Darkus Black @ 24/12/2017 1:47

Cactus @ 24/12/2017 1:22 for those of you bashing organized religion in general, i'm wondering what specific aspect you're complaining about that is never seen in large non-religious organizations. The idea that you are judged after death based on how many times you have told your deity you love them

you're saying this is a feature of all religious groups? it's not even precisely a feature of christianity, though i recognize the caricature.

also, let's not pretend that non-religious organizations (e.g. governments) don't freely moralize or tell people how to live. that's most of the reason why we have laws and actual judges.

Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 3:02

PORL @ 23/12/2017 19:42 Incidentally, Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the smartest man to have ever lived and he believed in God. I really don't feel comfortable calling the smartest person in known history "delusional". I think the whole "Newton believed in God" thing is kind of bullshit imo. There is soooo much we've learned about science since the time of Isaac Newton and I would have to think that as a man of science when confronted with the truths that we know today he would not be able to say that he believed in God. Either that or he's as clueless as the rest of these fucks.

well yes, newton spent rather a lot of time on alchemy so it's not as if everything he believed had merit.

but name me one thing in the realm of scientific knowledge that proves god does not exist. which, note, is not the same as disproving a particular religious claim with scientific knowledge. for example, it does not prove atheism to show how the bible implies (in 1kings7) that pi=3.

i think the main point about newton is that some of the brightest and most educated minds in the world for centuries studied biblical texts in great detail (and in their original language). it takes rather a lot of ego for anyone today to think they can just saddle up to the topic for ten seconds and imagine they've disproven the lot.

Primate @ 23/12/2017 20:56

Get Curtis to change the title to "Christian bashing"

No.

Bryce @ 24/12/2017 3:16

Paul, was a bit confused about your post though. Wouldn't people of science have issues with knowledge gaps or unexplained things? And those of belief would just believe that it happened or have faith in those areas? Didn't know if that was a typo or if that was meant, but I found that interesting.

any inductive system (like science) is going to find uncertainty to be a challenge. this is a recurring theme for both popper and kuhn, though probably the most comprehensive discussion from an analytical perspective would be wittgenstein's final work "on certainty".

certain religious folks misunderstand the predicament and make reference to "the god of the gaps", but really they're arguing against a version of the scientific method (i.e. HD model) that is almost a half-century old at this point. with the DN model (popper again, though mostly hempel), one key point is that you can't just wish away the explanandum by problematizing the explanans.

or for the same answer from another direction, compare the transition from the "ignoramus et ignorabimus" (we do not know and will not know) of the late 19th century to "wir mussen wissen, wir werden wissen" (we must know, we will know) of the early 20th. being a scientific positivist means you can ignore the gaps, all you need is an epistemological foundation for your positivism -- which is precisely where most scientists are at nowadays.

Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 3:33

In science he vast majority of things aren't ever completely explained, the idea of science is "this is the best we know on this subject RIGHT NOW"

by "completely explained" are you referring to explanatory power or to certainty? consider classical mechanics, where there is much that has great explanatory power yet we know it is not entirely true or complete. also, scientists do a great job of signaling certainty by being careful about terms like hypothesis, theory, synthesis, fact, law, etc. for example, compare MES (modern evolutionary synthesis) versus the scientific fact of evolution (which is quite narrow in definition).

Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 3:33

Also, i fundamentally disagree with Paul where he said that science has limitation where our knowledge ends. That might be true at this second but as more solid tested evidence comes in, our knowledge continues to expand and the questions that we have today that a lot of these whack job jesus freaks continue to site over and over again, will eventually be answered and "God" will no longer be allowed to hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

sure, although there are event horizons and science (as an empirical system) is plagued by the profound problem that not everything is directing observable. yes, there is theoretical science for certain things we can indirectly observe, but there are some obvious limits. also, there are certain experiments we cannot run -- we can't tweak a variable and rerun the big bang, for example. these are issues we will never surmount, though that doesn't mean we can't be scientific in our study of such topics.

Bryce @ 23/12/2017 23:16

Paul, was a bit confused about your post though. Wouldn't people of science have issues with knowledge gaps or unexplained things? And those of belief would just believe that it happened or have faith in those areas? Didn't know if that was a typo or if that was meant, but I found that interesting.

