Unquestioning faith **Mod Warning in final post**

antiskeptic

JayZeus wrote: »

If it helps soothe the human mind, so desperately trying to find some way to overcome the fear that accompanies the instinct for self preservation, then hang on dearly to the belief that there is a loving and forgiving god, ready to accept you in an afterlife should you look to it for acceptance, etc etc.

I believe there is nothing after death. Nothing to fear, to lose or gain. Death is the absolute end of your consciousness and in time even memories of you will die, with the end of other peoples lives and consciousness, leaving little evidence that you ever breathed air on earth. Your body will decompose and all that will remain will be your name on a stone somewhere, truly bringing to an end your very existence as a being, in any form.

Believe away lads if it gives you comfort to think that way. As long as I'm put in a box and turned into ashes with the liberal application of fire and not so much as a single person trying to pray to their mind-salve deity on my behalf it'll all be okay. I'd hate to think someone would waste their make believe play time on this old bag of bones when there are others who'd welcome your thoughts and prayers.

Yawn.

Delirium

JayZeus wrote: »

. I'd hate to think someone would waste their make believe play time on this old bag of bones when there are others who'd welcome your thoughts and prayers.

MOD NOTE

Less of the insulting/disrespectful language to other peoples beliefs.

Thanks for your attention.

Delirium

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Less of the insulting/disrespectful language to other peoples beliefs.

Thanks for your attention.

My apologies to anyone taking offense. Poor choice of words on my part, given the forum in which the discussion is taking place etc.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Argumentum ad populum, I guess that is an improvement on what you normally post...

MrP

Yes, its normally you who is engaged in the argumentum ad populum !!!:)

.........

MrPudding wrote: »

Argumentum ad populum, I guess that is an improvement on what you normally post...

MrP

Ironically using the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem instead.

robindch

......... wrote: »

Science only deals with the physical, not the non physical.

Science, by definition, resides in the domain of the observable, the predictable and the testable. The philosophy of science -
what you refer to as "non-physical" - justifies and substantiates this domain by providing, in the Philosophy of Science, a comprehensive and comprehensible epistemological and ontological framework.

But that's not the only framework - there are plenty more - some will justify a belief in christianity, some in islam, some in jainism, some in judaism and so on.

The useful and probably unique point about the scientific framework is that it has three useful attributes - simplicity, consistency and usefulness.

railer201

JayZeus wrote: »

If it helps soothe the human mind, so desperately trying to find some way to overcome the fear that accompanies the instinct for self preservation, then hang on dearly to the belief that there is a loving and forgiving god, ready to accept you in an afterlife should you look to it for acceptance, etc etc.

I believe there is nothing after death. Nothing to fear, to lose or gain. Death is the absolute end of your consciousness and in time even memories of you will die, with the end of other peoples lives and consciousness, leaving little evidence that you ever breathed air on earth. Your body will decompose and all that will remain will be your name on a stone somewhere, truly bringing to an end your very existence as a being, in any form.

Believe away lads if it gives you comfort to think that way. As long as I'm put in a box and turned into ashes with the liberal application of fire and not so much as a single person trying to pray to their mind-salve deity on my behalf it'll all be okay. I'd hate to think someone would waste their make believe play time on this old bag of bones when there are others who'd welcome your thoughts and prayers.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12118487.Former_pilot_tells_of_ghostly_meeting_with_dead_colleague/

Are you sure ? I have a questioning faith and an open mind on these matters, rather than an unquestioning faith. Based more on evidence like this I hold an opinion that most probably there is existence beyond the grave - but until the final whistle blows I won't know for sure.

Science can't tell me anything about the first three hundred million years of the 13.7 billion it took to create the universe, or how life actually began which leaves the creation story open as a possibility. When these gaps are filled then science can claim to know a lot more than it actually does now.

