| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2009 07:55:25 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly false conclusions have been reached through the honest application of the Scientific Method through problems like random chance or a misinterpretation of the results. Just pointing that out. |
That would be a flaw in the design of the experiment, not the method itself. Scientific method is still the best assurance of fact available. |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:15:23 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon is being quiet again. |
Shannon was offline, as he was the last time you said that.
Scientific method probably could, and essentially has, been used to prove its own validity. Setting up empirical, objective experiments designed to be measurable and verifiable alongside others without those qualities would quickly demonstrate the reliability and veracity of the former method. |
I'm just busting your chops on the time thing. I'm not seriously thinking you are stumped because you aren't answering. (notes down 23 minutes 42 seconds before test subject responds...)
Anyway, come on now, you can't possibly assert that my scientific world is based on a self-referencing test! That would be pretty bogus.
Dahkota, are you just joking when you say I'm being rude? I hope so. I've always been open and have even posted open vulnerabilities of a personal nature. You seem sorta sharpish today. What's up with that? As far as the God and Scalvert thing, you keep forgetting that he USED to believe in God. Unless it was a random occurance, I'm guessing the flip was due to something. What was it?
And why did you insert yourself into my discussion with Shannon? You and I were talking about Taoism.
Message edited by author 2009-01-30 20:17:24. |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:27:40 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, come on now, you can't possibly assert that my scientific world is based on a self-referencing test! That would be pretty bogus. |
I find it difficult to believe that you're THAT clueless about scientific method: not that it's self-referencing, but that it offers a way to verify conclusions, and as a logical and repeatable method could be used to objectively test its own validity. You don't seem to have a problem with self-referencing in your religion, though... where literally ALL knowledge comes from, and is supported only by, references to the bible.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the God and Scalvert thing, you keep forgetting that he USED to believe in God. Unless it was a random occurance, I'm guessing the flip was due to something. What was it? |
You likely believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause, but at some point you came to view it as a fairy tale (and it WASN'T because you suddenly believed in God). Why should this be any different? |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:37:30 PM · #529 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, come on now, you can't possibly assert that my scientific world is based on a self-referencing test! That would be pretty bogus. |
I find it difficult to believe that you're THAT clueless about scientific method: not that it's self-referencing, but that it offers a way to verify conclusions, and as a logical and repeatable method could be used to objectively test its own validity. You don't seem to have a problem with self-referencing in your religion, though... where literally ALL knowledge comes from, and is supported only by, references to the bible.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the God and Scalvert thing, you keep forgetting that he USED to believe in God. Unless it was a random occurance, I'm guessing the flip was due to something. What was it? |
You likely believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause, but at some point you came to view it as a fairy tale (and it WASN'T because you suddenly believed in God). Why should this be any different? |
It was not the reasoning of my argument, but I would say that the validity of the Scientific Method is ultimately based on epistemology which is a part of philosophy which is not part of Science. But anyway.
Why do you answer a question with a question? So you don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy? Your parents told you God doesn't exist? How old were you when you stopped believing in God? I guess I assumed it was sort of a late teen/20s thing, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
Message edited by author 2009-01-30 20:38:33. |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:40:47 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why do you answer a question with a question? So you don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy? Your parents told you God doesn't exist? |
You answered my question with a question. My parents didn't tell me that the TF and Santa didn't exist- I figured those out on my own because they didn't make any rational sense. So yeah, same reason. |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:41:20 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why do you answer a question with a question? |
Why do you ask?
(Classic joke) |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:42:33 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And why did you insert yourself into my discussion with Shannon? You and I were talking about Taoism. |
I'm sorry. I thought this was a public forum. |
|
|
|
01/30/2009 08:47:47 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And why did you insert yourself into my discussion with Shannon? You and I were talking about Taoism. |
I'm sorry. I thought this was a public forum. |
I understand the mistake, but nobody likes having words put in their mouth. Shannon's a big boy and can answer for himself. Plus if I'm asking to get to know Shannon it doesn't do me any good for you to answer.
