Science and Faith

This forum is for members to discuss topics that do not relate to anime music videos.

Postby badmartialarts » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:05 pm

requiett wrote:If God is the ultimate scientist, and we are his experiment, then, like any good scientist, he wouldn't interfere with it until it's reached the predictable outcome.


I've actually always like the alchemical notion that God is purifying mankind to perfection, and occasionally steps in to add a pinch of brimstone or a dram of mercury or something, trying to change us from lead into gold. Right now were just in a calcining step or something. :/

Of course, that's a very Western view of things, that mankind in by nature evil and needs outside help to become good. Eastern teachings are the exact reverse, that mankind is born pure and the outside world corrupts us and brings us down. And HK-47 teaches us that we are all organic meatbags. :)
Life's short.
eBayhard.
User avatar
badmartialarts
Bad Martial Artist
 
Joined: 25 Oct 2003
Location: In ur Kitchen Stadium, eatin ur peppurz

Postby Kalium » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:09 pm

requiett wrote:If God is the ultimate scientist, and we are his experiment, then, like any good scientist, he wouldn't interfere with it until it's reached the predictable outcome.

That's sophistry, not an argument.

Oh, and the burden of proof is always on the positive. That is to say the logical assumption must be atheistic, and the burden of proof is to prove the theistic.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby requiett » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:11 pm

I notice when people tend to drift too far into one view, they become know-it-all assholes, and everything becomes a justification for their means. College professors and Spanish inquisitors have alot more in common than most people realize.

Personally, I think it takes alot more faith to think that a well-organized existence sprang out of chaos and nothingness than to say there is some intelligent design involved.
User avatar
requiett
 
Joined: 12 May 2003
Location: Alaska

Postby Kalium » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:18 pm

requiett wrote:Personally, I think it takes alot more faith to think that a well-organized existence sprang out of chaos and nothingness than to say there is some intelligent design involved.

That's nice, but faith is not evidence. Occam's razor is a useful logical tool, though, and it dictates that the larger the unknown, the less probable it is. An omnipotent and omniscient is pretty much the largest unknown possible.

Also, implying that I'm nuts or similar for having strong views will get you nowhere.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby requiett » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:19 pm

Kalium wrote:Oh, and the burden of proof is always on the positive. That is to say the logical assumption must be atheistic, and the burden of proof is to prove the theistic.

Why is that so? Have we come any closer to proving that God doesn't exist rather than him not existing? This view you present is very "Age of Enlightnment" era, which is obsolete and outdated. Science was used as a tool of freeing us from the tyranny of church as government, not freeing us from the belief in God.
User avatar
requiett
 
Joined: 12 May 2003
Location: Alaska

Postby Otohiko » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:22 pm

Likewise, I don't see why there needs to be a presupposition of chaos, or rather of a chaos that needed interference to be organized. I think organization, perfection and at the same time change are just manifestations of universal constants/variables. In other words, why does there have to be a presupposition of interference?

I find that a lot of it boils down to the 'greatness of human being', not sure if it does in this case, but I personally don't see this as either unexpected or even inherently unlikely. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that being in the human sense is the result of semi-accidental (rather, probabilistic) variation.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Kalium » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:23 pm

requiett wrote:
Kalium wrote:Oh, and the burden of proof is always on the positive. That is to say the logical assumption must be atheistic, and the burden of proof is to prove the theistic.

Why is that so? Have we come any closer to proving that God doesn't exist rather than him not existing? This view you present is very "Age of Enlightnment" era, which is obsolete and outdated. Science was used as a tool of freeing us from the tyranny of church as government, not freeing us from the belief in God.

It's called "formal logic", req. It's how formal logic works. The presumption is always in the negative, and the burden of the proof always rests on the positive.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby Otohiko » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:23 pm

requiett wrote:Why is that so? Have we come any closer to proving that God doesn't exist rather than him not existing? This view you present is very "Age of Enlightnment" era, which is obsolete and outdated. Science was used as a tool of freeing us from the tyranny of church as government, not freeing us from the belief in God.


Alright, here we are. The usual "burden of proof" argument.

It doesn't work. Absence is unmarked. Presence is marked. There is no burden of proof on the unmarked position.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby requiett » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:27 pm

The dictionary defintes faith as such:

faith /feɪθ/
–noun

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

If I am correct, what you are implying, Kalium, is that we are better off, as a society, without faith in a supreme deity. You presented this case to us here today, so the burden of proof lies with you. Prove to us that we are better off without the concept of God.
User avatar
requiett
 
Joined: 12 May 2003
Location: Alaska

Postby Kalium » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:43 pm

Think of all the time and money thrown at religion. All of that could be used for more socially or economically productive purposes.

Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

Proof? Hardly, but demonstrations of not insignificant consequence.

Largely what I am implying is that we are better off without faith being used to justify claims about objective reality. Having faith will not stop a rock falling, and it will not stop fossils from existing.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby Otohiko » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:45 pm

There is a simple proof. Where does our view fail to account for the world as it actually (as we know it) is? There are no systematic presuppositions made other than the existence of logic & (relative) order and the position is entirely flexible in the face of new variables and evidence. On the other hand the religious position makes a systematic presupposition (of a specific and presumably definable factor's presence in the system) and which has (so far in this particular discussion) presented a position that is unclear as regards to logic, presents no evidence and relies on a dangerously projectable constant (that is, a constant that on faith could be imposed as a projection of a social construct).

Stop using this argument. It's annoying.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby requiett » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:49 pm

Kalium wrote:Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

May I ask what socially and ecomically viable purposes NASA and Hadron colliders serve?
User avatar
requiett
 
Joined: 12 May 2003
Location: Alaska

Postby Kalium » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:53 pm

requiett wrote:
Kalium wrote:Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

May I ask what socially and ecomically viable purposes NASA and Hadron colliders serve?

Science is economically viable. Quite a bit of pure research eventually has applications. Just because you cannot immediately see them does not render them impossible or non-existent.

Besides, someone (a lot of someones, really) gets paid to build that stuff.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby Otohiko » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:55 pm

That's a pretty buttheaded argument to make. Aside from NASA's obvious relevance to military-related research, the contributions they have made to anything from physics (which translates into both actual and potential applications - our technology is built on our knowledge of the laws of physics, you know) to experimental biology (producing modified seeds in space) to concrete work with manufacturing applications (e.g. experiments with high-definition lasers in vacuum conditions), I think they've been very useful.
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

Postby Otohiko » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:56 pm

And let's not forget that the internets you're sitting on is in large part thanks to satellite technology permitted by the space program :roll:
Otohiko
 
Joined: 05 May 2003

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests