unnecessary, even superfulous, providing for a reasonable belief that God does not exist. Science has already explained how the world works, and explain our preception.

 

God does not become "invented" because of a need to explain preception, but rather, "invented" by use of reason. God is the thing that secretly contorls the world. Instead of the world working naturally...it has a sentience. It can think, it can communicate, and it can feel love and hate towards the very thing it is created.

 

Indeed. Solipsism can be taken quite far. "I think therefore I exist" >>> Do *I* think? >>> Something COULD be creating a mind that percieves it is thinking, while the actual thoughts are simply a progression of newly created minds with different perceptions >>> I do not know if *I* exist >>> Nothing is known.

 

...at which point it becomes untenable. If you don't know that you exist, then there's no point being afraid of dying because there's no reason to suppose you aren't already. So just think you're dead and you'll be fine. After all, dead people probably have nothing to lose.

 

Unlikely though. It may essentialy become untenable (and you are forced to accept observations), but it does establish something key: You can't know everything...or anything, truly.

 

This bit of "knowledge" can actually prove to be pretty useful, according to the skeptic: If you do not know if you can aquire true knowledge, you do not have to waste any time in proving such stuff. You no longer have to worry about questions like, "Is [such-and-such] the right thing to do?" You can laugh at the people debating on the problem of evil. You can smile at those who endlessly battle and fight for ideologies.

 

It provides you a measure of calm, basically. Figuring out truth is meaningless, so why even bother? Just live life how you would normally do (accepting the apperances, but never believing in them), and laugh at those who try to philophize, or try to think grandiose solutions to problems. Because they don't really have any proof that they are right.

 

So, basically, you accept the apperances, but do not believe them. So, if I was a skeptic, I would basically say, "It appears that people are dying. It appears that death is a bad thing. It appears that I hate bad things, so I should follow the apperances and be afraid of death." I am not a skeptic, but I just accept apperances and then from there, operate.

 

Moreover, if you accept that logical thought does not exist, then you also accept that the idea of skepticism is...not wrong, not right. It just would be, (if you were "thinking" about it); but such "thoughts" as you had wouldn't have meaning. Literally nothing would have meaning at that point, and your clinging to such a degree of skepticism wouldn't make sense, as any other position is equally likely and some are not as depressing.

 

Sounds like a pretty good refutation. Even the skeptic has some sort of warrant: that is, they require proof. One can argue that, "Proof? Pah. You need no proof!" I, however, guess that I like having proofs, because without proof, you accept things arbitrally, which I dislike.

 

There are other theories that are less depressing, but seem...not as good, not as palpatble. How in the world can you accept murder, killing, disappointment, and endless change on such a large scale? Optmisim seems foolhardy, and especially since they have no proof that their "Ideology" would lead the world to a better place...I just can't accept it. Depressing ideologies make much more sense to me, at least, according to my observations.

 

It does. However, that sort of skepticism doesn't provide any useful outcome (useful being determined by results I percieve, which are the only thing I have to use to determine it), so I just discard it. That way of thinking just doesn't MEAN anything. It doesn't mean anything to me, it doesn't mean anything to you. It can't, that's its nature.

 

See above on how the skeptic recieves inner bliss by knowing that it's impossible to know anything. They basically don't have to prove anything, they'll just live life as they normally do, and don't have to waste time justifying what they believe.

 

When I lift up my hand, I see something. I know I have perception. This leads me to think that there is something there for me to see. When I think about moving this hand, I see it move. If it moved without me willing it, then I might revise the supposition that it's MY hand, or refine my knowledge of what works on that hand for it to move in the way it did.

 

I percieve - and what I percieve is there. I'm not conciously making up the world by imagining it. I don't have any reason to think that someone else is, because I know of nothing other than that perception and my response to it. I've never existed, to my knowledge, without perception.

 

Emphasis added in bold. Something I always wondered. What if you are unconciously making up the world? In other words, what if you are God, deceiving yourself so that you can live a better life?

 

Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, actually explored this idea within his unfinished novella...The Mysterious Stranger. This final chapter in his work is a great excerise in the breaking of the 4th Wall, similar to how the Matrix works...except it's not machines deceiving you...it's you.

 

Another way of explaining it is that all you preceive is basically ideas, and not actual living things. No proof of that, and I'm sure it's a pretty unpopular idea, but it is possible (and if true, you got yourself a in-built and dubious proof of God right here...somebody has to go and made up all those ideas, and man are limited and cannot made up all the ideas, so it must be God who made up all the ideas.)

 

So you see, I believe my perception is as close to truth as I will get. I think other things are real because I percieve them and because nothing I know of even so much as implies that they aren't real.

 

Okay, so there is a lack of evidence that would go against it. I guess I can understand that, though I would disagree with thinking preceptions would lead you close to truth, they just have the same chance of leading you to truth as anything else. Common sense would tell you that you're best off accepting it.

 

An example: I am against abortion because I am part of that group that wants that respect of life. Others might not be human, but *I* could not make an alternate decision when what I percieve leads me to believe they are. I think it's PROBABLE that others are indeed human, and since I consider myself human and I want to be treated in a way that respects my life, I will respect what is probably theirs.

 

No, I can't prove they are worthy of that respect. But then, I'm not even going to try. The way it appears to me makes me act in the way I do.

 

Okay. The reason that is so is because the main goal of persuasion, as opposed to argument, is to get someone to follow your viewpoint.

 

Suppose you know someone who wants to do an abortion. And you want to stop them (for the most part, I don't think you would want to do that, seeing that you are a bit different from other pro-lifers, tell me if I'm wrong ). You go and talk about sacnity of life. And they say, "I don't care that life is scared."

 

There's the problem. How can you convince someone if they do not believe that life is scared? How can you stop the abortion then?

 

Finding other arguments against abortion is usually a good idea, if your aim is to persuade and convince. The Forfiture Account actually sounds like a useful idea, and assuming that people are living, this would be a pretty good thing to throw, just in case. It's something I most likely believe in. This is by Marqius (not the same Marqius de Sade):

 

Why is it wrong to kill an adult human?

The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future.

Hence, what is wrong with killing any adult human is the loss of his or her future.

 

Implications of Abortion: The future of a fetus includes experiences, etc. that are similar to the futures of adult humans. Abortion deprives a fetus of its future. It is wrong to deprive beings of their futures. Hence, aborting a fetus is prima facie morally wrong.

 

Other Implications: It extends to beings other than just humans – to anything that has a ‘future-like-ours’. It does not rely on the notion of the sanctity of life or of personhood. It does not imply that active euthanasia is wrong.

