Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 09:20am PT
|
Here is your brain on Atkins:
Yet science is progressively advancing toward complete knowledge, leaving religions bobbing about in its wake. Science is hard work, but the answers it hews from the rock face of ignorance are reliable.
From: http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Peter-Atkins/5
Ok, let's see, we've got "complete knowledge" and "reliable answers" as science's glory-points compared to ALL religions.
---------------------
Hmmm... just a very brief list concerning fairly recent science:
phlogiston (believed for hundreds of years, despite clear evidence to the contrary; eventually superseded by oxidation theory)
caloric theory (competitor to phlogiston; believed alongside it by many)
universal aether (best explanation for about 100 years until Einstein)
Newtonian physics (still ok for everyday use, but technically INCORRECT)
anything by Freud (infamous fabricator of data; totally debunked theory of psychoanalysis, after it was the dominant paradigm for many decades)
Piltdown Man (touted by mainstream science for more than 40 years; obvious hoax to anybody not WANTING to see a "missing link")
Steady State cosmology (dominant paradigm for decades)
The "stress" or "acid" theory of stomach ulcers (mainstream for many decades; only recently replaced by a bacterial theory)
"Type A" linkage to heart disease (believed for decades; recently discredited)
Geosyncline theory (believed for about 100 years; more recently replaced by Plate Tectonics)
Classical Electrodynamics (believed for about 50 years, then quickly morphed into Quantum Electrodynamics, which is fundamentally different)
---------------------
And the list goes on and on.
So, it seems that science's "complete answers" are about as "reliable" as how "functional" an idea seems in YOUR particular time slice! As though "functional" could equate to "true." LOL
Most recently we have Global Warming (claimed to be a result of human activity on Earth). Slowly but surely gaining discredit, as more and more incidents of falsified and "massaged" data surface, and as more and more alternative, non-human-involved explanations emerge. Widely believed by most scientists for more than a decade, but in time this, too, will go down to ashes.
The idea that "science" proceeds from glorious victory to glorious victory is simply not borne out by the historical facts.
Finally, the worst thing about your brain on Atkins is how he conflates the questions: In this quoted passage, he fails to recognize that science is primarily doing physics (broadly construed), while religion is primarily doing metaphysics (broadly construed). To say that "science leaves religions bobbing about in its wake" is like saying, "Driving a stick-shift car is leaving scuba-diving in its wake." There can, of course, be SOME points of overlap; but they are really ABOUT two different activities.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
|
Bottom line- I'd rather go camping and climbing with 3 scientists and/or engineers than 3 philosophy phds.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 02:00pm PT
|
god blessed texas.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 05:30pm PT
|
Bottom line is that I'd rather go camping with ANY intellectually honest person than one that is not.
Answer the question, resolve your now-public internal conflict, or just acknowledge that all you've got to work with is rant.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 09:21pm PT
|
No answer yet.
Basically what you've got is that you've glommed onto a couple of the more vocal and rabid of the "new atheists," a few guys that do not represent the mainstream thinking on atheism among most scientists (or philosophers, even the secular ones), including the ones I have, and could, quote from the (one!) book I earlier mentioned.
You will not find MOST scientists supporting your strident, radical move from "scientific reliability" (which is a myth anyway) to conclusions about whether or not God exists or what His relation was to creation. MOST scientists recognize that these are metaphysical, rather than physical, questions.
But, you've got a few guys that are not mainstream in their thinking, and these are your heros; so you pin your intellectual development on reading a few books by these guys. Then you hop online and make a public fool of yourself.
Back up, "dude," take a deep breath, and really delve into the VAST literature on this subject. After a few years of reading and HONESTLY digesting a few thousand pages, PERHAPS you can emerge with a more balanced (and much less strident) perspective.
Or, perhaps not.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 10:48am PT
|
Madbolter- We speak different languages, no use. Happy trails.
|
|
Alpinist909
Mountain climber
Chesapeake
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 08:58pm PT
|
MB 1
Like I mentioned in an earlier post. Science generally questions a theory. They attempt to disprove idea's in search of the truth.
Religion, on the other hand, is just the opposite. You just believe. That all you have to do. Geeze. Now that I think of it, that would be soooooo much easier. And that is why it is so popular.
Camp fire stories that were written over centuries created by men who lived in a culture where 95% of the population could not read and write.
