What Atheists Believe

#251
#251
fl0at said:
I disagree. I think the fundamental basis of science is that it is fallible, and is therefore modifiable. The concept of religion is infallible.

I don't know too many scientists that believe they can understand all; but those that want to understand anything, do so by testing and observing.

I don't consider that faith, I consider that experiment.

I'm working at one more level of abstraction - the notion of scientific inquiry itself is that it is self correcting. How? By applying more science! That is the underlying "truth" of science.

You say you consider that "experiment" but the very term implies science findings can only be changed by more science findings.



As I will often say, science should never ever, never, never, ever attempt to disprove religion. They are two separate beliefs with two separate rules.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think they can coexist. I just find the specific criticism that Creation doesn't follow the rules of science therefore it is wrong to be weak since that view rests on science being the ONLY pathway to uncovering reality.
 
#253
#253
volinbham said:
I'll beat the dead horse once more - the constant re-examination/reassessment is within the confines of a man defined and limited conception.

That is where I see the "faith" or "belief" - the power of scientific inquiry as "the way".

If we accept the premise that science is man's ordering of what he perceives then it is simply a scheme (a very good and possibly the best one).
Click to expand...

It's a scheme with the least assumptions. Any other scheme will have at least the fallibility of man in it, and then assumptions of the unobserved.
 
#254
#254
volinbham said:
I'm working at one more level of abstraction - the notion of scientific inquiry itself is that it is self correcting. How? By applying more science! That is the underlying "truth" of science.

You say you consider that "experiment" but the very term implies science findings can only be changed by more science findings.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting thing to ponder, but I'll challenge you with this:

Would science modify any hypothesis if something supernatural presented itself? Absolutely. Therefore, I conclude that science can be changed by non-scientific process. Absent of the supernatural, however, means that science must rely on the observed natural.

At the same time, that doesn't mean certain scientific tenants are incorrect.

An example I like to use is that if god appears today, that does not mean evolution does not also occur.
 
#255
#255
IPorange said:
It's a scheme with the least assumptions. Any other scheme will have at least the fallibility of man in it, and then assumptions of the unobserved.
Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent point, and really drives home the difference.
 
#256
#256
IPorange said:
It's a scheme with the least assumptions. Any other scheme will have at least the fallibility of man in it, and then assumptions of the unobserved.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but:

1. unobserved is defined by the rules scientific observation. People claim to have been "touched" in some way by some force but typically Science will not count those as observations unless they are repeatable and measurable. So they are not scientific observations but they may be real observations.

2. if we simply are experiencing a "perceived reality" then are these observations really getting us closer to "real reality". Could they be taking us further away from it if real reality doesn't fit well with scientific inquiry as we conceive it?

Let's take The Matrix. Making observations more real to people actually took them further away from reality. It perpetuated the perception; the myth.

:whistling:
 
#258
#258
volinbham said:
Fair enough but:

1. unobserved is defined by the rules scientific observation. People claim to have been "touched" in some way by some force but typically Science will not count those as observations unless they are repeatable and measurable. So they are not scientific observations but they may be real observations.

2. if we simply are experiencing a "perceived reality" then are these observations really getting us closer to "real reality". Could they be taking us further away from it if real reality doesn't fit well with scientific inquiry as we conceive it?

Let's take The Matrix. Making observations more real to people actually took them further away from reality. It perpetuated the perception; the myth.

:whistling:
Click to expand...

I think you should reread my last two posts. You are interjecting the metaphysical, which by definition can't be naturally experienced. Perceived reality is all we really have, as anything else is imaginative speculation.


People became aware in The Matrix precisely due to observation, actually, rather than just accepting their surroundings.
 
#259
#259
fl0at said:
That is an interesting thing to ponder, but I'll challenge you with this:

Would science modify any hypothesis if something supernatural presented itself? Absolutely. Therefore, I conclude that science can be changed by non-scientific process. Absent of the supernatural, however, means that science must rely on the observed natural.

My challenge to your challenge. Would science recognize something supernatural in the first place? Or would it try to fit what it "observes" into a system of natural laws and conceptions.