It applies to children, infants, and fetuses for they all have a future-like-ours.

 

Problems:

-Is there only one property that makes killing wrong? If not, then it may not be equally wrong to kill an adult and a fetus.

--Adults have a different relationship to their futures.

--Killing adults who want to live is a gross violation of their autonomy.

-Does a fetus have interests in its future like we have? Is there a difference between having a future and valuing the future?

-What about the interests of the woman? Rape? Death?

 

Problems are hard to address, yet I guess that I can shrug them off, in the same way you shrug off the dignity issue. It seems a bit harder for someone to actually think of the objections.

 

You got your idea of being afraid of death through your perception. Is there any reason to trust your perception? Yes, because it is, as far as you can tell, "not you." If it is "not you," then it is other. If it is other, then it can be what it is and what it isn't. You don't have any reason to think it is other than what you see >>> Occam's razor >>> it is as you see it.

 

"As far as I can tell" really doesn't mean much. I also dislike Occam's Razor, presically because there can be complicated answers to a simple question. Science still has not answered the question on why we yawn, for instance. There is also no proof Occam is right.

 

I don't think that there's anything to be afraid of in dying, however, because by definition you won't care after you're dead. The only possible ends are for you to exist or you don't. Neither option would be bad if you were worried about existing. The first you would continue on, and in the second you wouldn't be around to care.

 

It's less about the fear of death (it would actually be a form of "Nirvana", assuming the atheist is correct)...but rather that all you have done was useless. Your effect really meant nothing in the grand scheme of things, the world is going to continue with or without you. That smallness is depressing. If one lived forver, then I can, in essence, be a sort of God, and therefore, what I do becomes important (I have to live in this world forever, so I have to make it the best place it can be). But, judging from observations (if you accept them), death does occur, and therefore, I cannot live forever...and therefore, all my actions seem meaningless.

 

That's exactly why I post on threads like this. It's the ONLY reason I post, actually. Plus you can put down the occasional flamer by not talking in caps or with thousands of exclamation marks

 

 

Why should there be a point other than what you want to do? Is there any reason to suggest there is?

 

The problem is...what do I want to do? I don't know. Serving myself seems a bit egoisitc, and you serve yourself anyway during religion (Why else do people believe in God? Don't say it's because they love God, they are only doing it for Heaven...and for their own bliss.)

 

So, I choose not to be selifsh. That's sounds nice. So, it looks to be to serve some other ideology...

 

But why? Uh. Seems pretty hard to choose ideologies especially since that if God does not exist, I have no need to be a Marxist, Capitalist, or something else...Or serve no ideology and just do stuff arbitrally? This last one I may accept...but it still is hard.

 

I don't know what I want to do basically, and I don't know how to give my life meaning, if any. I change my mind a lot, and believe in a ton of different, contradictory notions. I can see the validity of everything...which makes my life without God a very, shall we say, confusing one.

 

Like I had posted above, my moral system is based on probability of what I will experience. I don't like being stuck in the foot with a nail (yes that has happened to me before), and since I consider other people to be the same class as me (human), I surmise that they wouldn't like it either. If there's a conflict I can balance it out between us, because I consider both of equal value. Why do I care about what they experience? See below...

 

I treat them with respect because I like to be treated with respect. As far as I can tell, only humans have the capacity to treat people with respect (or without it), and I have experienced them do both. However, that experience has been weighted: more people treat me with respect when I do the same to them. Ergo, I treat them with respect. In an unfamiliar situation, I would go with whatever I think is the best idea that doesn't cause harm. This same model applies to any other attribute or action.

 

Okay. A secular verison of a "Do onto others"...but there has to be some exceptions. I mean, I don't want to be executed or thrown in prison in case I get arrested for murder...but then again, I want people to be executed or thrown in prison if they get arrested for murder.

===

I notice that while I (quite feebly) try to defend my belief, it seems that it is easier to attack beliefs than it is to defend them. Beliefs have to have no weaknesses, but they have them (that of assumptions). Attacking an assumption is the way to destroy the Belief. It seems that the way to defend a belief is by the offense, attacking the other person's belief in order to distract from the attack on your own.

[Samuel Dravis]

Most likely not, but that's because I seem to be having a good life. In case of an economic downturn, and with no dependents, I may be forced to join a cult in order to keep my self-esteem high, and I'll might consider your offer of doing homework.

I'll keep in touch.

 

The problem is that how do one know if something is "more likely" to occur than another? Don't you need to form some sort of standard to evaulate certain belief systems, and thereby decide between the belief systems? And then, you have to have some proof to prove that that standard indeed works (and a proof of that proof, etc.)...otherwise it is simply artibrary.

Right. However, I going from the assumption that what we can see is "reality," because I've never experienced anything else and have nothing else to use. In this case, I'd be showing what is more likely inside that system.

 

Usually, you don't go and think through a desicion. Doing so defeats the purpose of arbitrally chossing a religion randomly.

Oh, I don't know. Surely there would be a teaching in it that would make me do something I didn't really want to do, and then I would have to think about it, and then...

 

 

"Simple" acknowledge of preception is not very...simple, to me. It seems sort of hard to grasp something and then to accept it totally on face value.

What I meant was that you would be acknowledging your direct perception, instead of listening to someone postulate an entity outside of it. They would be a secondary source, if you will. Since they are like you, they have no other benefits in "finding" God, so anything they tell you that they cannot prove within the common ground you have - percieved reality - is just as meaningful as a randomly generated statement.

 

And, maybe in the past, religion is invented to explain preceptions...but not for me, and not today. Preceptions, and science in general can create a system by which God is unnecessary, even superfulous, providing for a reasonable belief that God does not exist. Science has already explained how the world works, and explain our preception.

Tell me this: why do you want a God? It's because you're afraid of the end of everything, that it has no meaning. Why are you afraid of this? Because...you see things die, see them end. It appears to me that you have invented a God because you didn't want to believe in something that perception shows you. This is why I said God can't be seperated from 'reality' - he just doesn't have any meaning to us apart from it.

 

God does not become "invented" because of a need to explain preception, but rather, "invented" by use of reason. God is the thing that secretly contorls the world. Instead of the world working naturally...it has a sentience. It can think, it can communicate, and it can feel love and hate towards the very thing it is created.

And for this one, I'd just have to give the standard answer: what reason is there to postulate that being? Why should I suspect the demon, the controllers of the vat? There's no reason as far I can tell.

 

Unlikely though. It may essentialy become untenable (and you are forced to accept observations), but it does establish something key: You can't know everything...or anything, truly.

Yes, I agree.

