22 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonUnfortunately I do not have as much faith in the general public. Even presented with scientific fact, many people will claim it is wrong. Often believing BS is easier than science.
What do mean? Of course people would believe! If, somehow (god knows how –no pun intended), science proves there is a God, then God would become a scientific fact just like any other scientific fact! It would just become a part of accepted science.
For example, many believe the Earth is flat and a big conspiracy, man didn't go to the moon, evolution didn't happen, homeopathy is better than conventional medicine, etc.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes, makes sense. Maybe I was being too pedantic. 🙂
“…I would say that is more an answer to "How am I here?", not "Why am I here?"
"Why" implies a purpose. Which you answered next in reply to "What is the purpose of life?" 🙂…”
I agree that that was what was REALLY implied by the question 🙂 –but I would disagree with the implied assumption made by some who ask such questions that there is an objective “purpose” to our lives that is independent from what we want it to be.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you were a christian you might know that in the middle east God is giving muslims dreams of Jesus and then the next day they go find christians to help them become christians. I will also tell you that here in america people probably have dream of Jesus and they will just pass it off like nothing happened. For example when my dad was in surgery about to die he had a visson(sorry can't spell) of Jesus caring his cross and he doesn't do anything about it because he is into budism.
“…No, they wouldn't….”
Who are “they”?
“they” would, just for starters, not include me. If science proves something then I would just accept that proof as proof; even if that proof is of the existence of a God (somehow ), no problem.
“…But truly science as already proved there is a God,…”
What? Strange I have never heard of this. So where ...[text shortened]... st. But, if he did, does he “blind” us by allowing us to go wherever logic and evidence points?
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by lausey“...Even presented with scientific fact, many people will claim it is wrong....”
Unfortunately I do not have as much faith in the general public. Even presented with scientific fact, many people will claim it is wrong. Often believing BS is easier than science.
For example, many believe the Earth is flat and a big conspiracy, man didn't go to the moon, evolution didn't happen, homeopathy is better than conventional medicine, etc.
I don’t understand; why on earth would you think that “ many people will claim it is wrong” if it is proven right? Especially when you consider the fact that most people would WANT there to be a God!!! and amongst the few people that don’t particularly want there to be a God (such as myself), I see no reason why most of them would particularly want there to be NO God! (such as myself -I do not particularly want there to be NO God).
lausey; this is the question I would most like to know the answer to;
Can you give us a reason why, in your mind, many people would particularly WANT there to be NO God?
(I certainly cannot think of a reason nor do I see any evidence that many people, including atheists, particularly WANT there to be NO God ).
“...For example, many believe the Earth is flat and a big conspiracy, man didn't go to the moon,...”
They only make up a tiny silly minority.
“...evolution didn't happen ...”
but they believe that evolution didn't happen because they WANT to believe that (usually for religious reasons). If an alternative scientific theory to evolution (cannot imagine what! ) was actually proven then scientist and the overwhelming majority of people would have few qualms with believing that evolution didn't happen because, generally, people do not believe evolution happens because they WANT to (do people really WANT to have descended from a hairy smelly primitive ape!!!? -I don't really ) but rather because of the evidence.
“...homoeopathy is better than conventional medicine, ...”
True that many people believe this, but they believe this because they WANT it to be true (I presume because they don’t like conventional medicine? Or is it that they have some vague idea about homoeopathy being more “natural”? )
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by RBHILLNot sure what you are saying here.
If you were a christian you might know that in the middle east God is giving muslims dreams of Jesus and then the next day they go find christians to help them become christians. I will also tell you that here in america people probably have dream of Jesus and they will just pass it off like nothing happened. For example when my dad was ...[text shortened]... pell) of Jesus caring his cross and he doesn't do anything about it because he is into budism.
Taking this post in the context of the contents of your previous posts: Surely you are not implying here that some people's visions of Jesus is “proof” (or even “scientific proof”!? ) that there is a God!?
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are right. I must have been half asleep when I made my last comment. Misread "science disproving God" rather than proving it.
“...Even presented with scientific fact, many people will claim it is wrong....”
