On 19/01/2014 11:33 AM, Warp wrote:
> And naturally "God" is never something like Brahma or Allah, or an entity
> completely unknown to us. Of course it's always the God of the Bible.
> What else?

Interesting fact: I don't know if God exists, but the Christian Holy 
Bible definitely *does* exist. It's a real thing. It's reportedly the 
most printed book in history.

If you ignore all the superstitious nonsense and focus on how this piece 
of literature came into being... actually kinda interesting. I wander if 
all those self-righteous "the Bible is inerrant" white folks out there 
actually know they're reading an Iraqi tribal myth that's been edited 
and redacted for other a thousand years?

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 11:07, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> Seriously? They made it illegal to teach people evolution? For 40 years??
>>
>> Huh. Well, I suppose that explains it all then... o_O
>
> Suddenly, the sceptical reporter's astonished mutterings of "why have we
> never heard about any of this before?" take on a whole different tone...
>
> I guess if you haven't *seen* the vast swathes of evidence, it's easy to
> believe the (commonly repeated) claims that none exists.

Exactly my thought.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 11:10, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> If you want to believe that God exists, sure, you can do that. But if
> you want to claim that this is a scientifically verified fact... erm,
> no. No it is not. Get lost!
>
> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.

Erm... no, not really.

I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a 
manner that allows for reliable predictions.

There is only one branch of science that deals with stuff that can be 
proven, and that's mathematics. Even that one relies on axioms that may, 
or may not, be actually true.

In all other branches, proof can never be achieved. Disproof may, however.

> God may
> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
> the question is outside the remit of science.

Fully agree on that one.

In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't 
prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter 
doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of 
scripture on this matter.)

> And another thing. Every time somebody stands up and defends evolution,
> they start receiving death threats. When was the last time a good honest
> Christian received death threats from the scientists for daring to teach
> Genesis?

:-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a 
> manner that allows for reliable predictions.

Perhaps the ultimate goal if science, besides allowing us to understand
how the universe works, is practical applications. As the adage goes,
"science works, b****". That's not just a joke.

On the other hand, it's hard to find any practical applications of
creationism.

A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind, one of the most famous
creationists, and he listed lots of *practical* applications of
understanding evolution (including things like understanding how
evolution works has allowed us to develop the techniques that can be
used for eg. tracing where certain pathogens originate, how closely
linked they are, and so on.) He asked Hoving what would be the practical
applications of creationism.

Hoving responded that it allows us to teach children how living beings
are divided into kinds and so on and so for. Yes, he literallly, although
mostly inadvertently, argued that the advantage of creationism is that we
can teach children about creationism.

The circularity of this argument was just baffling.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>
> Erm... no, not really.
>
> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
> manner that allows for reliable predictions.

Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

> There is only one branch of science that deals with stuff that can be
> proven, and that's mathematics. Even that one relies on axioms that may,
> or may not, be actually true.
>
> In all other branches, proof can never be achieved. Disproof may, however.

It is the study of things which can be objectively determined to be true 
or false (as opposed to whoever shouts the loudest in an argument).

I would say "things which can be experimentally verified or refuted", 
except... how the **** do you do an experiment to verify the negative 
curvature of intergalactic space?

Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has 
immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of 
impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research... 
but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet. 
Until that happens, it is no more scientific than Creationism.

The difference, of course, is that String Theory has the potential that 
some day it *may* make such a prediction. And if that day comes, it will 
be science. Creationism is unlikely to ever make such a prediction.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 09:29, schrieb Warp:

> It seems to be a lost battle to try to explain to people that "atheism"
> is not a movement, a world view, a set of dogmas, or anything, really.
...
> I'd even go so far as to say that theism isn't a world view either,
> and for the exact same reason: It deals with the same question and does
> not imply anything else beyond that.

While you have a point there, you're wrong in your conclusion.

Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.


If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
simply can't know for sure.

Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.


It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic 
views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 14:33, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

Cross-examination, your honor.

Mr. Quantum dynamics, did you, or did you not, as early as 1924-25, lead 
Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein to the prediction of a 
previously unknown state of matter, now known as Bose-Einstein-concensate?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been proposed by Fritz London in 1938 as an explanation for both 
superfluidity in Helium as well as superconductivity?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been confirmed experimentally, no sooner than 1995, 70 years after it 
was first predicted?

No further questions, your honor.


> Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has
> immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

No, that's what Warp's definition invokes. Prediction is a 
/prerequisite/ for real-world application, but it can well come without.


> A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of
> impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research...
> but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet.

See? You're invoking the "prediction" thing yourself here. And as for 
the "reliable", I think that's pretty much congruent to "testable".

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.

> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
> simply can't know for sure.

You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Many people think that we have a wide spectrum of belief, with theism
and atheism being on the extremes and agnosticism being right in the
middle. However, that's not what the concepts mean at all.

Theism/atheism is a true dichotomy that deals with one question: Do you
believe in the existence of a god?

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
agnostic view is that it is not.

These two things are independent and not mutually exclusive. All four
combinations are possible and sensible:

A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
(or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)

An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.

A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
more or less what "strong atheism" means.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
assert it with certainty.

People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

The term "atheism" in common parlance carries with itself a ton of baggage
that it shouldn't really have. People immediately think of *strong* atheism
(even though the word doesn't carry that implication), in addition to all
kinds of other views, such as naturalism, skepticism, anti-religious
sentiments and so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>> God may
>> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
>> the question is outside the remit of science.
>
> Fully agree on that one.
>
> In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't
> prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter
> doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of
> scripture on this matter.)
>
I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable 
something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is 
invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always, 
later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the 
time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 
The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming, 
when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is 
that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious 
believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god" 
involved spectacularly fails them.

So, no. The one people actually follow, actual practice their religion 
at, and actually believe in, when not trying to wiggle out of it, "is" 
testable using the scientific method. Its just the ones that don't, 
don't appear to, or don't currently, do anything, at all, that are 
"untestable". And, no one actually follows those.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>
I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about. 
Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you 
know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty, 
even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't 
suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there 
being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B). 
Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all, 
god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message