 

This bit of "knowledge" can actually prove to be pretty useful, according to the skeptic: If you do not know if you can aquire true knowledge, you do not have to waste any time in proving such stuff. You no longer have to worry about questions like, "Is [such-and-such] the right thing to do?" You can laugh at the people debating on the problem of evil. You can smile at those who endlessly battle and fight for ideologies.

 

It provides you a measure of calm, basically. Figuring out truth is meaningless, so why even bother? Just live life how you would normally do (accepting the apperances, but never believing in them), and laugh at those who try to philophize, or try to think grandiose solutions to problems. Because they don't really have any proof that they are right.

Why bother? Because, you see, regardless of whether anything actually REAL or not, there's no difference to you or me. I got a nail stuck in my foot and it HURT. I don't plan on letting it happen again, even if there truly was no nail.

 

So, basically, you accept the apperances, but do not believe them. So, if I was a skeptic, I would basically say, "It appears that people are dying. It appears that death is a bad thing. It appears that I hate bad things, so I should follow the apperances and be afraid of death." I am not a skeptic, but I just accept apperances and then from there, operate.

Right. I don't necessarily believe that things really are as we see them, but given that the incomplete information is the only thing I have, I will make choices based on it.

 

There are other theories that are less depressing, but seem...not as good, not as palpatble. How in the world can you accept murder, killing, disappointment, and endless change on such a large scale? Optmisim seems foolhardy, and especially since they have no proof that their "Ideology" would lead the world to a better place...I just can't accept it. Depressing ideologies make much more sense to me, at least, according to my observations.

Yes, I agree. I'm not exactly the optimist on some things, mainly because I can't justify being that way. I can be optimistic about specific things, however: I'm happy with my life and I'm sure I will succeed doing what I want to do. Idealogies like communism/facism/democracy/capitalism etc, they can be judged by what results they appear to give, because their aim is the world of perception. Religions cannot (at least they will not allow themselves to) be judged in the same way, unfortunately. I can show doing something physically helps people, but I can't produce results praying for them. Because of this, I'd always do the physical act; at least I know I did SOMETHING that had an effect.

 

Emphasis added in bold. Something I always wondered. What if you are unconciously making up the world? In other words, what if you are God, deceiving yourself so that you can live a better life?

It's interesting, but as I don't have a way to determine its veracity, it goes the way of the demon. Personally I'd have to say, that even with my ego, I don't think my brain is THAT awesomely powerful.

 

Another way of explaining it is that all you preceive is basically ideas, and not actual living things. No proof of that, and I'm sure it's a pretty unpopular idea, but it is possible (and if true, you got yourself a in-built and dubious proof of God right here...somebody has to go and made up all those ideas, and man are limited and cannot made up all the ideas, so it must be God who made up all the ideas.)

This argument is usually about how you're dreaming everything. One of the same things as the above in that I doubt I could imagine Dicken's books (I certainly wouldn't have made THOSE up if I had a say in the matter!) The ideas: I don't know if I have had all the ideas, so whether a god is necessary to create them is unknown.

 

Okay, so there is a lack of evidence that would go against it. I guess I can understand that, though I would disagree with thinking preceptions would lead you close to truth, they just have the same chance of leading you to truth as anything else. Common sense would tell you that you're best off accepting it.

I'm sorry if I made you think I thought it was closer to the truth. I just accept it because nothing else shows me it's not real. Whether it is or not is unknown; there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer. I will wait to see.

 

 

...ugh, I'm such a nerd.

 

Okay. The reason that is so is because the main goal of persuasion, as opposed to argument, is to get someone to follow your viewpoint.

 

Suppose you know someone who wants to do an abortion. And you want to stop them (for the most part, I don't think you would want to do that, seeing that you are a bit different from other pro-lifers, tell me if I'm wrong ). You go and talk about sacnity of life. And they say, "I don't care that life is scared."

 

There's the problem. How can you convince someone if they do not believe that life is scared? How can you stop the abortion then?

They might be impossible to convince. I would, of course, state why I thought the way I did, and I think that is a fairly good argument in itself. They could check the validity of it themselves - and unless they truly lacked empathy, I think they would have to concede my main points.

 

Finding other arguments against abortion is usually a good idea, if your aim is to persuade and convince. The Forfiture Account actually sounds like a useful idea, and assuming that people are living, this would be a pretty good thing to throw, just in case. It's something I most likely believe in. This is by Marqius (not the same Marqius de Sade):

That is interesting. I'd rather use my own argument, however, because it has more generalized application. Modified to fit the situation, it would be equivalent to the Forfeiture argument.

 

Problems are hard to address, yet I guess that I can shrug them off, in the same way you shrug off the dignity issue. It seems a bit harder for someone to actually think of the objections.

It is harder to find problems with something you believe, true. My own included; that's why I talk about it with other people to see what they say about it. I'm not sure what you mean about the "dignity" issue... could you please clarify that?

 

"As far as I can tell" really doesn't mean much. I also dislike Occam's Razor, presically because there can be complicated answers to a simple question. Science still has not answered the question on why we yawn, for instance. There is also no proof Occam is right.

I agree, doesn't mean much. It knows as much as I know, however, and I can hardly expect more.

 

I use Occam's Razor because it talks about the simplest explanation that fits ALL the data. I like simple explanations, what can I say? They're easier to work with, easier to find flaws in, easier to explain, easier to actually use. If I'm able to use an explanation and understand it better, then that is certainly in my interest.

 

It's also very important to note that the explanation MUST describe all the data - I can't just throw something away because it doesn't fit into a nice graph with the other values.

 

 

It's less about the fear of death (it would actually be a form of "Nirvana", assuming the atheist is correct)...but rather that all you have done was useless. Your effect really meant nothing in the grand scheme of things, the world is going to continue with or without you. That smallness is depressing. If one lived forver, then I can, in essence, be a sort of God, and therefore, what I do becomes important (I have to live in this world forever, so I have to make it the best place it can be). But, judging from observations (if you accept them), death does occur, and therefore, I cannot live forever...and therefore, all my actions seem meaningless.

Yet, you influence other people's lives. That influence may seem fleeting, but it is quite possibly the greatest thing you can do. Though that influence your actions will affect many, to good or ill. Whether you will be an influence forever is not really important; you can achieve goals in a limited situation, as much as can be expected of humanity. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just how we are.

 

The problem is...what do I want to do? I don't know. Serving myself seems a bit egoisitc, and you serve yourself anyway during religion (Why else do people believe in God? Don't say it's because they love God, they are only doing it for Heaven...and for their own bliss.)