I don’t understand; why on earth would you think that “ many people will claim it is wrong” if it is proven right? Especially when you consider the fact that most people would WANT there to be a God!!! and amongst the few people that don’t [b]particularly want the edicine? Or is it that they have some vague idea about homoeopathy being more “natural”? )[/b]
EDIT: Although to add with regard to people wanting a God. It all depends how nice that God is proven to be. 🙂
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by lausey“...It all depends how nice that God is proven to be. 🙂...”
You are right. I must have been half asleep when I made my last comment. Misread "science disproving God" rather than proving it.
EDIT: Although to add with regard to people wanting a God. It all depends how nice that God is proven to be. 🙂
I see what you mean. If we presume that God is all powerful then he could not be a “nice” god to allow so much suffering and that could be a reason for not wanting there to be a God!
Mind you, nobody wants there to be rabies but that doesn’t stop people from accepting the fact that there exists rabies; point: in the unlikely/impossible event of science proving that there is a God (somehow ) and that God being unkind (so there is motive for wanting to believe there is no such God), I would personally imagine that most people would still accept that proof as proof and that there is a God and so believe that there is a God. However, I bet many people would deny any proof that such a God is unkind! -I bet that is something some people could never accept. I bet that, in that eventuality, they would claim that there IS a God BUT he is a kind god.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrAfter much mulling, I am able to solidify a few thoughts.
Thanks. Although some of our disagreements are intractable (and heated!), I always read your posts. Whenever you take issue with something I've written, I always stop and wonder whether I've mischaracterized your view, or have misjudged my arguments in some way. We both give as good as we get, I think, but we get further when we step back and try to underst ...[text shortened]... of logic, inferences licensed by logic, or anything else of this sort.
My statement on the definition of science was with the intent to underscore its base: no matter what the field, to know something requires study, or segregation. As you suggest, there are many fields. As LS suggests, it is intellectually lazy--- in addition to the antithesis of science, of study--- to answer every inquiry with "goddunit." Now, of course, that is assuming one wishes (or has the necessary equipment) to be intellectually robust. There are scads of folks who are more than satisfied in leading lives armed with that blissful ignorance, perhaps in someways far happier than us, their intellectual counterparts. [Not that I put myself in the same group as those of you who are well-versed and read in the philosophical viewpoints, but I am on the front porch looking in with respect to wishing to assuage some inner intellectual desires.]
That being said, my beef with MN is not that it is wholly lacking any scientific merit, as much as I do not see it as wholly describing science or the scientific 'method,' as it were. Its isolation of focus merely allows its practitioners to see only those items within that scope--- and nothing else.
Which brings me to the whole logic thing. If one holds to the concept that MN is the one pure scientific approach--- and is thus limited to natural causes--- one cannot invoke something (logic) outside of that scope without first properly identifying the cause of the same. Here is where the contradiction comes into play. If logic is a result of natural causes (as LS posits), it cannot then be the arbiter as to the reliability or truthfulness of natural events or the causes thereof. If, however, logic is transcendent, MN is left with another problem: whence cometh this unnatural state?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust a couple of responses:
After much mulling, I am able to solidify a few thoughts.
My statement on the definition of science was with the intent to underscore its base: no matter what the field, to know something requires study, or segregation. As you suggest, there are many fields. As LS suggests, it is intellectually lazy--- in addition to the antithesis of science, ...[text shortened]... logic is transcendent, MN is left with another problem: whence cometh this unnatural state?
If one holds to the concept that MN is the one pure scientific approach---
I have not said that MN is sufficient, I have said it is necessary. MN is one of the constitutive rules of science, but it isn't a full description of what scientists do.
If logic is a result of natural causes (as LS posits), it cannot then be the arbiter as to the reliability or truthfulness of natural events or the causes thereof.
This argument of yours seems to rest on the premise that arbitrating mechanisms cannot have natural causes, which you have not argued for. Logic just gets us from premises to conclusion in a truth preserving way. We define truth conditions within formal systems.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe emergence of Homo sapiens appears around 200K years ago, while modernity or civilization can be traced to about 50K years ago. The fossilized records and anthropological evidence shows that even then man had a sense of the sacred and primitive religion.
“…evolution answers only why am I homo sapien, i.e. bipedal, why we have a certain sized brain etc... it still doesn't answer WHY we are here…” (my emphasis)
That depends on what sort of “WHY” you are referring to.
http://www.answers.com/topic/why
“…For what purpose, reason, or CAUSE; with what intention, justification, or motive:…” (my e ...[text shortened]... -up to harsh reality even if that means acknowledging my demise.