Put another way, it is arguable that the supernatural HAS presented itself but a bias towards "rational, scientific inquiry" has viewed it through it's prism and attempted explanation with natural laws it is more comfortable with.

I think your statement gets at my point of the "faith" of science - that is is continually self-correct and morphs to incorporate non-scientific into scientific.

That to me is a major underlying assumption of science and as therealUT pointed out - a non-falsifiable assumption in and off itself; it violates the basic tenets!

At the same time, that doesn't mean certain scientific tenants are incorrect.

An example I like to use is that if god appears today, that does not mean evolution does not also occur.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last statement completely.
 
#260
#260
volinbham said:
My challenge to your challenge. Would science recognize something supernatural in the first place? Or would it try to fit what it "observes" into a system of natural laws and conceptions.
Click to expand...

I would say that in most cases, it would be dismissed or rationalized. But if the event was so enormous, verified and repeated, science would [might/could] accept it.

I can give an example of the supernatural being:
1. arguably repeated
2. arguably verified
3. arguably enormous
4. mostly rejected

Ghosts.

The supernatural has almost no place in science. But that is not the same as saying that it cannot, one day, be incorporated.
 
#261
#261
I said "hopefully" on the improving part of science, and used "change" first for a reason. It is not an assumption that is always changes with new ideas and new information. It is an assumption that the new ideas are better or that the new information is accurate.

It is exactly like every other human construct in that regard, but as I said, with that "one less" layer of assumptions.
 
#262
#262
IPorange said:
I think you should reread my last two posts. You are interjecting the metaphysical, which by definition can't be naturally experienced. Perceived reality is all we really have, as anything else is imaginative speculation.

I don't know that it cannot be experienced - it may just not be explainable.


People became aware in The Matrix precisely due to observation, actually, rather than just accepting their surroundings.
Click to expand...

My point on the Matrix is that within the fake reality, scientists were toiling away explaining the fake world they experienced. Their natural laws and theories worked fine within that world.
 
#263
#263
Science is criticized all the time for the various things it can't explain. Did you know there is no complete explanation of how trees transport water and nutrients up their trunks? We know it has to do with adhesion and water tension, and we know that some physics limitations of those are what ultimately decide the maximum tree height of giant species like redwoods, but what we know doesn't completely explain it. There are lots of those sort of little gaps in science. Does that mean trees are supernatural?

Also, I'm not sure that science can explain everything ultimately, myself. It is quite possible (likely?) that there are things beyond any human's cognitive comprehension, either directly or through even the proxy of computing. I honestly fail to see how that means I should start assuming random deities of past historical religions are real.
 
#264
#264
volinbham said:
My point on the Matrix is that within the fake reality, scientists were toiling away explaining the fake world they experienced. Their natural laws and theories worked fine within that world.
Click to expand...

1) you're assuming that, no scientists were shown in The Matrix.

2) And so what? Were they to assume there was an all-powerful creator of the Matrix that benevolently watched out for them? That wouldn't have been true at all either. It would be silly to waste time believing in whatever fantasy was constructed to explain their world. It makes much more sense to understand how the rules of their world worked. I find their toiling away much more useful even in that setting, than chasing faeries and gods in the corners of their eye.
 
#265
#265
Of course, I am a scientist. It makes sense how I feel towards those matrix scientists and their toiling.
 
#266
#266
IPorange said:
Science is criticized all the time for the various things it can't explain. Did you know there is no complete explanation of how trees transport water and nutrients up their trunks? We know it has to do with adhesion and water tension, and we know that some physics limitations of those are what ultimately decide the maximum tree height of giant species like redwoods, but what we know doesn't completely explain it. There are lots of those sort of little gaps in science. Does that mean trees are supernatural?

Also, I'm not sure that science can explain everything ultimately, myself. It is quite possible (likely?) that there are things beyond any human's cognitive comprehension, either directly or through even the proxy of computing. I honestly fail to see how that means I should start assuming random deities of past historical religions are real.
Click to expand...

