Abortion & atheism vs. crusade & religion

04/19/2013 12:39:24 PM · #251

I quite know how the Scientific Method works and I'm quite confident in its validity for certain things. I'm pointing out to you, however, that we must use something else (usually called "philosophy") to justify its validity. A process cannot self-validate. This is important for people who come along and think that all important truth can only be derived through the Scientific Method. It is patently obvious that such a statement is self-defeating. If you don't feel that, then don't worry, this doesn't apply to you.

As far as the killing people, I'm just following your lines of argument. You had not shared the scientific data that "cruel" killing is not a valid means of winding up with fewer people. (In fact you have not defined "cruel" at all.) The main point, which I find when talking to many other people with a similar approach as yourself, is that while you tell yourself that you are always looking to "primary evidence" (ie. the scientific method), you have layer after layer of other reasonings also contributing to your worldview. These layers are so natural you don't even realize you are doing it and, in fact, they have little to do with "science" and everything to do with philosophy.

04/19/2013 01:13:46 PM · #252

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Oh heck, of course there's some level of philosophy (quite literally the "love of knowledge") in this. But that's just it, philosophy is a love of knowledge, not a twisted line of logic. Some people forget that, but the truth is that philosophy is a science, it is subject to logic, and it is indeed much the same as science. It is open to debate, and has rules that are only rules because they have been shown to work well, again, self-measurement.

While there is a certain 'art' to philosophy, in no way is it akin to the reasoning of the religious, religious reasoning does not self-measure, nor does it actively evaluate evidence and adjust. It is inflexible, absolute, and based on itself. It does not adjust based upon evidence, it does not measure the effects, it does not, in effect, present itself as a living system, it is a dead system that does not move when poked, but rather sits immovable like a glacial erratic in a Kansas corn field, out of place and a relic of an earlier time with very different conditions, but there to stay all the same.

So, I do reject your assertion that the scientific method is self-referential - it does rely upon other knowledge, but the basic need is that of philosophy, which, being the very study of knowledge itself, and how we know what we know, how our senses fool us, etc, so that's hardly a system that isn't respectable in my view, as it adjusts to reality.

04/19/2013 02:03:44 PM · #253

Glad to hear you don't firmly go in for Scientism.

As for your view of religion, well, it's no wonder you have the views you do. I'm trying to find a congenial way to describe your view on religion. Tunnel vision? I dunno. I challenge you to read some of the great minds of Christianity and tell me again that there is no "evaluation" or "adjustment" and that it's "absolute" etc. Augustine? Luther? Calvin? Contemporary examples would be CS Lewis? Tim Keller? Maybe you just haven't been exposed.

04/19/2013 02:06:22 PM · #254

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's not the great minds I'm worried about. It's the little minds.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/19/2013 02:12:51 PM · #255

Originally posted by Cory:

It's not the great minds I'm worried about. It's the little minds.

LOL. You got more to worry about than religion my friend. Good think you qualify as a "great mind". ;) We were worried for a minute...

What does the scientific method inform us about hubris? :P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/19/2013 02:15:50 PM · #256

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What does the scientific method inform us about hubris? :P

You're a scientist and acknowledged expert on the subject -- why don't you just tell us and save a couple of pages of discussion on an unrelated issue?

04/19/2013 02:36:21 PM · #257

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What does the scientific method inform us about hubris? :P

You're a scientist and acknowledged expert on the subject -- why don't you just tell us and save a couple of pages of discussion on an unrelated issue?

Ouch, Paul. That hurts. I hope in all our talking you know that I have never claimed that I know everything and I certainly haven't characterized people who disagree with me as "little minds". (Heck, I just said as much less than twenty posts above).

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 14:37:46.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

04/19/2013 02:40:18 PM · #258

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What does the scientific method inform us about hubris? :P

You're a scientist and acknowledged expert on the subject -- why don't you just tell us and save a couple of pages of discussion on an unrelated issue?