Before Christianity, there were other gods that were past down over the flames of many camp fires. For hundreds of thousands of years. The popular god of today is this just this flavor of the month. That's why there are hundreds of different denominations and they ALL think they are right and everyone else is wrong.
The people in power liked to keep the ill literate just that. Worked for Bush Jr, for a while.
Rule by fear. Bible does just that. Hell, that worked for the Bush administration for years.
(side note, I voted for the kook).
Mel Gibson's Apocalipto (sp?) was a great example. Loping off heads to keep their god satisfied with the peoples blood. And the god was full, he eclipsed the sun (or so the witch doctor said so). Yet the head witch doctor knew their would be an eclipse. Their culture watched the stars and knew when the eclipse was coming. But the people were uneducated and fell for it hook line and sinker.
Ahhh... that was a long time ago. People are smarter now. We have Starbucks and the internet.
I am sure you are well versed on the history of the Mormen church. Under The Banner of Heaven is a good read to get you caught up the basics for those of you that are not.
Their bible was written by a convicted scam artist. A good portion stolen from the bible. Yet the Mormen religion continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
opps....
I forgot my fun quote of the day..
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
I wonder why god did not think much of women. Ohhhh.... that's because the bible was written by men who lived in a culture similar to ones that exist today. Cultures that suppress women and...... oh wait, that sounds like some of the people who BLEW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS.
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. Good book.
Study of Mythology.... another good read.
God is not Great..... some logic going on in that book.
Inside the Revolution by Joel Rosenburg. He's jewish so some might be offended. God fearing dude
Survival of the Sickest by Dr Sharon Moalem. Good fun
More great quotes from the bible are coming. Don't worry, I'm not going anywhere any time soon ; )
Let me find the one where they mention witches. Funny this is, there's no such thing. God must have forgotten. He such a kidder
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
|
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true."
 Carl Sagan
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 05:55am PT
|
"I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true." Carl Sagan
And exactly WHAT is the difference between science and pseudoscience? Which was Freudian psychology?
And "true?" Oh give me a break! What PART of "science" is true? Is SCIENCE just TRUE? ALL of it? EVERY claim? EVERY theory? EVERY supposed entity and relation?
You sad saps fall down and worship at the feet of a man like Sagan and then bash people for believing an ancient book? Seems like the book has a lot more going for it!
Answer the above questions, and then we can try to make SOME sense of what Sagan said in the quote. You're gonna have a LOT harder time making any sense of that quote than you initially think!
With quotes like that one, you make my case FOR me. I don't even have to try! LOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 06:26am PT
|
Religion, on the other hand, is just the opposite. You just believe. That all you have to do. Geeze. Now that I think of it, that would be soooooo much easier. And that is why it is so popular.
Straw man alert! Straw man alert!
And your "campfire stories" line was SUCH a yawner! Your entire argument boils down to the same thing again and again: "There are things in the Bible (taken entirely out of context) that don't make sense to me. For something to be 'true' it has to make perfect sense to me. So, the Bible is not true."
Lame!
Just like HFCS, you exhibit no intellectual honesty. You take rewarmed arguments that you have lifted from a few popularized pundits of the "new atheism" and think you are so intellectual. Having never bothered to understand the cultural or historical context of your out-of-context passages, you straw man mercilessly.
So, let me ask you a single, simple question. If you cannot answer it, then you instantly reveal yourself for the intellectual poser you are.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND CURRENT QUANTUM THEORY?
If you say, "yes," then you lie. It is arguable that NOBODY really "understands" it, and YOU certainly don't! Don't run off now to Wikipedia and quote stuff you don't understand!
If you say, "no," then you simply accept on authority and "just believe" that IT is true, when YOU actually know nothing about it.
Don't hand me lame lines like, "But engineers use it to make things like microwave ovens."
Pathetic! YOU don't know that IT is what they use! YOU don't even have good reason to suspect! Engineers simply employ some pragmatic "functionality" (the way things seem to work experimentally... in this present time slice). Not one iota of those experimental results "confirms" the theorized entities and relations of quantum theory. And THAT is because it is impossible in principle to CONFIRM anything about any scientific theory. So, microwave ovens give you exactly ZERO evidence that quantum theory is TRUE! And YOU know nothing whatsoever about the relations between physics and microwave ovens!