OH, and Faith sucks.
In fact this sense of sacredness is one of the distinguishing traits that separates us fromm the Hominids, along with Trade, mating pairs, and the ability to control aggression. The most astonishing though seems to be this idea that the earliest man had the ability to imagine a different reality.
Over 50K year’s religion and concepts of what is/was sacred have evolved, yet not quite as fast as our technology and understanding of the natural world. You say that Faith sucks. Like Freud, you yourself do not understand this grand oceanic feeling that those with faith feel, and so because you do not feel it or understand it, you fear it and mock it. I pity you.
Only a small minority of the world’s population identify with being atheist, 2.3% to be precise. For the rest of us, roughly 6.7 billion people, faith does matter. Of course it matters in varying degrees, but it does matter. You show disdain for those who avow a belief in deity as if it is they who are somehow different or inferior, when clearly it is you who is different.
When you are on your deathbed, to whom will you cry out? When your life ebbs from you will you be satisfied that your short time here on earth was enough? Likely not! There is an old saying: “There are no atheists in a foxhole”. There will be a moment in your life when you will have doubt in your so strongly held conviction. At that moment you will understand that faith matters. You will understand that what you believe now is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise.
23 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by duecer“...Like Freud, you yourself do not understand this grand oceanic feeling that those with faith feel, and so BECAUSE you do not feel it or understand it, you fear it and mock it....” (my emphasis)
The emergence of Homo sapiens appears around 200K years ago, while modernity or civilization can be traced to about 50K years ago. The fossilized records and anthropological evidence shows that even then man had a sense of the sacred and primitive religion.
In fact this sense of sacredness is one of the distinguishing traits that separates us fromm the Hom ...[text shortened]... is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise.
That is simply not true. Perhaps you may do so (I wouldn’t know ) but I personally never “fear” or “mock” anything on the bases of not understanding it. There is a lot I don’t understand such as why people climb very tall mountains but that doesn’t cause me to “fear” or “mock” such a thing just because I don’t understand it.
Besides, I could argue that I DO understand faith! I don’t have to have faith to know it is based on what you WANT to be true!
“...For the rest of us, roughly 6.7 billion people, faith does matter....”
“does matter” how? It only “matters” in the sense the wanted belief gives emotional comfort.
“...You show disdain for those who avow a belief in deity...”
not true; it is not the theist that I hate but delusions. I can hate delusions that infect people but I don’t hate the people with the delusions -quite the opposite.
“... as if it is they who are somehow different or inferior,...”
Not true; There is nothing wrong with merely being “different” as you imply above and I don’t believe there is such thing as an “inferior” person.
“...when clearly it is you who is different....”
as I said, nothing wrong with merely being “different”.
“...When you are on your deathbed, to whom will you cry out? ...”
why would I want to “cry out” to somebody on my deathbed? It would be bad enough being on my deathbed without bothering anyone else.
“...When your life ebbs from you will you be satisfied that your short time here on earth was enough? Likely not! ...”
what has that got to do with anything? I don’t have much control over the fact that I will die and probably before I am 100.
“...There is an old saying: “There are no atheists in a foxhole”. ...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes
“...The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as when participating in warfare, ALL people will believe in or hope for a higher power...” (my emphasis)
I have had a few very stressful experiences in my life including three times when I thought I was going to die (of a serious infection when I was a child and, latter, as an adult, when I thought I was going to be kicked to death by a horse -a freak mishap, and then when I panicked because truly thought I had cancer with fearsome hideous lumps appearing everywhere -a false alarm; it was a strange alarming allergy to cucumber leaves) but not on any of these three occasions or any other stressful occasion (such as when some relatives died etc ) or at ANY time in my life did I once believe in a higher power and, as for “hoping” for a higher power, not even in those stressful occasions did I waste time or mental effort “hoping” for a higher power that I know doesn't exist! -And I will not even on by deathbed.
So I and many other atheists are living proof that the aphorism "There are no atheists in foxholes" is false because I and many other atheists remain atheist whether we are in foxholes, rabbit holes or any other hole.