 

So, I choose not to be selifsh. That's sounds nice. So, it looks to be to serve some other ideology...

 

But why? Uh. Seems pretty hard to choose ideologies especially since that if God does not exist, I have no need to be a Marxist, Capitalist, or something else...Or serve no ideology and just do stuff arbitrally? This last one I may accept...but it still is hard.

A few things to think about:

 

*How do you not only serve yourself already, regardless of what you believe? Even the most religious people serve themselves; their wants, their desires.

 

* You can do stuff truly arbitrarily, but is it arbitrary in context? If you consider perception to be your effective reality, then action you take on that is not arbitrary, even though the true effect might be.

 

 

I don't know what I want to do basically, and I don't know how to give my life meaning, if any. I change my mind a lot, and believe in a ton of different, contradictory notions. I can see the validity of everything...which makes my life without God a very, shall we say, confusing one.

Yes, I agree, it's hard to figure out what to do, what to think. Its interesting, however, because I once read a statistic on conversions. Apparently something around 80% of people that lose their childhood faith end up with it again in their 30's or so. I'm curious as to what I will do...

 

Okay. A secular verison of a "Do onto others"...but there has to be some exceptions. I mean, I don't want to be executed or thrown in prison in case I get arrested for murder...but then again, I want people to be executed or thrown in prison if they get arrested for murder.

Sort of; I wouldn't have killed someone in the first place because I wouldn't like that to happen to me. A lot of people will recognize this in a calm setting such as when lawmaking, but those same people could end up violating the laws they agreed to in stressful situations.

 

I guess it's a good thing most lawmakers aren't homicidal maniacs...

 

I notice that while I (quite feebly) try to defend my belief, it seems that it is easier to attack beliefs than it is to defend them. Beliefs have to have no weaknesses, but they have them (that of assumptions). Attacking an assumption is the way to destroy the Belief. It seems that the way to defend a belief is by the offense, attacking the other person's belief in order to distract from the attack on your own.

True, attacking assumptions is the way to kill a belief, but ignoring the vulnerabilities of your own argument is never a good way to learn anything. If your position is vulnerable, why would you NOT be looking for something better to replace it? Personally I welcome anyone attacking my positions, because in defending them I really have to think about what I believe. I'm not above stealing someone else's arguments to use either.

[SilentScope001]

Right. However, I going from the assumption that what we can see is "reality," because I've never experienced anything else and have nothing else to use. In this case, I'd be showing what is more likely inside that system.

 

Okay.

 

Oh, I don't know. Surely there would be a teaching in it that would make me do something I didn't really want to do, and then I would have to think about it, and then...

 

Ah, but you underestimate the power of sects within religion. Not only do you randomly choose a religion, but you can randomly choose a sect as well. If you disagree with the teachings of the sect, why, you can just stand up, leave that sect, and join a new sect, while all at the same time believing in the same religion. My family actually did that once.

 

And if you find that you hate all the sects...well, you can just found a brand-new sect. You just have to make sure that you don't cross the fine line between trying to find out the true meaning of religion and attempting to create a brand new religion to fit your own beliefs, but if you manage that, well, good for you!

 

What I meant was that you would be acknowledging your direct perception, instead of listening to someone postulate an entity outside of it. They would be a secondary source, if you will. Since they are like you, they have no other benefits in "finding" God, so anything they tell you that they cannot prove within the common ground you have - percieved reality - is just as meaningful as a randomly generated statement.

 

I can understand that, but then we come back to wheter we can even trust the secondary source because they may not even exist...I guess, I still can't wrap myself to just accept something without proof. I don't know why, I just can't.

 

Tell me this: why do you want a God? It's because you're afraid of the end of everything, that it has no meaning. Why are you afraid of this? Because...you see things die, see them end. It appears to me that you have invented a God because you didn't want to believe in something that perception shows you. This is why I said God can't be seperated from 'reality' - he just doesn't have any meaning to us apart from it.

 

Okay, I can understand that.

 

And for this one, I'd just have to give the standard answer: what reason is there to postulate that being? Why should I suspect the demon, the controllers of the vat? There's no reason as far I can tell.

 

There is indeed no reason, as I claim. In fact, I said it before, all the preceptions of today can suggest the nonexistence of God, maybe even prove it. But, as you said above, I did posulate it, prehaps as a way to deny the preceptions.

 

Why bother? Because, you see, regardless of whether anything actually REAL or not, there's no difference to you or me. I got a nail stuck in my foot and it HURT. I don't plan on letting it happen again, even if there truly was no nail.

 

Understood. But it does, in some way, cheapen our existence, if it is not real.

 

Right. I don't necessarily believe that things really are as we see them, but given that the incomplete information is the only thing I have, I will make choices based on it.

 

Okay.

 

Yes, I agree. I'm not exactly the optimist on some things, mainly because I can't justify being that way. I can be optimistic about specific things, however: I'm happy with my life and I'm sure I will succeed doing what I want to do.

 

Just a question: What do you want to do?

 

Idealogies like communism/facism/democracy/capitalism etc, they can be judged by what results they appear to give, because their aim is the world of perception. Religions cannot (at least they will not allow themselves to) be judged in the same way, unfortunately.

 

Most do, just not...well, right now. The Judeo-Christian religions all claim the existence of a Heaven and a Hell that can be preceived...after we're dead. Of course, by then, it would be too late.

 

I can show doing something physically helps people, but I can't produce results praying for them. Because of this, I'd always do the physical act; at least I know I did SOMETHING that had an effect.

 

Never forget the power of the Placebo effect. If people believe that something works, then the body then will automatically react postively, thereby causing the person to feel better...even if that "something" is just a sugar pill. If a person feel prayer work, then when he prays, he thinks he feels better, meaning he actually feels better.

 

So, even prayer has an effect. But it's the same as if you gave someone a sugar pill and told them it would feel better. It's basically a form of deception.

 

This argument is usually about how you're dreaming everything. One of the same things as the above in that I doubt I could imagine Dicken's books (I certainly wouldn't have made THOSE up if I had a say in the matter!) The ideas: I don't know if I have had all the ideas, so whether a god is necessary to create them is unknown.

 

Okay.

 

I'm sorry if I made you think I thought it was closer to the truth. I just accept it because nothing else shows me it's not real. Whether it is or not is unknown; there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer. I will wait to see.

 

Ah, okay. It must have been my bad.

 

They might be impossible to convince. I would, of course, state why I thought the way I did, and I think that is a fairly good argument in itself. They could check the validity of it themselves - and unless they truly lacked empathy, I think they would have to concede my main points.

 

Understood.

 

It is harder to find problems with something you believe, true. My own included; that's why I talk about it with other people to see what they say about it. I'm not sure what you mean about the "dignity" issue... could you please clarify that?

 

The dignity issue, I think...refers to your "respect of life", otherwise known as the "life is scared".

 

The reason I see that issue as being not really convicing is because you do not define what it is, and if taken to the extreme, can become quite absurd. So, we assume that life is scared and not to be harmed.

 

This means that I cannot eat my chicken sandwich. Why? I'm killing a chicken. Chickens are living beings too. Guess that I have to just throw away the sandwhich and eat lettuce. But...Lettuce are living too! I can't kill a living thing, even a plant, so I have to spare the lettuce.

 

I can't even brush my teeth now. My teeth has innocent little bacteria, and while they make my teeth look ugly and decay my teeth...it would be wrong to kill bacteria, especially to perseve my teeth which are not living (they are just clumps of soild calcium).

 

So, now I can't eat food, nor can I brush my teeth, thanks to my newfound respect for life. I think we're going to need some way of compromising this dignity of life in order to help us, you know, live.

 

I agree, doesn't mean much. It knows as much as I know, however, and I can hardly expect more.

 

I use Occam's Razor because it talks about the simplest explanation that fits ALL the data. I like simple explanations, what can I say? They're easier to work with, easier to find flaws in, easier to explain, easier to actually use. If I'm able to use an explanation and understand it better, then that is certainly in my interest.

 

It's also very important to note that the explanation MUST describe all the data - I can't just throw something away because it doesn't fit into a nice graph with the other values.

 

Ah, I can understand that.

 

Yet, you influence other people's lives. That influence may seem fleeting, but it is quite possibly the greatest thing you can do. Though that influence your actions will affect many, to good or ill. Whether you will be an influence forever is not really important; you can achieve goals in a limited situation, as much as can be expected of humanity. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just how we are.

 

True, but I guess I do devalue that, a bit. I can understand it though, and it may be the only thing that I can do.

 

*How do you not only serve yourself already, regardless of what you believe? Even the most religious people serve themselves; their wants, their desires.

 

I can understand that. I already do serve myself, but I'm just thinking of a hypotehtical me having to decide what I have to do...and me somewhat fearful of egoism.

 

* You can do stuff truly arbitrarily, but is it arbitrary in context? If you consider perception to be your effective reality, then action you take on that is not arbitrary, even though the true effect might be.

 

Okay.

 

Yes, I agree, it's hard to figure out what to do, what to think. Its interesting, however, because I once read a statistic on conversions. Apparently something around 80% of people that lose their childhood faith end up with it again in their 30's or so. I'm curious as to what I will do...

 

I'm curious of that statisitic as well. I always have thought that atheism will soon become the largest "religion" in the world, due to it being pretty logical, making much sense, and being broad enough to allow people to function in their world. Never thought people could 'revert' from Atheism.

 

Speaking of which, how would you view the future of Atheism? To me, I personally think that in the future, everyone will believe in Atheism and religion will finally die its slow and painless death. Prehaps an actual utopia may even be formed. But, since I do believe in God, I think that once the human race all embrace atheism and form its perfect little utopia, then God will finally launch the Day of Judgement he has been promising. But I can be wrong about this, especially if there is no such thing as God.

 

True, attacking assumptions is the way to kill a belief, but ignoring the vulnerabilities of your own argument is never a good way to learn anything. If your position is vulnerable, why would you NOT be looking for something better to replace it? Personally I welcome anyone attacking my positions, because in defending them I really have to think about what I believe. I'm not above stealing someone else's arguments to use either. [/quoote]

 

Neither am I above stealing someone else's arguments, altough I try to source them whenever possible. All positions however are quite vulnerable, and the reason I would not be looking for something better to replace it may be because it works well for you before, and it looks pretty nice, and as you said, I am not that willing to abandon my belief in God due to the fear of everything getting destroyed if there is no such thing as God, and life not mattering, at least in the long run.

---

I have to say, Samuel, I enjoyed talking to you. This debate is quite fun and informative. A little sad that I was unable to respond as much as I can, but it is still very interesting learning from each other.

[jonathan7]

Just for the record I havent forgotten this debate, but any post takes ages to write so its been my Birthday and I have uni projects due, so havent been able to give it my due attention just yet... thursday is looking good tho

[Achilles]

Happy belated birthday!

[Darth InSidious]

Achilles: Apologies for the belated response to your response to my (somewhat trite) thought experiment/argument; I tried to reply twice, but I got logged-out mid-posting. >.<

 

Anyhow.

 

First of all, my definition. I chose this definition pretty much because it covers all religions/belief systems including atheism (which can be seen as a religion/belief system) - in short, I wanted to cover all my bases.

 

While you have disproved the first part of my thought experiment, I believe you rather missed my point - which was that it cannot be empirically proven that phenomenon is equal to noumenon, and so science does indeed require an input of faith.

 

I realise this falls outside of the remit of science, but nonetheless, it does affect science, and there are a number of prominent scientist who seem to think that either it does...

[JediMaster12]

Technology and scientific discovery grow exponentially, not linearly. As our ability to understand our universe increases, the "gaps" where "God can hide" are going to continue to diminish (i.e. "Science can't explain this so it must be the grace of God").

I still snicker at some of the ridiculous things that the Church justified back at the time of Gallileo. From experience, it is easier to criticize in hindsight when we find new evidence that contradicts or even supports the previous thoughts and ideas.

 

It was a similar process for me. I began studying Greek mythology as a hobby when I was a kid. Greek led to Roman, which led to Egyptian, which led to Norse, which led to Japanese, Native American, etc. You study enough myths, you begin to see that there is a pattern. The explanation for that pattern that I found most plausible is that man, as a social creature, has certain needs that have been fulfilled by religion in the past.

Maybe that is why I decided to become an anthropologist. Yes I do see a pattern and I have seen the similarity across the board more often with the major ones like creation and the great floods, etc. This can lead to support for the mobility of the early humans and the predecessors. It is more helpful when we get written language which develops much later on the evolutionary timescale. You could define religion as a means of social control. Taking from the Aztecs, the socio-politico base derives much of its function from religion. There really is no separation of church and state.

 

Either your love of knowledge will have to supersede your faith or your commitment to faith will curb your ability to learn.