The average person (yourself included) has NO comprehension of current physics (MORE than 95% cannot 'read' and 'write' in THAT new language), yet you accept the "campfire stories" handed down to you by the "elders" of that "clan." And YOU cannot assert that the "evidence supports" the claims those "elders" make, because YOU cannot in principle correlate the claims with the evidence!
You are as blind and "faithful" to physics (despite the long, sordid history of failed theories) as you accuse Bible believers of being regarding their authority. You appeal to authority in the exact same way. Your "elders" make just as esoteric and (by YOU) unsubstantiated claims as you think the Bible does. And taking statements of physicists entirely out of context produces just as apparently nutty (even more so) sounding "results" as your "quotes" from the Bible do.
String Theory??? It is to laugh! Let's see how this works:
So, we've got two theories. BOTH simply MUST be true. Yet they are fundamentally inconsistent! So, what can we do? Well, let's see.... Hmmm.... (decades of failed attempts at an account).... Well, we've really run out of options at this point.... Nothing makes any sense.... Uhhh... Joe! Remember that crusty old "string theory" business from way back? Maybe we can dust THAT thing off and get some mileage out of it! Ohhh... good thought! Let's see... seven dimensions? Will that work? Uhh... no... different problems, but the thing just won't work. Say! Let's try TEN dimensions! Hey, getting closer. We just need some different constants here. Uhh... what about the dimensions, Joe? WHERE are they? WHY can't we get ANY experimental evidence of them? Ahhh... right! Because they are very, very, very, very, very, very.... VERY small! Ohhh... I LIKE it!
Give me this one giant ROFL break! Tiny, tiny dimensions that we cannot in principle get any evidence of! Lots and lots of 'em! As many of 'em as it takes!
And you BELIEVE that crap??? Glass houses, baby! Glass houses!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 10:27am PT
|
madbolter1 writes:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND CURRENT QUANTUM THEORY?
If you say, "yes," then you lie. It is arguable that NOBODY really "understands" it, and YOU certainly don't! Don't run off now to Wikipedia and quote stuff you don't understand!
How do you argue that "NOBODY really 'understands' it"?
I suppose you need to define what you mean by 'understand,' then you can argue. But quantum theory is understood, certainly. What is it that you don't understand?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 01:32pm PT
|
How do you argue that "NOBODY really 'understands' it"? I suppose you need to define what you mean by 'understand,' then you can argue. But quantum theory is understood, certainly. What is it that you don't understand?
Ooo... clever shift attempt, Ed. What I wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with MY understanding. What I wrote to Alpinist909 questions HIS understanding, since HE is the one claiming such a vast difference between his "knowledge" and the "blind faith" of Bible believers.
My first point is that FOR HIM, his relation to the claims of quantum theory are EXACTLY on a par with the relation claimed between Bible believers and their "authority." From an epistemological point of view, the nature of justifications to believe are identical.
My second point was that ANY corpus of claims, taken out of context and set up for straw man tactics, can appear utterly and entirely ridiculous. The fact that things can be made to appear ridiculous that way does not indicate that they ARE ridiculous. My point here was that it is a very common "pot shot" tactic to quote out of context from the Bible and "triumphantly" tout how ridiculous the "campfire stories" are.
What a ho-hum tactic. A credible account can be given of each and every one of the supposed "problem texts," although background knowledge is required. It's easy to come up with "ridiculous" claims in ANY venue, and then adequately responding to those claims is a lengthy process.
So, I pointed out how "ridiculous" modern physics can be made to sound, and I pointed out how inadequate our Alpinist909 would be to "respond" to such charges.
Perhaps YOU, Ed, could give us an account that would make string theory SEEM less ridiculous (actually, being quite well-read on the subject, I doubt it), although such an account would NOT be brief or trivial! And that is my overarching point. Taking pot shots is a cheap tactic, especially when you know that by engaging in it you are giving your opponent no option but to write volumes and volumes in an attempt to "respond." I can pot-shot string theory, and it takes books to respond!
Let's cut the crap and acknowledge what an unfair debate tactic that really is. Otherwise, my "response" will be merely to pot shot tit-for-tat in like fashion. For every "ridiculous" Bible passage Alpinist wants to cite, I will simply cite claims from modern science that are just as ridiculous on the face of them!