I'm not making the argument that the limits of scientific inquiry are the reason one should believe in a Creator.

I am simply stating that if one relies entirely on science inquiry to explain the origins it is highly possible they will never conclude there was/is a Creator regardless of the real truth.
 
#267
#267
volinbham said:
I am simply stating that if one relies entirely on science inquiry to explain the origins it is highly possible they will never conclude there was/is a Creator regardless of the real truth.
Click to expand...

It is actually impossible for science to ever reach the conclusion that there was not a supernatural force which spawned the first energies and particles.
 
#268
#268
therealUT said:
It is actually impossible for science to ever reach the conclusion that there was not a supernatural force which spawned the first energies and particles.
Click to expand...

Sure, assuming a linear timeline. What if time isn't linear?

And the temporal region is certainly the territory at the fringes of human abilities to comprehend that i spoke of before.
 
#270
#270
IPorange said:
Sure, assuming a linear timeline. What if time isn't linear?

And the temporal region is certainly the territory at the fringes of human abilities to comprehend that i spoke of before.
Click to expand...


isn't this just imaginative speculation (to use your term)?
 
#271
#271
Q How do you run a Unitarian out of town?

A. Burn a question mark on his lawn...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#273
#273
IPorange said:
I can't, and that would be assuming linear time. As I said, what if time isn't linear?
Click to expand...

Time is still simply an arbitrary measure of change, is it not?

From this, I deduce that you are arguing that there was, in fact, no beginning, correct?

If there was no beginning, then all energy has always existed, therefore, energy is infinite and the only thing that needs to be ultimately researched is the change and transfer of energy, yes?

Can a force that is infinite be either changed or transfered? Scientifically, this may be posited, I do not have enough scientific knowledge to know; however, this seems contrary to all Western philosophical thought since Aristotle.
 
#274
#274
Moving on, though, since I have a feeling that IPO and I will just have to agree to disagree, here follow some interesting thoughts on theism (from two theists):

Belief in God is rationally justifiable only if there are good arguments for it, and only if the arguments in favor of it are stronger than the arguments against it. Christian belief, clearly enough, is not certain for me: it is not self-evident, incorrigible, or a deliverance of the senses.

Plantinga
Click to expand...

He that believes without have any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and error. He that does not this to the best of his power, however he sometimes lights on the truth, is in the right but by chance; and I know not whether the luckiness of the accident will excuse the irregularity of his proceeding. This at least is certain, that he must be accountable for whatever mistakes he runs into: whereas he that makes use of the light and faculties God has given him, and seeks sincerely to discover truth by those helps and abilities he has, may have this satisfaction in doing his duty as a rational creature, that, though he should miss truth, he will not miss the reward of it. For he governs his assent right, and places it as he should, who, in any case or matter whatsoever, believes or disbelieves according as reason directs him. He that doth otherwise, transgresses against his own light, and misuses those faculties which were given him to no other end, but to search and follow the clearer evidence and greater probability.

Locke
Click to expand...
 
#275
#275
VOLatile said:
What exactly are you looking for?

I believe there's no proof of a god. Burden of proof also lies on the believers.
Click to expand...
So by what you said within this single sentence.... the proof lies on you since you are a "believer" that there is no proof of a god. You are saying proof is only proof if YOU can experience it in a direct and discernible way. I will posit something along that same line of reasoning... there is no proof of evolution since I have not and cannot experience it in a direct and discernible way.

That's actually the serious point here. What you are really saying is that believers must provide proof that YOU can experience without being a believer.

I believe that there should be separation of church and state, whether that's what Jefferson intended or not.
Click to expand...
I would expand that to include ALL religious presuppositions. It should be just as illegal to impose an atheistic or humanist pov as it is to impose any flavor of religion.

I believe that religion should be kept in the churches and homes.
Click to expand...

No. My worldview informed and shaped by my religious beliefs is every bit as valid and appropriate in the public square as yours derived from a humanistic, atheistic pov.

What you are effectively saying is that YOU have the right to demand that I behave according to your beliefs and keep my dissent private.... until you decide to over rule me there too.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top