Message edited by author 2009-01-30 20:52:07. |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 08:53:28 AM · #534 |
| As a "believer", I have long struggled to understand how God allows for these types of events? |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:23:20 AM · #535 |
Maybe it's because your concept of "God" was derived from religious training. It could be this concept is wrong. You or I may not really "know" God. What if God were just a creator? Maybe he's not hanging around to see what happens. What if God is not good, or bad? What if he/she/it just is? |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:25:49 AM · #536 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
No. My definition of religion is based on context. Here, with you, it is a religious context. Talking to my husband, baseball would be a religion and the conversation would go very differently. And, for the record, no one can be robbed of a homerun. you either have it or you don't. You can't have a homerun and have the outfielder steal it from you by catching it. In that case, it was never a homerun, it was a potential homerun and an actual out. So there. |
Of course you can be robbed of a home run. Fan interference, bad call by the umps, whatever. Happens a lot actually...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:30:44 AM · #537 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
...And, for the record, no one can be robbed of a homerun. you either have it or you don't. You can't have a homerun and have the outfielder steal it from you by catching it. In that case, it was never a homerun, it was a potential homerun and an actual out. So there. |
Of course you can be robbed of a home run. Fan interference, bad call by the umps, whatever. Happens a lot actually... |
Then it should have been a home run, but wasn't. The police aren't going to find it in a pawn shop and return it to the batter. OTOH, you could argue that Barry Bonds and A-Rod stole a few home runs... ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-02-23 09:32:20. |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:31:36 AM · #538 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Maybe it's because your concept of "God" was derived from religious training. It could be this concept is wrong. |
Yes, I think this may be the crux of it. I prefer the words "incomplete" or "inaccurate" over the word "wrong", but the meaning is close enough to the same. |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:32:45 AM · #539 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dahkota:
...And, for the record, no one can be robbed of a homerun. you either have it or you don't. You can't have a homerun and have the outfielder steal it from you by catching it. In that case, it was never a homerun, it was a potential homerun and an actual out. So there. |
Of course you can be robbed of a home run. Fan interference, bad call by the umps, whatever. Happens a lot actually... |
Then it should have been a home run, but wasn't. The police aren't going to find it in a pawn shop and return it to the batter. OTOH, you could argue that BArry Bonds and A-Rod stole a few home runs... ;-) |
It's all about deus ex machina, don'tcha know...?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:42:12 AM · #540 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's all about deus ex machina, don'tcha know...? |
Very appropriate. :-) |
|
|
|
02/23/2009 09:49:24 AM · #541 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Yes, I think this may be the crux of it. I prefer the words "incomplete" or "inaccurate" over the word "wrong", but the meaning is close enough to the same. |
Yes, I agree "inaccurate" is the better word here... |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 05:00:38 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
. . . the whole origin of this is trying to get Shannon to place his disbelief in God within the context of a larger worldview. He, for some reason, refuses to do so and for the longest time I just don't get this. Personally I think his disbelief falls within his rationalism/scientific/materialistic worldview and I really don't know why he doesn't agree on this. . . . When I ask Shannon why he doesn't believe in gods he sometimes points to the apparent logical fallacies and problems in the Bible. This, however, would at best disprove the existence of the Christian God (or perhaps disprove our understanding of this god). When I push further and ask him why he doesn't believe in any gods, he will point to a lack of evidence, but for some reason he always refuses to put this lack of evidence within a larger framework. Why does a lack of evidence prevent his belief? What is the underlying axiom that defends this? |
Late to the party - and at the risk of being called out as rude for jumping in as a fourth(?) wheel to an ongoing conversation - but I'll add two comments: 1) I think I agree with your confusion as to why Shannon is unwilling to locate his lack of a god belief within a materialistic worldview; and 2) but I don't really get what your point would be in making Shannon acknowledge this point.
You say you are no looking for a "gotcha" moment, but I have seen such admissions being construed by persons of faith very much in a "gotcha" frame. (E.g., "There, see your "faith" in a materialistic world is why you do not believe in God.") This is, of course, a false equivalency since while a theistic worldview does require faith - that is, belief without evidence - a materialistic worldview flows not from faith, but from evidence - that is, empirical, repeatable and falsifiable data and claims. I suppose one could claim that the materialist has "faith" in his or her senses, but this is certainly not the type of faith on which theistic worldviews are built. Further, the use of the word "faith" in such context is rhetorically misleading, and it would be more accurate to say that one "trusts" in ones senses because they have been shown, over time, to be a reliable way of interpreting the sensory cues provided by the environment in which one is located. (Note that this trust is not always present or justifiable, which is why the mechanism of the scientific method was developed in order to provide a way to repeatably test and evaluate evidence and hypotheses.)
I can speak only for myself, but my atheism certainly does flow from my adherence to a rationalistic/scientific/materialistic worldview. Indeed, for me, I came to this worldview before, and as a path to, my eventual atheism. And, having come from a religious background, I can say that embracing such a worldview did necessitate the reevaluation and rejection of certain types of experiences and "evidence" claims that I was raised to credit, but that were incompatible with this worldview - divine revelation and appeals from authority, for example. This is not a "willful" rejection of otherwise credible evidence, but rather an acknowledgment that these types of claims, pronouncements, and tradition-based beliefs do not constitute evidence.
The "problem" for me as a religious believer was that I had this fascination with science and history, and the more science and history I learned the more I found supernatural or theistic explanations for the world either demonstrably incorrect, patently unnecessary and irrelevant, or ultimately undesirable. The thing is, that if you ask the question, "What would the physical world look like if there was/were no God/gods?," your answer is the world in which we are surrounded. If you ask the further question of, "How does adhering to a belief in God help in explaining the physical world?," the answer would seem to be that it does not, and that such a belief can actually hinder our understanding.
The materialistic worldview is an elegant, coherent, and demonstrably accurate view of our existence. We of course do not have all the answers. Indeed we come up with new questions all the time. None of these questions, however, in any way threaten the legitimacy of the materialistic viewpoint, and everything that we learn only strengthens that viewpoint. One can insert post hoc theories or rationalizations for a god that works within such a worldview, but any such god would bear little resemblance to the intercessionist "God" of the major religions.