Yes. That's the jist of what I'm saying. Merely lacking in any kind of religious belief doesn't provide a cause or an explanation for those gaps in knowledge. I don't think a lot of people are content with not knowing stuff. I think it leads to a nihilistic society in general.

So religion provides an explanation via faith and belief. I'm not personally comfortable in making that jump, but others are and if it provides them peace of mind and happiness I don't see the problem.

Chris25 @ 23/12/2017 23:33

Also, i fundamentally disagree with Paul where he said that science has limitation where our knowledge ends. That might be true at this second but as more solid tested evidence comes in, our knowledge continues to expand and the questions that we have today that a lot of these whack job jesus freaks continue to site over and over again, will eventually be answered and "God" will no longer be allowed to hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

I don't necessarily think everything can be explained in a way that is satisfactory to the human condition or understanding, and I cite quantum mechanics as a lesser example and the fact it was dismissed by the scientific community for this reason for years.

I also think we may just be too limited to ever know things for sure. Not that it's impossible to know, but that humanity will never know. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to travel between universes and stuff like that. I'd like to think that if the human race survived long enough we could, but I'm not sold on it yet really.

PORL @ 24/12/2017 9:00

Chris25 @ 23/12/2017 23:33 Also, i fundamentally disagree with Paul where he said that science has limitation where our knowledge ends. That might be true at this second but as more solid tested evidence comes in, our knowledge continues to expand and the questions that we have today that a lot of these whack job jesus freaks continue to site over and over again, will eventually be answered and "God" will no longer be allowed to hide in the gaps of our knowledge. I don't necessarily think everything can be explained in a way that is satisfactory to the human condition or understanding, and I cite quantum mechanics as a lesser example and the fact it was dismissed by the scientific community for this reason for years. I also think we may just be too limited to ever know things for sure. Not that it's impossible to know, but that humanity will never know. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to travel between universes and stuff like that. I'd like to think that if the human race survived long enough we could, but I'm not sold on it yet really.

If you look at how far science and technology have come in the last 100 years which is less than a blink of an eye in human history there is no reason to think that we won't be able to travel between universes or anything else that we can barely fathom or try to wrap our heads around right now, as long as we don't blow ourselves up or some shit.

If you tried to explain to a person in 1900 about the internet they would think you were fucking nuts. So im sure that by the year 2150 or whatever there's going to be so much crazy shit that none of us would even be able to recognize it.

And with the quantum mechanics stuff, just because we don't have the tools or ability to fully understand it right now, doesn't mean that breakthroughs won't be made at potentially any time.

I remember being in middle school in the late 90s and had a science teacher that was really into the human genome project and he told us that it was super exciting because at the rate they were going, they would have the human genome completely mapped by the time we were 50. 6 months later they announced a breakthrough and had it completed within a year.

Cactus @ 24/12/2017 0:43

Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 3:02 PORL @ 23/12/2017 19:42 Incidentally, Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the smartest man to have ever lived and he believed in God. I really don't feel comfortable calling the smartest person in known history "delusional". I think the whole "Newton believed in God" thing is kind of bullshit imo. There is soooo much we've learned about science since the time of Isaac Newton and I would have to think that as a man of science when confronted with the truths that we know today he would not be able to say that he believed in God. Either that or he's as clueless as the rest of these fucks. well yes, newton spent rather a lot of time on alchemy so it's not as if everything he believed had merit. but name me one thing in the realm of scientific knowledge that proves god does not exist. which, note, is not the same as disproving a particular religious claim with scientific knowledge. for example, it does not prove atheism to show how the bible implies (in 1kings7) that pi=3. i think the main point about newton is that some of the brightest and most educated minds in the world for centuries studied biblical texts in great detail (and in their original language). it takes rather a lot of ego for anyone today to think they can just saddle up to the topic for ten seconds and imagine they've disproven the lot.

Well the main reason most of the brightest scientific minds used to study religious texts were because the church held a monopoly on scientific education and these religious texts were almost universally presented as truth. Most of the early pioneers in modern science were literally trained and taught by religious men in religious institutions.

And as far as disproving God, you're using the same argument that got Kansas to teach intelligent design in their schools. At this point and time science cannot disprove God the same way it can't disprove the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Shout out to the pastafarians.

You need to prove something exists before you can disprove its existence.

Spin @ 24/12/2017 9:14

You need to prove something exists before you can disprove its existence.

