Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 02:19pm PT
|
I'd rather have speculations on the probability of things based on all the available evidence, instead of weak analogies, quotes from a primitive mythology, and arrogant pronouncements about Truth based on nothing.
Correct rewording: "...all the available MATERIALISTIC evidence...."
And there's plenty of arrogance to go around, including "pronouncements about Truth based on nothing," such as the arrogant claims about a "final theory" based on nothing (since the 10/26 model of the universe takes the Planck energy to perform "confirming" experiments).
In the face of the "nothing" they often have to work with, here's some quotes from a couple of semi-famous :-) scientists on their willingness to just BELIEVE whatever seems good to THEM in the utter absence of EVIDENCE.
Paul Dirac: "It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment." (Quoted in K.C. Cole, Sympathetic Vibrations: Reflections on Physics as a Way of Life, New York, Bantam, 1985, p. 225.) That's DIRAC, boys and girls, saying the correlation with the evidence is secondary to aesthetic appeal!
Arthur Eddington: "A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on observations, not theories.... I have never come across anyone who carries this profession into practice.... Theory has an important share in determining belief." (Quoted in Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time, New York, Bantam, 1985, p.11.) That's the BIG GUN astronomer, noting that theory often trumps evidence, particularly when the evidence is, in principle, lacking (such as in the case of current "final theory" theories).
Want more quotes? I've got 'em by the dozens, from the big guns of science admitting that the "evidence" is either entirely insignificant to the "progress" of science, or that theory necessarily trumps evidence in scientific beliefs.
And even when scientist do have "something" in the way of observational evidence, it is usually a function of indirect inference rather than DIRECT observation (it is NOT like looking down and noting, "Hey, I have hands.") And those inferences are themselves entirely informed by theory, all the way back to the core physical theories (such as current "theories of everything") that are utterly devoid of observational evidence.
So, don't single religious people out for special condemnation about their "arrogant pronouncements about Truth based on nothing."
And please don't (stupidly) respond along the lines that "at least science works." That is fallacious (and false, by the way) on many levels, not the least of which being that, properly done, religion also "works" in the same sense.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 02:46pm PT
|
And please don't (stupidly) respond along the lines that "at least science works." That is fallacious (and false, by the way) on many levels, not the least of which being that, properly done, religion also "works" in the same sense.
No.
There is no evidence that religion "works" in the sense of its greatest claims to Ultimate Truth or immortality; it does "work" though as an opiate and a cohesive force for tribalism.
Science does "work". But it doesn't or shouldn't make such grand claims; any scientist that claims that science seeks Truth is in error.
No theory is ever 100% confirmed, but as a theory survives attempts at falsification and becomes more strongly supported by evidence* then one should accept what the theory says about the world as being more likely or probable.
* much of that evidence could relate to practical use, or that the science explicitly works.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
|
He wrote: "Its not God, trust me."
Why's that? Every post of yours on the subject demands that "God" conform to your our criteria: "He" must exhibit some quantifiable, material qualities you can evaluate. Sure, we can "trust" you to rail against such material definitions, but we already agree with that. But on the issue of "spirit," which doesn't conform to quantifiable criteria, and is perforce immune to material evaluations that such "spirit" has no material or connection to the world of forms, what exactly are you saying that we should trust, other than that the broken-record rant that since "spirit" has no "body," it is "unreal," a belief, voice in your head, an idea, a feeling (not that all this laundry list are all "thing" with a material footprint). If you're going to present yourself as an expert on the topic of spirit - beyond the facile "material" quagmire - you're going to have to up your game beyond rants that "spirit" cannot be "proven" or detected by instruments.
JL
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 03:28pm PT
|
Someone tells you that he hears voices telling him to kill people.
Someone tells you that he had a vision of aliens telling him that this world was an illusion created to keep us calm in the aliens' intersteller zoo.
Someone tells you a burning bush spoke to him.
If someone made any of the above statements with no material evidence, then I'm forced to accept that the most likely explanations are mental illness, drug use or a religious pathology of seeing what one wants to see.
For some reason we evolved this capability for a god/spirit delusion. It may have provided our ancestors with many benefits. But it is a function of the brain that is susceptible to suggestion and subjective desires, and can present itself in functional forms that range from mildly spiritual to fanatically religious, and present itself dysfunctionally in mental illness and drug use.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 03:49pm PT
|
Someone tells you that he hears voices telling him to kill people.
Son of Sam
Wasn't he your friend .....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 05:12pm PT
|
any scientist that claims that science seeks Truth is in error
That's the primary point I've been trying to make for months on these threads!
And, just like in science, the fact that many people practicing various religions get things wrong does not mean that religion itself is worthless or that all religions are making entirely false claims.