Message edited by author 2009-02-24 17:21:19.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 05:24:52 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The "problem" for me as a religious believer was that I had this fascination with science and history, and the more science and history I learned the more I found supernatural or theistic explanations for the world either demonstrably incorrect, patently unnecessary and irrelevant, or ultimately undesirable. The thing is, that if you ask the question, "What would the physical world look like if there was/were no God/gods?," your answer is the world in which we are surrounded. If you ask the further question of, "How does adhering to a belief in God help in explaining the physical world?," the answer would seem to be that it does not, and that such a belief can actually hinder our understanding. |
But see, the problem is still one of false equivalencies. In effect, you are rejecting religious faith because it doesn't help you understand the physical world, but that's not the point of religion. Religion is about the unknowable, the ineffable, the "something else" that we, as a species, seem to cling to against all evidence (or lack of same). Indeed, by *definition* "faith" requires unprovability; if a thing is provable, demonstrable, then faith is no longer part of the equation, except in some watered-down definition of the term, of which we have plenty. I see no inherent conflict between the world of science and the world of faith. I acknowledge that such conflicts have bedeviled us for millennia, but that's a social issue more than it is an inevitable conflict.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 05:58:26 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The "problem" for me as a religious believer was that I had this fascination with science and history, and the more science and history I learned the more I found supernatural or theistic explanations for the world either demonstrably incorrect, patently unnecessary and irrelevant, or ultimately undesirable. The thing is, that if you ask the question, "What would the physical world look like if there was/were no God/gods?," your answer is the world in which we are surrounded. If you ask the further question of, "How does adhering to a belief in God help in explaining the physical world?," the answer would seem to be that it does not, and that such a belief can actually hinder our understanding. |
But see, the problem is still one of false equivalencies. In effect, you are rejecting religious faith because it doesn't help you understand the physical world, but that's not the point of religion. Religion is about the unknowable, the ineffable, the "something else" that we, as a species, seem to cling to against all evidence (or lack of same). Indeed, by *definition* "faith" requires unprovability; if a thing is provable, demonstrable, then faith is no longer part of the equation, except in some watered-down definition of the term, of which we have plenty. I see no inherent conflict between the world of science and the world of faith. I acknowledge that such conflicts have bedeviled us for millennia, but that's a social issue more than it is an inevitable conflict. |
I would have to reject your assertion. I accept a materialistic worldview and reject religious faith because not only does religious faith not help me understand the physical world, but, we are increasingly uncovering the materialistic basis for religious belief. It may very well be that we are "hard-wired" for religion as a species, but even if that is true, it says nothing about the literal truth of religious belief or experience.
Further, my materialistic worldview in no way prevents philosophical discussions of the supposed "unknowable, ineffable, or 'something else.'" I believe that such discussion should be underpinned and informed by rational, evidence-based reasoning, but "science" - even broadly speaking - may (and I stress the may) not be able to definitively answer all moral or philosophical questions.
Message edited by author 2009-02-24 17:59:19.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 06:25:50 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, my materialistic worldview in no way prevents philosophical discussions of the supposed "unknowable, ineffable, or 'something else.'" I believe that such discussion should be underpinned and informed by rational, evidence-based reasoning, but "science" - even broadly speaking - may (and I stress the may) not be able to definitively answer all moral or philosophical questions. |
I understand what you're saying, but what sort of "rational, evidence-based reasoning" can address the unknowable? It's like a philosophical oxymoron. Certainly we can, if we choose, approach our discussion of the unknowable in a rational manner, I have no problem with that, but when you postulate the need for an "evidence-based" component in the discussion, you lose me.
It just takes us right back to where Achoo's at in the debate with Scalvert, where Shannon rejects out-of-hand the concept of God because there's no evidence to support it, and Jason counters with faith as the only way to approach the unknowable.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2009 06:57:26 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The materialistic worldview is an elegant, coherent, and demonstrably accurate view of our existence. |
So you took the blue pill. |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 07:00:02 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In effect, you are rejecting religious faith because it doesn't help you understand the physical world, |
I thought he was rejecting god. Isn't that what atheism all about?
I reject most of organized religion, no matter what the flavor. I still believe in a god. |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 07:00:35 PM · #548 |
What a thread!
Never dreamed this (in)effable dog could still hunt! |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 07:03:39 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
What a thread!
Never dreamed this (in)effable dog could still hunt! |
This thread has been hunting for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
02/24/2009 07:29:55 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It just takes us right back to where Achoo's at in the debate with Scalvert, where Shannon rejects out-of-hand the concept of God because there's no evidence to support it... |
Not quite. There are plenty of things that may be absolutely true, but for which there is no evidence. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. However, most modern, rational people reject Russell's teapot and Greek mythology as patently absurd given what we DO know about our universe, so it's curious that so many would distinguish between what they themselves acknowledge as ridiculous and similarly supernatural accounts they consider unquestionable reality. I simply see no reason to accept a single account of the same sorts of myth and magic that even the most fervent believers reject in every other instance over the infinitely more likely explanation that it's ALL the same manmade fiction.
Message edited by author 2009-02-24 19:30:40. |
|