Ouch, Paul. That hurts. I hope in all our talking you know that I have never claimed that I know everything and I certainly haven't characterized people who disagree with me as "little minds". (Heck, I just said as much less than twenty posts above).

I'm not accusing you of having a little mind. My point was that the followers are generally not the "great minds" and it's not the luminaries of your faith that concern me. Re-read the post you failed to actually respond to, and see if you don't gain a better understanding of what I'm saying, because right now, you look to have missed my point entirely, and have gotten caught up in stupid minutia.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2013 02:41:40 PM · #259

Originally posted by Cory:

Cory, I love ya like a brother, but you seem to either not understand (very unlikely), or be choosing to gloss over (that's my guess), the whole history of Western philosophy. After we get the Greeks and the early Romans out of the way, ALL the rest of it right up into the 20th century was basically attempting to reconcile, LOGICALLY, Christian doctrine with observable (and rapidly changing) scientific "facts". I put "facts" in quote marks because, inevitably, some of them turned out not to BE facts as what we now call "science" progressed in its understanding of the world.

Put simply, it's MY contention that in the years since the industrial revolution took hold we've seen a profoundly negative shift in human consciousness away from the spiritual way too far into the camp of the material. I'd readily acknowledge that, historically, there have been times when the spiritual side was wildly predominant, to equally ill effect, but nevertheless I find it frightening to be living in a world full of people smugly asserting that "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist and it isn't worth talking about."

04/19/2013 02:48:12 PM · #260

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
Oh heck, of course there's some level of philosophy (quite literally the "love of knowledge") in this. But that's just it, philosophy is a love of knowledge, not a twisted line of logic. Some people forget that, but the truth is that philosophy is a science, it is subject to logic, and it is indeed much the same as science. It is open to debate, and has rules that are only rules because they have been shown to work well, again, self-measurement.

While there is a certain 'art' to philosophy, in no way is it akin to the reasoning of the religious, religious reasoning does not self-measure, nor does it actively evaluate evidence and adjust. It is inflexible, absolute, and based on itself. It does not adjust based upon evidence, it does not measure the effects, it does not, in effect, present itself as a living system, it is a dead system that does not move when poked, but rather sits immovable like a glacial erratic in a Kansas corn field, out of place and a relic of an earlier time with very different conditions, but there to stay all the same.

So, I do reject your assertion that the scientific method is self-referential - it does rely upon other knowledge, but the basic need is that of philosophy, which, being the very study of knowledge itself, and how we know what we know, how our senses fool us, etc, so that's hardly a system that isn't respectable in my view, as it adjusts to reality.

Cory, I love ya like a brother, but you seem to either not understand (very unlikely), or be choosing to gloss over (that's my guess), the whole history of Western philosophy. After we get the Greeks and the early Romans out of the way, ALL the rest of it right up into the 20th century was basically attempting to reconcile, LOGICALLY, Christian doctrine with observable (and rapidly changing) scientific "facts". I put "facts" in quote marks because, inevitably, some of them turned out not to BE facts as what we now call "science" progressed in its understanding of the world.

Put simply, it's MY contention that in the years since the industrial revolution took hold we've seen a profoundly negative shift in human consciousness away from the spiritual way too far into the camp of the material. I'd readily acknowledge that, historically, there have been times when the spiritual side was wildly predominant, to equally ill effect, but nevertheless I find it frightening to be living in a world full of people smugly asserting that "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist and it isn't worth talking about."

Oh, you're too right, philosophy did spend a huge amount of time on that particular pursuit. And to say that it was Christian doctrine is also glossing this over pretty heavily - as there was a reasonable amount of examination of other systems as well, and especially in the last century philosophy has broadened its approach massively in this respect.