Perhaps we could stop throwing all babies out with all bathwater, and then we could finally get down to some fine-grained, systematic evaluation of particular claims (rather than the endless straw-man fluff).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 05:26pm PT
|
If someone made any of the above statements with no material evidence, then I'm forced to accept that the most likely explanations are mental illness, drug use or a religious pathology of seeing what one wants to see.
I've told a few miracle stories of things I have witnessed myself. I assert that I have seen firsthand the "material evidence" for what I claim. But, actually, that's not good enough for some people on this forum. I'm then told that such eyewitness experiences are unreliable and must be repeatable under laboratory conditions in order to be credible.
Fine, but that's a different bar than asking for mere "material evidence." And that's defining even "science" as an ideal, rather than as what's actually practiced. Furthermore, repeatability under laboratory conditions is the antithesis of what a miracle is supposed to be. So, the naysayers are simply defining miracles out of existence. But that definition makes miracles no less real. I have seen with my own eyes. I am as confident in what I have seen (and with just as good of evidence) as I am confident that I have hands.
And that sort of definition invalidates most of our everyday beliefs, by the way. We accept most things that we believe on the basis of FAR less evidence than I have for most of my religious beliefs. I would assert that I have much better "material evidence" behind some of my beliefs than most people have for the actual existence of, say, Afghanistan.
Most people haven't been there and have only the weakest of second-hand stories from second-hand stories from second-hand stories from people who claim to have been there. The fact that some people can point on a map and say, "There it is," is no better evidence than people pointing into some ancient book and saying, "There it is."
Just as you can, in principle, go to Afghanistan for yourself is no different from the fact that you can, in principle experience the Truth for yourself. And the "repeatability" standard is a constantly moving target, even for scientists!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 05:44pm PT
|
The virtue of science is that as a philosophy it seeks to discover the way things are. It does not, like theology, seek as its primary goal the reconciliation of the individual to the grave and constant experiences of existence. Religion fails as it forces the material world on to the Procrustean Bed of its own particular and often peculiar dogma in order to provide that comfort.
Science doesn’t concern itself with the personal experience of existential pain. If the universe is a good place, thing, fine. If it’s a horror show, then so be it.
The goal of every religion on earth is to see every member of its body reconciled, comforted in the face of the pain of annihilation.
Ultimately, science has no concern for your existential comfort; it only wants to know.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
|
The virtue of science is that as a philosophy it seeks to discover the way things are. It does not, like theology, seek as its primary goal the reconciliation of the individual to the grave and constant experiences of existence.
That's painting with some pretty broad strokes, although it rightly notes that science (the scientific worldview) is a sort of philosophy!
First, the grandiose claims of science are philosophically unfounded. As WandaFuca rightly noted, science is not a TRUTH-seeking mechanism. It is about what seems to work, and "what seems to work" does not equal "what is true."
Second, not all religions are non-truth-seeking and wrapped up in and basely motivated by trying to provide the sort of "reconciliation" to which you refer. My religion, as just one example, is not so motivated; and I care most for seeking the truth, whatever it may be or however distasteful it may be. What I don't do is artificially limit what counts as evidence to include only that which can be discovered by the scientific method. There is much more to the universe than matter and the forces that act upon it; and there is very, very good reason (apart from religion) to think this.
Of course, those reasons are philosophical, rather than scientific. Of course, that very fact makes some here dismiss them. But note the question-begging nature of rejecting evidence because of a particular PHILOSOPHICAL position to define what counts as "evidence." That is itself a philosophical, rather than scientific, decision. So, the position that ALL questions can be answered by scientific evidence is self-defeating.
Not all philosophy is in bed with religion, as some have claimed. In fact, most modern analytic philosophy sees itself as contiguous with science rather than religion. So, it's ironic to me to see some here employing cherry-picked philosophy to reject philosophy itself. The big questions are philosophical ones, rather than scientific ones. Science contributes a certain sort of evidence, but that's not all the evidence there is on these questions.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
|
"The goal of every religion on earth is to see every member of its body reconciled..."
You are reconciled at the moment you become part of the "body" of Christ(Church).
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:21pm PT
|
Someone tells you a burning bush spoke to him.
If someone made any of the above statements with no material evidence, then I'm forced to accept that the most likely explanations are mental illness, drug use or a religious pathology of seeing what one wants to see.
For some reason we evolved this capability for a god/spirit delusion. It may have provided our ancestors with many benefits. But it is a function of the brain that is susceptible to suggestion and subjective desires, and can present itself in functional forms that range from mildly spiritual to fanatically religious, and present itself dysfunctionally in mental illness and drug use.
-----
There's an old saying that "God" is found in the spaces between thoughts. When you demand that "God" be a thing, stuff, a thought, a material entity, then you go onto to say that only matter is "real," you've slipped from the vastness between thoughts and are once more in the "stuff," spewing all manner of frivolous and fatuous things about "God" and spiritual "pathologies."