It is something I cannot do. True that being Christian may hamper things but it is one thing to forget and another to remember. Also ethics comes into play particularly with the fieldwork I have to embark on studying Seventh Day Adventists and their foodways. More often I evaluate on a moral standpoint but I find that very little comes from spouting Bible chapter and verse. Mostly it is a judgment call and that there is no right or wrong answer. We were discussing ethics in fieldwork a while back. Due to this and from previous discussions when I embarked on my career in higher education, I developed more of the attitude of seeing the shades of grey as is mentioned in KOTOR and probably will be discussed for years to come. I hated taking stands unless it was something that I perceived wasn't right, more often dealing with rights and politics. I know that science operates on a code of ethics. What is the basis for that? Obviously those who are even atheistic must have morals regarding testing and the like. Maybe I am rambling on but like I said before, it is difficult to understand fully the complexity of the human mind and the thought and emotional processes that accompany it.

 

While you have disproved the first part of my thought experiment, I believe you rather missed my point - which was that it cannot be empirically proven that phenomenon is equal to noumenon, and so science does indeed require an input of faith.

Such an example would be faith in the process or the explanatory power of a theory? That was my understanding.

[Darth InSidious]

Such an example would be faith in the process or the explanatory power of a theory? That was my understanding.

Partly, but also that the world as we perceive it is as it really is, and thus that science can give an accurate picture. So not just in the process, but in human senses, too.

[Achilles]

Achilles: Apologies for the belated response to your response to my (somewhat trite) thought experiment/argument; I tried to reply twice, but I got logged-out mid-posting. >.<

No worries. Glad to see that you responded when you were able.

 

First of all, my definition. I chose this definition pretty much because it covers all religions/belief systems including atheism (which can be seen as a religion/belief system) - in short, I wanted to cover all my bases.

I acknowledge that atheism is considered to be a religion by U.S. law (not sure if this applies elsewhere) for the purposes of protection from religious discrimination/persecution. I agree with the rationale behind this decision and think that it's a good thing, however I don't agree that this is a solid foundation for arguing that science is a religion.

 

First, as you point out yourself, there is no dependent relationship between science and atheism. It sure seems as though there should be one, but even I have to begrudgingly admit that this isn't the case.

 

Second, science is a study of the natural laws of our universe, not a belief system. Some beliefs are formed as a result of the scientific process, however these beliefs are either a) based on evidence or b) disproven and abandoned. No faith necessary.

 

To summarize, If your point was to argue that atheism is a religion, I have to concede the point on a limited basis. If your point was to argue that science is a religion (which I though was the case), then I maintain that is not, even using the definition that you provided.

 

If I am missing the point, please feel free to steer me where I need to go.

 

While you have disproved the first part of my thought experiment, I believe you rather missed my point - which was that it cannot be empirically proven that phenomenon is equal to noumenon, and so science does indeed require an input of faith.

My apologies. There didn't seem to be a clear argument being made there, so I assumed that the sentence was a lead-in for your summary.

 

Phenomena, by their definition, are empirical. Noumenon, by their definition, cannot be. If the deeper question being raised (and I hope I'm not introducing a strawman here) is "How is scientific evidence empirically better than religion", then you must admit that we've presented ourselves with a question that can never be answered using the criteria identified.

 

You cannot use empiricism to disprove something that cannot be observed.

 

You can however use logic to make informed decisions. If I have a mountain of empirical evidence that provides a reasonable (and some might say "inarguable") explanation for what we can observe around us which does not invoke the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God or any other Intelligent Creator, why would I forego that for a completely subjective explanation that has no empirical evidence whatsoever?

 

You say that belief in scientific evidence requires a measure of faith. I disagree on the basis that the presence of empirical evidicence automatically negates any need for faith whatsoever.

 

I realise this falls outside of the remit of science, but nonetheless, it does affect science, and there are a number of prominent scientist who seem to think that either it does...

This is an argument from authority. Would you care to restate your premise without the fallacy?

 

I look forward to your response.

[Samuel Dravis]

Ah, but you underestimate the power of sects within religion. Not only do you randomly choose a religion, but you can randomly choose a sect as well. If you disagree with the teachings of the sect, why, you can just stand up, leave that sect, and join a new sect, while all at the same time believing in the same religion. My family actually did that once.

 

And if you find that you hate all the sects...well, you can just found a brand-new sect. You just have to make sure that you don't cross the fine line between trying to find out the true meaning of religion and attempting to create a brand new religion to fit your own beliefs, but if you manage that, well, good for you!

You've got a point there. I don't think I would do that myself, however; if I found something I couldn't reconcile within the official teachings, then I'd probably view it as a problem with the religion as a whole, especially since I wouldn't - haven't - been able to find any justification for any of it, even new stuff I make up.

 

I can understand that, but then we come back to wheter we can even trust the secondary source because they may not even exist...I guess, I still can't wrap myself to just accept something without proof. I don't know why, I just can't.

I agree. I simply regard the other source's talk of his perception to be less trustworthy than just using my own. I often have to use secondary sources, but unless they are backed up by things that I could do myself (given sufficient interest), I really can just toss it as an unfounded opinion.

 

Understood. But it does, in some way, cheapen our existence, if it is not real.

It clearly isn't cheapened now, while we're alive. It sure seems real enough to me. If we come to later understanding of an outside force, then it can hardly be said that it's our fault; no, that fault would lie on whatever was making the illusion.

 

Just a question: What do you want to do?

I want to finish college, learn a bunch of stuff, create sweet art, etc etc. I want to stay happy, and since that's more of a mindset than anything I don't think it will be hard. I'm sure I'll think of other things later when new opportunities arise.

 

 

Most do, just not...well, right now. The Judeo-Christian religions all claim the existence of a Heaven and a Hell that can be preceived...after we're dead. Of course, by then, it would be too late.

Well, that was my point, wasn't it? By making you have to judge it on maybe-benefits and might-or-might-not is just guessing. I've found no reason to infer that these benefits are real, nor will I ever until I'm dead, after which religion will be of zero use to me.

 

....

 

So, even prayer has an effect. But it's the same as if you gave someone a sugar pill and told them it would feel better. It's basically a form of deception.

Correct. However, lying to people is the catch. I'm not going to lie about something so important (and yes, I do consider the validity of religion to be important). I'm not sure you'd ever need to lie about religion in specific anyway.

 

The dignity issue, I think...refers to your "respect of life", otherwise known as the "life is sacred".

 

The reason I see that issue as being not really convicing is because you do not define what it is, and if taken to the extreme, can become quite absurd. So, we assume that life is scared and not to be harmed.

 

This means that I cannot eat my chicken sandwich. Why? I'm killing a chicken. Chickens are living beings too. Guess that I have to just throw away the sandwhich and eat lettuce. But...Lettuce are living too! I can't kill a living thing, even a plant, so I have to spare the lettuce.