You'll notice that I specifically stated earlier that religion is the system of examination which applies to the spiritual world - it is valid, my only issue is the attempts to apply that system to the material world. They are incompatible in that respect, and to attempt to apply spiritual laws or rules to our existence in this material world is simply a terrible mistake. This world can be measured, and therefore it is subject to science - the spiritual world cannot be measured, therefore it is subject to religion/spirituality.

So, it really is my position that the rules of the spiritual world really shouldn't be applied to this world. I don't think that is quite equivalent to asserting that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist and isn't worth talking about.

Indeed, as you well know, I spend a shameful amount of time engaged in these discussions, so clearly I think it's valid and worth talking about.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 14:50:46.

04/19/2013 03:23:34 PM · #261

BTW, I should clear up. So much gets lost in written word. I didn't think you were calling me a "little mind". Maybe I'll back up and come again at my reply to that comment.

You aren't clear whether "little minds" means everybody who isn't a "great mind" or if there is a whole group of "average minds" who don't count as either. Either way, "little minds" are going to exist everywhere. There are little minds in religion. There are little minds in science. There are little minds who don't give a hoot about either. I find that your choosing to concentrate on the ill effects of the religious little minds represents "tunnel vision" (and prejudice). You know that this is greater than the perceived ill effects of neutral little minds or scientific little minds? Can you present your evidence that leads you to hold such a position? I hope it's not just anecdotal because we also have scientific evidence to say anecdotal evidence can often be wrong. (Just trying to play your own game and demand primary evidence to support assertions.)

This leaves aside the second point that it is usually "great minds" that shape a movement. You can't ignore the great minds of religion and then pay attention to the great minds of science. If the great minds of religion exhibit the qualities you declare to be absent in religion I think that's a large knock against your stance.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 15:24:46.

04/19/2013 03:36:30 PM · #262

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Argue it however you will, I'm not going to bother responding to you in detail about the particulars of each of your heroes, (this is retaliatory BTW, for your history of crap responses that don't address the questions posed, but instead just redirect things as suits your desires, I would really enjoy answering your questions I'm sure, but, I'm afraid you don't merit the effort, as I know you wouldn't respond in kind), suffice it to say they each held beliefs that supported applying their incompatible views about the spiritual world to the physical world. And to demonstrate that I am not just spouting crap without reason, let me make singular note of your hero Calvin- isn't it true that Calvinists believe the bible to be the absolute word of God, and believe it to be infallible? Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the bible still has the last word with these damaged intellects.

Great minds, average minds, little minds, they are all trying to do something that I find asinine. They are looking for answers in a book, and in their own heads, rather than looking at the answers that are right in front of them. Hell, they're so damned committed to this madness that they will persist even once conclusive evidence has been presented to them that their beliefs are quite impossible, or harmful.

And the little minds do worry me the most - the average minds tend to worry me the least, as they're often sensible enough to contain religion to it's proper placement, and the great minds do worry me, but mostly because of the influence they have over the little minds.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 15:41:34.

04/19/2013 03:44:01 PM · #263

Well, we can leave it at that. I find that kind of talk to be hugely bigoted (and I know you don't mind that I say that because you've said you are a self-admitted bigot). I find it offensive although I know you aren't aiming it directly at me.

If you would like, you can rephrase the important point you think I'm missing because, frankly, I missed it. I thought I had responded to the crux of your post.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/19/2013 03:57:47 PM · #264

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, to be extra clear, it's my position that if relying on my personal experiences, and finding patterns that are consistent, makes me a bigot, then so be it, you can call me what you wish.

I suppose I'm somewhat glad you find it offensive, as that indicates to me that you are at least taking this seriously, but tell me - what exactly is bigoted about my response here? The fact that I'm attacking Calvinists on their beliefs? Or do you really think it's not mad to think the world acts according the the absolute word of the bible? Or is it my more generalized assertion that finding your answers in an old book isn't a particularly valid method of addressing our real world needs and concerns?