In psychology, there is a thing called "information bias." We filter out whatever does not conform to what we think is the truth (anything "true" or real, must consist of matter). We literally will not consider or be open to contrary information, or else we will alter its value or definition so as not to threaten our preconceived notions or given criteria.
The problem with basing our idea about "God" on everything else we have encountered in the world is that "God" is not based on us, or what we have or have not experienced, nor yet on our evaluating minds. We are based on "God," IME, and so long as we continue to impose the criteria, "God" will in fact remain an idea, a dream, some unprovable thing, a fiction, a belief, a pathology.
JL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:22pm PT
|
Tripl7, partial quotes taken out of context and distorted do not do the cause of religion any service. Let's raise the bar of discussion and be intellectually honorable.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:26pm PT
|
People sure go to lengths to defend their belief in God. It's easy being a non-believer there is nothing to defend.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:28pm PT
|
What religion or theological notion is there that doesn't declare if you believe this and you do that everything will be okay?
Certainly all the great religions go even further and say salvation is surely a function of faith and at least an attempt at obedience.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:40pm PT
|
Donini -- "People sure go to lengths to defend their belief in God."
People sure go to huge lengths to defend their belief in no God.
Nothing new here except a big poker game .....
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:42pm PT
|
You have a point Werner and these discussions are useless because nobody is going to change their beliefs or lack thereof.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:43pm PT
|
Let's raise the bar of discussion and be intellectually honorable.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 07:55pm PT
|
madbolter- "partial quotes taken out of context..."
I was replying to a partial quote!!
Lockers! And I am not sure who he is quoting...perhaps you?(just looked and noticed it was Paul)!!
I haven't had time to follow the lengthy nature of the dialogue taking place here today. I just noticed Lockers hi-lighted quote and simply explained that once you get saved, you become part of the body of Christ(Church)! And there is no longer a need to be reconciled!
Paul R. stated that "the goal of every religion on earth is to see its members reconciled..."
Small point perhaps, but just leting everyone know that it is not a goal of the evangelical church...it would be redundant at best!!
I will have more time to follow this tonight...sorry if I disrupted the train of thought!
Edit: OK, OK! It was a rather moot point. We all know that Paul was saying in essence...The goal of every religion is to get everyone reconciled/get its members reconciled!!
Dumb distinction/trivial point on my part...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
|
What religion or theological notion is there that doesn't declare if you believe this and you do that everything will be okay?
Certainly all the great religions go even further and say salvation is surely a function of faith and at least an attempt at obedience.
Biblical Christianity does have the "okay" clause you referred to, although it also says that most people that THINK they are okay really are not, raising an epistemic uncertainty that is NOT comforting in anything like the sense you suggest! Indeed, we are exhorted to "work our your own salvation with fear and trembling." Doesn't sound (or feel) so comforting to me! In fact, Christianity properly understood is much LESS comforting than any secular or Eastern viewpoint! So, the "okay clause" doesn't have the attraction that you seem to think it does.
People that are in their religion FOR the "comfort" are on dangerous ground, and many/most of them will be found wanting, as they have continued to be fundamentally self-serving wannabes. My point was that my religion is NOT one of comfort-seeking, and that comfort-seeking is in NO way what it is about.
However, what you haven't indicated is why the "okay" clause it a bad in itself. I agree with your tacit claim that most people are in their religion FOR the comfort, truth be damned. But, again, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if MOST people are in their religion for all the wrong reasons, and even if they are not so much as attempting intellectual honesty, those facts do not sweepingly invalidate religion.
It's a common mistake in intro to philosophy classes that students take the failure of an argument to indicate the failure of the position argued for. It's a fallacy called appeal to ignorance, and it's a very intuitive fallacy for all of us. However, just because a position is badly argued does not mean that the position is false. Just because most religionists do a disservice to their religion does not mean that their religion is false.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
May 31, 2010 - 08:14pm PT
|
TripL7, if I misunderstood, I am sorry. I don't think that the "reconciliation" the quote referred to was how you used it. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm just concerned that we believers treat what appears to be a genuine discussion thread with due respect.
For example, Biblical-spamming seems inappropriate to me here. In the Favorite Bible Passages thread, sure, the more the merrier. But this thread seems to be populated by most people wanting to actually discuss, and so Bible-spamming is just irritating to me and probably to others.
Do what you will, and I'm not trying to sound like the "Christian cop." It's just that I have some small hope for a reasoned discussion taking place on this thread, and I'd like to see Christians respond in careful and reasoned fashion (for a change). It really saddens me that most of the atheist indictments of most Christians are well-founded. We can do better, and we should.
Edit: cross-post,TripL7. :-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!