 

I can't even brush my teeth now. My teeth has innocent little bacteria, and while they make my teeth look ugly and decay my teeth...it would be wrong to kill bacteria, especially to perseve my teeth which are not living (they are just clumps of soild calcium).

 

So, now I can't eat food, nor can I brush my teeth, thanks to my newfound respect for life. I think we're going to need some way of compromising this dignity of life in order to help us, you know, live.

Ah, okay. To clarify, I have respect for me - I don't really want to die all that much, particularly without my own choice in the matter. I also have respect for those who are like me, since their experience seems similar to mine, and I infer that they probably wouldn't like it either. The farther an entity goes from experiences such as mine, the less I will be concerned about it. Specifically, the experience I enjoy, and feel the most important, is being self-aware. A chicken, while it can clearly feel pain and other associated things, would not be as important to me as a chimp. A chimp would not be as important to me as a human. Perhaps this helped a bit?

 

I'm curious of that statisitic as well. I always have thought that atheism will soon become the largest "religion" in the world, due to it being pretty logical, making much sense, and being broad enough to allow people to function in their world. Never thought people could 'revert' from Atheism.

 

Speaking of which, how would you view the future of Atheism? To me, I personally think that in the future, everyone will believe in Atheism and religion will finally die its slow and painless death. Prehaps an actual utopia may even be formed. But, since I do believe in God, I think that once the human race all embrace atheism and form its perfect little utopia, then God will finally launch the Day of Judgement he has been promising. But I can be wrong about this, especially if there is no such thing as God.

Yep, people have become religious after they've been atheist. A good example is one of the best-known Christian apologists of the century, C.S. Lewis. I've been reading some of his books lately (probably will make a thread on it, quite interesting stuff).

 

I think atheism will increase in places where the idea of God is needed less. If you're happy and content, there's less reason to want a god shoving you around (also touched on by Lewis, actually). The effect of this is obvious in Europe. In America, however, I think that religion is so ingrained that it will be a long time, if ever, that having a religion becomes a minority. The same probably holds true of Islamic countries, where religion is (part of?) the culture. Personally, however, I don't think that simply because there is religion it's a bad thing, or that increased atheism is necessarily a good thing. As long as people's beliefs don't affect my interests adversely in a major way I don't think there's a conflict to speak of. I couldn't care less who is atheist or who isn't, as long as everyone behaves.

Neither am I above stealing someone else's arguments, altough I try to source them whenever possible. All positions however are quite vulnerable, and the reason I would not be looking for something better to replace it may be because it works well for you before, and it looks pretty nice, and as you said, I am not that willing to abandon my belief in God due to the fear of everything getting destroyed if there is no such thing as God, and life not mattering, at least in the long run.

I guess there's just some that are "more vulnerable" than others, IMO. Religion is one such for me, because I have never come across convincing evidence of any kind that there's really something to it. Like I said before, I'm not particularly afraid of dying either, because I've got no real reason to be. Everything possibly being meaningless wouldn't matter a bit to me either, because I wouldn't be around to care. Really I just don't see the point in worrying about it.

 

I have to say, Samuel, I enjoyed talking to you. This debate is quite fun and informative. A little sad that I was unable to respond as much as I can, but it is still very interesting learning from each other.

Same here. Sorry for the late response, I've been being entertained by professors a little too much lately.

[JediMaster12]

Partly, but also that the world as we perceive it is as it really is, and thus that science can give an accurate picture. So not just in the process, but in human senses, too.

I see your point Darth InSidious and I agree. What I can say is that everything that exists is a miracle in my eyes. Life is a miracle in of itself and we have the means and the power to see how it works. If that sounds strange it's because that yeah I am a Christian but I also can see te fundamental side of things. I can understand if Achilles or anyone for that matter can't understand. That it why I can wear the hat of science and the hat of faith, if it be called that.

[SilentScope001]

Sorry Samuel Davis, I will respond to your post later, but I think I need to test an argumnt to Achilles. I know that you are talking to Darth Insidious, but he said he doesn't feel the effort. I know you don't want to respond to me, but I just want to present be the Devil's Advocate, and argue for a point, to contrpost it.

 

You can however use logic to make informed decisions. If I have a mountain of empirical evidence that provides a reasonable (and some might say "inarguable") explanation for what we can observe around us which does not invoke the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God or any other Intelligent Creator, why would I forego that for a completely subjective explanation that has no empirical evidence whatsoever?

 

You have evidence for such a system. But, do you have any proof that such evidence is valid?

 

How can "emprical" evidence automatically justify itself? So, I see data, and then that data is correct, because it's data? That's just sounds like a circular argument, similar to: God exist because my Holy Book, written by God, says so.

 

Let us use logic. We must NOT accept things without proof. But when you present Proof, we need to evaulate that Proof, to make sure that it is correct. We don't want people using logical fallacy here. But we need to make sure that the evaluation of the proof is sound as well, otherwise, it would be invalid, and if that is invalid, so can the proof.

 

What I want is a Standard for your Evidence, to evaluate it. And then, to evaluate that Standard, we need some evidence to back it up. And then an Standard to evaulate that Evidence, etc.

 

By refusing to justify the Scientific Method, well, you are turning Science into a belief system. Why should I trust the Scientific Method? Because it has "emprical" data, that does not need any sort of justification? That's absurd.

 

I don't want Science to go down this route. I don't want Science to become a belief. But it is going down this route, and with everyone trusting Science and worshipping it, I fear that all free-thinkers everywhere has merely exchanged one system for another.

 

This does not mean that Science is wrong. But there is no way to verify it is correct. And since you refuse to give me proof that the Scientific Method works, because you say it is "self-evident"...well, that's the same as me throwing you the Bible and saying "Believe in God". I could very well be right...but I don't think you would be happy at the Bible-throwing person.

 

EDIT: The reason I like to reply to Achilles is to test out some sort of theory that I am doing in that Philopshy book I'm writing, to see if it would actually work, or would it just repel. This would also explain why I don't have much time to respond to you, Samuel, I'm trying to write my ideas down on some book.

[JediMaster12]

How can "emprical" evidence automatically justify itself? So, I see data, and then that data is correct, because it's data? That's just sounds like a circular argument, similar to: God exist because my Holy Book, written by God, says so.

This is where you have to remember that the goal of science is to disprove, not prove. When you conduct an experiment multiple times and you keep getting the same results, you can affirm that what you have is valid. However there is the flaw of deciding how manys times re-testing is enough. There however is a point where things have been confirmed so many times that it is accepted without too many arguments. Famous example is the theory of natural selection. By definition, theories have more explaining power than a law. Because nothing has been shown to disprove that natural selection doesn't occur. Things become vaild through testing. A fact is a fact but like an entry at wikipedia, it can be changed.