“...There will be a moment in your life when you will have doubt in your so strongly held conviction....”
which “conviction”? That beliefs (in the general sense, not the religious sense) based on evidence and logic are more reliable than those based on faith? I will never doubt this.
“...At that moment you will understand that faith matters. You will understand that what you believe now is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise. ...”
The belief that there is NO God is not faith but based on the absence of credible evidence.
Faith is when you believe something in the absence of sufficient reason or evidence to support that belief (generally because you WANT it to be true. And I do not WANT there to be NO God ) .
To believe an existential claim such as there is a yeti is faith. And to disbelieve existential claim such as there is a yeti is not faith but a particular absence of faith. The same applies to the belief in God or gods or the tooth fairy.
24 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkMN is one of the constitutive rules of science...
]Just a couple of responses:
If one holds to the concept that MN is the one pure scientific approach---
I have not said that MN is sufficient, I have said it is necessary. MN is one of the constitutive rules of science, but it isn't a full description of what scientists do.
If logic is a result of natural causes (as LS posits), it ises to conclusion in a truth preserving way. We define truth conditions within formal systems.
So is it fair to say that your version of MN would not necessarily preclude the supernatural in the event of direct interaction with such an agent and/or logic left no other option?
This argument of yours seems to rest on the premise that arbitrating mechanisms cannot have natural causes, which you have not argued for.
I've not argued it, I've asked it. You said at one point that logic is caused naturally. Are you still of this mindset?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
24 Sep 10
1 edit
So is it fair to say that your version of MN would not necessarily preclude the supernatural in the event of direct interaction with such an agent and/or logic left no other option?
As I have said, it is possible that the evidence and logic might lead reasonable people to conclude that a supernatural explanation like god is required. MN does not rule out the existence of any supernatural agent.
There are of course difficulties with the concept 'supernatural' but let's ignore those for now.
I've not argued it, I've asked it. You said at one point that logic is caused naturally. Are you still of this mindset?
Yes, in my view logic is a reasoning tool kit that humans use. I know that some philosophers take a more Platonist view of logic and mathematics, but I don't.
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerI am not convinced that the evidence is conclusive on this.
In fact this sense of sacredness is one of the distinguishing traits that separates us fromm the Hominids,.....
Only a small minority of the world’s population identify with being atheist, 2.3% to be precise.
Being precise on such a figure is impossible. I for one have never been polled on my faith outside this forum. I think the true figure is probably higher than that but there are no reliable statistics on the matter.
You show disdain for those who avow a belief in deity as if it is they who are somehow different or inferior, when clearly it is you who is different.
I recognize that I am different from others, but I never show disdain nor claim superiority simply because we are different. That would not make sense. Certainly proving that I am in the minority (which being unique I have to be) doesn't make me either superior or inferior (as you imply).
When you are on your deathbed, to whom will you cry out?
I first have to be on a death bed. Not many people get to know exactly when they will die. The one time I remember that I thought I would die, I remained atheist and did not cry out to anyone.
When your life ebbs from you will you be satisfied that your short time here on earth was enough? Likely not!
True, but how does that relate to theism? Or are you suggesting self deception in order to make my last seconds on earth happier? Why?
There will be a moment in your life when you will have doubt in your so strongly held conviction. At that moment you will understand that faith matters.
What do you mean by 'matters'? Do you mean it is useful?
You will understand that what you believe now is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise.
It is nevertheless not faith. You cannot prove that there are no flying toasters on the far side of the moon, but you would not call it 'a form of faith' to deny their existence. It is just common sense.
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou will understand that what you believe now is in fact a form of faith. You have faith that there is no God, yet you cannot prove otherwise.
I am not convinced that the evidence is conclusive on this.
[b]Only a small minority of the world’s population identify with being atheist, 2.3% to be precise.
Being precise on such a figure is impossible. I for one have never been polled on my faith outside this forum. I think the true figure is probably higher than that but there are no reliabl ...[text shortened]... t you would not call it 'a form of faith' to deny their existence. It is just common sense.[/b]
It is nevertheless not faith. You cannot prove that there are no flying toasters on the far side of the moon, but you would not call it 'a form of faith' to deny their existence. It is just common sense.
a poor anology. You cannot disprove the existance of a supreme being or God. To concretely say there is no God takes as much faith (in your belief system) as it does to say there is one.