Here's the salient point you failed to respond to:

Originally posted by Cory:

If we as a species are going to make it for the next millennium, we need to start relying heavily upon our ability to reason, think and our skill in practicing the scientific method. The best example is the belief of many religions that it is their duty to God to have many children - clearly, 7+ billion people on the planet, resources straining already, land is becoming scarce, tons of species have quite literally been ran out from their homes and are now going extinct, tons of pollution problems, etc. Yeah, pretty sure what we don't need is more humans. That's only one example of many - but suffice it to say that I think it's SUPER important to us as a species that religion takes a back seat to reason.

THAT is why I feel compelled to attempt to change, not your beliefs, but rather the priority you assign to your beliefs. In other words, you're more than welcome to keep your beliefs, but I do think that many groups really do put religion ahead of reason, and that is what I would love to see change in my lifetime.

And this, by the way, is why I think my views are more objective, and less subjective.

My justification here is based on primary evidence (too many people for the planet to support = fewer people are a good idea)

Your justification is at least secondary evidence in the case of the bible (The Bible says that it's good to do ....) or tertiary in the case of pastors, preachers, cardinals, etc - (I understand the bible to say that it's good to .....)..

Surely you can see why it's hard to argue for the secondary and tertiary evidence to be more objective than the utilization of primary evidence?

Sure science has been wrong on many things, but we only know that because science has bothered with proving itself wrong, and that is the primary reason I see it as being a superior adaptive system which can respond to changing conditions in a much more effective way than the less adaptive systems known collectively as religion.

So - how do you refute my position that basing our real-world actions, laws, and behaviors off of a book, or off of someone's interpretation of that book, is less valid of a method than direct observation and constant reevaluation?

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 16:01:16.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

04/19/2013 04:03:06 PM · #265

Originally posted by Cory:

And the little minds do worry me the most - the average minds tend to worry me the least, as they're often sensible enough to contain religion to it's proper placement, and the great minds do worry me, but mostly because of the influence they have over the little minds.

Nawwww, truly great minds don't worry me. It's the little minds that *think* they're great minds that are the most worrisome. Especially since so many of them are in politics.

04/19/2013 04:04:45 PM · #266

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by Cory:

And the little minds do worry me the most - the average minds tend to worry me the least, as they're often sensible enough to contain religion to it's proper placement, and the great minds do worry me, but mostly because of the influence they have over the little minds.

Nawwww, truly great minds don't worry me. It's the little minds that *think* they're great minds that are the most worrisome. Especially since so many of them are in politics.

Doubly scary in all honestly. That's an 11 on a scale of 1-10.

04/19/2013 04:54:45 PM · #267

Originally posted by Cory:

So - how do you refute my position that basing our real-world actions, laws, and behaviors off of a book, or off of someone's interpretation of that book, is less valid of a method than direct observation and constant reevaluation?

I did so by showing you that your own "rules" are subject to so many other levels and layers of non-"direct observation". You, yourself, made the statement "fewer people are a good idea". I pointed out that taken at face value this would mean that violent acts that kill people would lead to this result. You reply that "cruel" killing is bad, but don't give me any "direct observation" reasoning to know why this is the case or why it is more important not to cruelly kill people rather than have fewer people around. I can assure you that if we keep following this down the rabbit hole we will get to a point where you will be making an axiomatic, philosophical statement of some sort. You will, at that point, be doing exactly what you claim the bible people are doing; making axiomatic claims that have no "direct observation" evidence to back them up.

04/19/2013 05:18:43 PM · #268

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Cory:
So - how do you refute my position that basing our real-world actions, laws, and behaviors off of a book, or off of someone's interpretation of that book, is less valid of a method than direct observation and constant reevaluation?

I did so by showing you that your own "rules" are subject to so many other levels and layers of non-"direct observation". You, yourself, made the statement "fewer people are a good idea". I pointed out that taken at face value this would mean that violent acts that kill people would lead to this result. You reply that "cruel" killing is bad, but don't give me any "direct observation" reasoning to know why this is the case or why it is more important not to cruelly kill people rather than have fewer people around. I can assure you that if we keep following this down the rabbit hole we will get to a point where you will be making an axiomatic, philosophical statement of some sort. You will, at that point, be doing exactly what you claim the bible people are doing; making axiomatic claims that have no "direct observation" evidence to back them up.