 

What I want is a Standard for your Evidence, to evaluate it. And then, to evaluate that Standard, we need some evidence to back it up. And then an Standard to evaulate that Evidence, etc.

As I said, the goal of science is to disprove, not prove. It is through experimentation that we can discredit what was once perceived to be true.

 

This does not mean that Science is wrong. But there is no way to verify it is correct. And since you refuse to give me proof that the Scientific Method works, because you say it is "self-evident"...well, that's the same as me throwing you the Bible and saying "Believe in God". I could very well be right...but I don't think you would be happy at the Bible-throwing person.

Science is a means to disprove. The method itself is what it is, a method to try and disprove something. If you want to have somethign prove that it works, then I suggest you devise an experiemnt tio disprove the method. True that it was formulated by humans and therefore will have some flaws but it had not been show. Surely that it proof enough that it is a valid method.

[Samuel Dravis]

JM, I don't think he cares that the scientific method works in the way you describe. He accepted that the method works, now it's the problem of knowing whether your measurements actually correspond to reality or not. If your observations aren't accurate, of course you conclusions will be messed up too, even with the best system in the world.

 

You may have measured something, sure - but not necessarily what you though you were. A drunk man could swear he can walk in a straight line. We don't think so, of course - it's obvious to us he can't. Still, like him, how can we claim our present, sober state is the "true" way to see it? Is what you measured the fantasies of a drunken man, or is that the way it really is?

[Vaelastraz]

@Silentscope

If you are sceptical about empirical data, well...

How can you "prove" what your eyes and ears say see and hear? It could all be a big illusion, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports that.

 

Science is based on information we gain through our senses, to some extent. That information could be wrong of course, but if that's the case, we cannot trust our senses at all.

 

Religious faith on the other hand is not based on information gained through observation. Because there is nothing to observe, there is no evidence.

 

All the "faith" science requires is that you have to trust that humans are capable of gaining right information through observation.

[SilentScope001]

JM, I don't think he cares that the scientific method works in the way you describe. He accepted that the method works, now it's the problem of knowing whether your measurements actually correspond to reality or not. If your observations aren't accurate, of course you conclusions will be messed up too, even with the best system in the world.

 

You may have measured something, sure - but not necessarily what you though you were. A drunk man could swear he can walk in a straight line. We don't think so, of course - it's obvious to us he can't. Still, like him, how can we claim our present, sober state is the "true" way to see it? Is what you measured the fantasies of a drunken man, or is that the way it really is?

 

True.

 

@Silentscope

If you are sceptical about empirical data, well...

How can you "prove" what your eyes and ears say see and hear? It could all be a big illusion, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports that.

 

Science is based on information we gain through our senses, to some extent. That information could be wrong of course, but if that's the case, we cannot trust our senses at all.

 

This can be true. If there is a possiblity the senses could decieve, then why trust them?

 

Religious faith on the other hand is not based on information gained through observation. Because there is nothing to observe, there is no evidence.

 

Ah, but what if a Preacher says otherwise? What if he points to the Holy Book and offer that as evidence? Or say that he has a "mystic experience" and that is his observations.

 

Obivously, one would discount the Preacher's preachings, because just because he sees this as "evidence" that God exist, but we cannot verify the evidence. But do we verify the evidence that Science has given?

 

All the "faith" science requires is that you have to trust that humans are capable of gaining right information through observation.

 

But it is still faith, no? You accept things without any proof, without any evidence you are correct or not. Without any proof, your judgement may or may not be correct, we don't know. If so, we should show skepcticism at the person making the claim, would we not, instead of just accepting things purely on faith? And, well, accepting things only on faith is not really appealing to me. I thought the Scientific Revolution tells us to question everything, but if we cannot question Science itself, then what have we actually accomplished? I like proof, I like evidence, and without it, how can I accept anything? And yet I am disappointed that there is no proof that observations are valid.

[Vaelastraz]

I ask you, how can you "prove" observations? If I would observe that water is wet, and everyone else does also, we say "Water is wet" as a fact. The only possibility that it would not be correct is, that we're living in the matrix, and cannot trust our senses...

 

You will always have to BELIEVE that not everything around us is an illusion. There is no evidence that suggests that our observations are wrong, but you can never rule out the possibility that everything is wrong.

[SilentScope001]

I ask you, how can you "prove" observations? If I would observe that water is wet, and everyone else does also, we say "Water is wet" as a fact. The only possibility that it would not be correct is, that we're living in the matrix, and cannot trust our senses...

 

Many other different ways other than the Matrix hypothesis. For example, there is the Brain in a Vat (similar to the Matrix), the Evil Demon hypothesis, you just dreaming (or purposely creating the world), us being figments of dreams, etc.

 

But there may be a way to prove an observation. Note that if you could offer a standard for that proof, and a proof for that standard, and then a standard for that proof, etc. you could theortically 'prove' something totally...IF we are infinite beings, if we can live forever. I don't think that's possible, I believe that is not possible, and I think our observations prove that we cannot live forever.

 

You will always have to BELIEVE that not everything around us is an illusion. There is no evidence that suggests that our observations are wrong, but you can never rule out the possibility that everything is wrong.

 

Correct. And I do BELIEVE in observations, and by extension, Science.

 

But isn't belief something to hate? I mean, to believe in one thing means you can quite easily believe in something else. If you just believe in Evoultionary Theory (based on your observations), isn't it just as fine to believe in the Creationist theory (based on the "observations" of Holy Books)? I like logic, I like rational thinking, and to rely basically on belief is something that I dislike intensely. I also draw no difference between certain Beliefs, a Belief is a belief, regardless of wheter you believe in the Laws of Nature or an Intelligent Designer...it is accepting something without having any proof.

 

Isn't belief a core part of what makes a religion...a religion? If you have to believe in observations, then you are making a judgement without any proof, which is...well, contradictory to what many free-thinkers want.

[JediMaster12]

But isn't belief something to hate? I mean, to believe in one thing means you can quite easily believe in something else. If you just believe in Evoultionary Theory (based on your observations), isn't it just as fine to believe in the Creationist theory (based on the "observations" of Holy Books)?

Belief isn't something to hate. True you can think one way and believe something else but to hate a belief speaks of ethnocentrism. Everything you believe is based on observations. Observation is point of view, the way we see things. Some of these things you are stating about proving observation sounds a bit farfetched in my opinion but maybe I am attributing that to the fact that observations in a way can't be proven because it is how one person sees things.