This is a stupid way to "debate," and it merely denotes the lack of intellectual honesty of those that simply want to take drive-by pot shots at the beliefs of other that they simply don't understand and can't be bothered to treat with philosophical charity.
While many people that believe in the Bible are pretty idiotic about it, that does not mean that believing in the Bible is idiotic; any more than the fact that most people that believe in modern science are idiotic about it does not mean that modern science is idiotic!
If we're going to debate, then let's do it fairly, rather than with drive-by pot shots. On that point, it is quite true that HFCS and I are talking "different languages!"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
|
Now that is some skilled debating .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 01:45pm PT
|
madbolter1 wrote:
Perhaps YOU, Ed, could give us an account that would make string theory SEEM less ridiculous
not sure that I could, but it is probably not relevant that you, or anyone else, thinks that String Theory "seems ridiculous." The sine qua non of a physical theory, that it is predictive, is really the only requirement of the theory, aside from being mathematically logical (though even this may be provisional, especially if the mathematics doesn't exist yet).
On this point, String Theory is an explanation of the current universe, as we know it, it's predictions are not currently within reach of experiment, though this situation may change as the theory is better developed.
Newton sounded "ridiculous" in his day, it didn't mean he was wrong.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
san diego
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 01:46pm PT
|
Locker!
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
But a "BLOW UP DOLL"...now that would a been one kinky king!!
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
|
I would never claim that science is perfect--scientists are constantly testing, improving, refuting, discarding and discovering. So I agree that pointing out scientific mistakes is a cheap tactic.
But I don't think that pointing out ridiculous bible passages and ridiculing the laughable explanations for them is a cheap tactic when the bible is purportedly the product of a perfect being.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:12pm PT
|
MB1:
I think Ed has pretty well discussed this in his post.
Science really does not make any “claims”. It gives you a method that allows you to predict what you will get when you make a measurement. There is no requirement for belief. If a calculation works you just use it. And when a different calculation that has been shown to be better comes along, you switch over to the new calculation.
People who “believe” are doing something that is partially similar. But only partially. If one finds that “believing” some old story makes them feel better then it just works for them. So they just believe it. But that is where any similarity ends. “Believing” the story does not allow one to predict. The people who believe the rapture will come next Tuesday, or whatever, are trying to make such a “faithful” leap. So far at least, the predictive power has been nil.
Quite a bit of time has gone by without producing one good prediction, so the expectation of getting a successful prediction in the next week or so – becomes smaller with each passing year.
And he is on point to ask for a defintion of "to understand."
The meaning of the word is not obvious.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:18pm PT
|
Science really does not make any “”claims””.
Indirectly though the claims are always "In the future".
The knowledge is not perfect, it's always defective by imperfect beings.
No sane mane would ULTIMATELY take to such theorizing and speculations.
This a koan ....
If one learns one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and zero, then he has studied the entirety of mathematics, because mathematics means simply changing the places of these ten figures.
That’s all.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:25pm PT
|
If one learns one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and zero, then he has studied the entirety of mathematics, because mathematics means simply changing the places of these ten figures.
http://harekrishna.com/col/books/SRE/SSR/caitanya.html
What does one learn if he only cuts and pastes what others say?
Edit -- your koan is paradoxical, but it fails to demonstrate the inadequacy of logic or math.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 02:41pm PT
|
"The knowledge is not perfect, it's always defective by imperfect beings."
Werner you are theorizing when you talk of something "perfect" in the real world. Here I use the word "theorizing" as meaning a process that takes place in the brain. We can not measure anything in the real world with "perfect" precision. We can always think of a precision ten times greater than the precision we currently possess.
"Perfect" is a theory. One that has yet to be seen.
We do perceive perfection however. When we read a story over and over again, particularly when we are under stress and the brain is rewiring itself in real time, synapses are exercized and strengthened. When this synapse has been strengthened enough it always repeats. Just the fact that it repeats is perceived as "perfection."
So the power "perfection" , as a concept, has over us arises from our fear. The fear we are unable to predict the future and to control our fate. A quite reasonable fear, as we are in fact unable to predict the future or to control our fate.
When afraid we recount an old story to ourselves so as to feel once more something, anything, that we can predict.
Faith is a refuge.
A mental "device."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!