And I showed you that the "many other levels and layers of non-"direct observation" actually are rather more of a science than you would seem to be admitting. Philosophy is the complement to science, and while there is some level of art to it, there is a far higher degree of examination and logical reasoning.

That is exactly what I desire, not some crazy pure-science only method of dealing with our decisions, but rather that they are based on something more substantial than beliefs. You can keep "going down the rabbit hole" all you'd like in terms of this conversation, but it continues to come around to this point: I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 17:19:05.

04/19/2013 05:22:03 PM · #269

That's fine. I can give you the good news that Christianity is steeped with "examination" and "logical reasoning". Their axiomatic statements do come from the Bible, but that doesn't mean the examination and reasoning that follows isn't any less rich or rational or logical.

Good luck with your last statement. This is another self-defeator:

I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life.

Wouldn't that qualify as a "belief" and isn't your declaring that I shouldn't do this an "imposition upon another's life"? Whoops...

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 17:24:45.

04/19/2013 05:23:56 PM · #270

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But it's not based upon something that's applicable to this world. Again, you're attempting to apply spiritual reasoning and logic to the rational world. I'm afraid it's just not a good recipe.

Although, I have little doubt this is the point where we both understand one another perfectly, and simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

04/19/2013 05:25:19 PM · #271

You probably missed my addition:

Good luck with your last statement. This is another self-defeater:

"I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life. "

Wouldn't that qualify as a "belief" and isn't your declaring that I shouldn't do this an "imposition upon another's life"? Whoops...

EDIT: Fix some spelling.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 17:32:24.

04/19/2013 05:33:20 PM · #272

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You probably missed my addition:

Good luck with your last statement. This is another self-defeator:

I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life.

Wouldn't that qualify as a "belief" and isn't your declaring that I shouldn't do this an "imposition upon another's life"? Whoops...

The fact that you see that as an unfounded belief only proves how far apart we are in our world-view.

I see it as very well established in precedent, as it almost always leads to very nasty events. People cannot be subject to something that they do not believe, or at least cannot abide by it for long. That's the problem with religious beliefs, when they come into conflict, each group has their own absolute and infallible answers - without any way to resolve what is, and what is not correct. Last time I checked, scientists might get a little heated about the process sometimes, but I really can't think of any time that it resulted in an impasse so significant that homicide became a method of resolving the debate.

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 17:34:30.

04/19/2013 05:54:22 PM · #273

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You probably missed my addition:

Good luck with your last statement. This is another self-defeator:

I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life.

Wouldn't that qualify as a "belief" and isn't your declaring that I shouldn't do this an "imposition upon another's life"? Whoops...

The fact that you see that as an unfounded belief only proves how far apart we are in our world-view.

I see it as very well established in precedent, as it almost always leads to very nasty events. People cannot be subject to something that they do not believe, or at least cannot abide by it for long. That's the problem with religious beliefs, when they come into conflict, each group has their own absolute and infallible answers - without any way to resolve what is, and what is not correct. Last time I checked, scientists might get a little heated about the process sometimes, but I really can't think of any time that it resulted in an impasse so significant that homicide became a method of resolving the debate.

You don't understand the hypocritical irony of the statment? The fact that you added the qualifier "unfounded" doesn't matter. Who is determining what is "founded" and "unfounded"? You? me? Is your new statement "We should not accept anyone's unfounded beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upong another's life." founded? In what?

You claim to have taken honors level philosophy. You can't see the paradoxical nature of your proposition? I do and it makes me chuckle a little.

04/19/2013 05:55:32 PM · #274

I'll leave you be. Let's go back to our corners.