I have no idea where that came from but it makes no logical sense. Sorry, ignore me and carry on.

Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 14:49

Cactus @ 24/12/2017 0:43 Chris25 @ 24/12/2017 3:02 PORL @ 23/12/2017 19:42 Incidentally, Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the smartest man to have ever lived and he believed in God. I really don't feel comfortable calling the smartest person in known history "delusional". I think the whole "Newton believed in God" thing is kind of bullshit imo. There is soooo much we've learned about science since the time of Isaac Newton and I would have to think that as a man of science when confronted with the truths that we know today he would not be able to say that he believed in God. Either that or he's as clueless as the rest of these fucks. well yes, newton spent rather a lot of time on alchemy so it's not as if everything he believed had merit. but name me one thing in the realm of scientific knowledge that proves god does not exist. which, note, is not the same as disproving a particular religious claim with scientific knowledge. for example, it does not prove atheism to show how the bible implies (in 1kings7) that pi=3. i think the main point about newton is that some of the brightest and most educated minds in the world for centuries studied biblical texts in great detail (and in their original language). it takes rather a lot of ego for anyone today to think they can just saddle up to the topic for ten seconds and imagine they've disproven the lot. Well the main reason most of the brightest scientific minds used to study religious texts were because the church held a monopoly on scientific education and these religious texts were almost universally presented as truth. Most of the early pioneers in modern science were literally trained and taught by religious men in religious institutions. And as far as disproving God, you're using the same argument that got Kansas to teach intelligent design in their schools. At this point and time science cannot disprove God the same way it can't disprove the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Shout out to the pastafarians.

so much wrong. you are not reading closely at all.

for starters, i said nothing about europe, which is why i said "some" -- and if you want to constrain to europe, you'll need to specify a century at least. i'd like to remind you that at no time was the entire continent under the control of the catholic church, nor was the entire continent ever nominally christian. further, the church never once "held a monopoly on scientific education", even if we define 'scientific' irresponsibly. a pretty standard (and consciously arbitrary) date for the advent of the scientific revolution is 1543, which is centuries past the transition of monastic/cathedral schools and the emergence of the modern university. and with respect to newton specifically, let's keep in mind that he was born over a century after england left the catholic church. your only out here is to claim that you're using "the church" in a way no one else does.

next up, your stupid claim that i'm somehow "using the same argument that got Kansas to teach intelligent design in their schools". here i'm just going to say fuck you, learn how to read. seriously. my point was that poking holes in the bible is not the same as proving atheism. my other point was to offer my take on why porl mentioned newton. if you want to disagree with what i actually said, let me know.

and finally, i'm going to whine a little that it takes a frustratingly long time for developments in metatheory to filter down to primary/secondary education. we're still producing armies of students who think they understand scientific methods (yes, plural) because their teachers wrongly imagine they're teaching it. they tend to only teach the HD model and forget that the D stands for 'deductive' (and worse, imagine that deduction is the opposite of induction). the old trope that one cannot prove a negative only works within certain epistemological constraints that science never actually signed up for. yeah, yeah, analytical certainty is the gold standard, but what a mountain to climb -- the dream of inducing the entire universe into analytic propositions so we can play modus ponens all day long is a complete pipe dream. it is also not how things work in actual practice, at all. we can use tools like statistical inference and rhetorical logic and still be scientific. logical empiricism was abandoned over a half-century ago and the entire point of the DN model is that we have a more robust causal relata (through postdiction) and can be far more deductive about things within a scientific context. and so now the key point -- you can prove a negative by deduction, so nothing prevents us from playing modus tollens all day. yay science!

Spin @ 24/12/2017 15:23

Spin @ 24/12/2017 9:14 You need to prove something exists before you can disprove its existence. I have no idea where that came from but it makes no logical sense. Sorry, ignore me and carry on.

i took you to mean that one must define something before (dis)proving it.

which, by the way, is the central proposition of theological noncognitivism. i think most people would find it extraordinarily difficult to argue against things like ignosticism (not a typo) and igtheism.

Yay, Cat is here to tell everybody how wrong they are! This thread is on fire now.

Spin @ 24/12/2017 16:58

Yay, Cat is here to tell everybody how wrong they are! This thread is on fire now.

p sure i just told you how right you are, but don't let obvious facts get in the way of your long list of personal vendettas. it's christmas!