In the meantime why don't we as human beings, with some no doubt a lot smarter than others, such as Dawkins and Hawkings, just admit we are only scratching the surface of what is to be known about these matters ?

smacl

robindch wrote: »

The useful and probably unique point about the scientific framework is that it has three useful attributes - simplicity, consistency and usefulness.

While I agree science is unique, I don't think it is by those criteria. Simplicity, and consistency are relative terms and usefulness could be considered as providing value to any given audience. So for example, Boolean alegbra would meet those criteria, as would any philosophy which is internally consistent. What makes science unique in my view is that the assertions it holds true are based on observation, independently and objectively testable, and open to correction as new information is forthcoming. Science doesn't demand faith as the conclusions it reaches can be repeated through testing.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

simplicity, consistency and usefulness.

Simplicity for the scientists perhaps. Not so simple for the bulk of mankind who must place their faith in the scientists. There's a touch of the priesthood about it: middlemen who stand between the flock and the truth.

There is the added complication that science isn't necessarily anything like as objective and truth seeking as it congregation likes to suppose. You have, for example, big pharma financing research. With scientists being people first (prone to self interest, fear, ambition) and scientists second, there is reason not to swallow whole that which is claimed to be "science says"

I remember reading a book a few years ago which challenged the lipid hypothesis (cholesterol is bad for youv>statins> low fat this that and the other). I thought to myself: as sure as dammit, I'll be hearing on the radio a few years from how how the latest research has put a dent in this long held and scientifically well-established truth. Sure enough....


Consistent. See above. How often does research say that X is good for you only for us to read that X is bad for you in the future. You might say that this is science: self-correcting, always heading for the summit but not necessarily there yet. For the great unwashed, this impinges somewhat on science's...

Usefulness.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Science doesn't demand faith as the conclusions it reaches can be repeated through testing.

And are not infrequently overturned through testing. How useful the previous, wrong, conclusion?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

And are not infrequently overturned through testing. How useful the previous, wrong, conclusion?

Scientific truth is just our best guess based on currently available data and objective testing. It is not absolute, it is not beyond questioning, and it is subject to change.

There's a touch of the priesthood about it: middlemen who stand between the flock and the truth.

Very true, but then you have to ask is that the fault of the scientist or the priest? Could be its more a problem with blind faith regardless of where its placed, or misplaced as the case may be.

Usefulness.

We're having a conversation on a computerised bulletin board over the internet. How do you think that came about?

Steve012

A little off topic, but relevant I think.

We are rational people to a point (majority anyway) western values etc.

isis..
I remember hearing that in Raqqa, isis militants waited outside a christian church, when the children came out after making their communion (girls) in their white clothing. The militants lined them up screaming to them convert to islam now.
They didn't and I recall 30 children were beheaded right on the spot, their heads placed on their chest's.

There is something more to these people, somethings wrong. Seem's pretty damn demonic to me. And that's just one story.

Im not sure of any animals that do that, I know monkeys are pretty vicious (chimps) when taking territory, but i'd be insulting chimps by liking them to isis

Off topic rant.

smacl

Steve012 wrote: »

Im not sure of any animals that do that, I know monkeys are pretty vicious (chimps) when taking territory, but i'd be insulting chimps by liking them to isis

Mankind has a long and colourful history of extreme barbarity. ISIS is just the latest in a long list, which includes various religious group, military groups, terrorists and dictators. Not the first and most probably not the last.

Steve012

smacl wrote: »

Mankind has a long and colourful history of extreme barbarity. ISIS is just the latest in a long list, which includes various religious group, military groups, terrorists and dictators. Not the first and most probably not the last.

Yes I know about humanities uncalled for viciousness through out the centuries.
Vlad the impaler etc..but in all fairness in 2017 these scum think of the most gruesome ways of killing people.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Scientific truth is just our best guess based on currently available data and objective testing. It is not absolute, it is not beyond questioning, and it is subject to change.





Very true, but then you have to ask is that the fault of the scientist or the priest? Could be its more a problem with blind faith regardless of where its placed, or misplaced as the case may be.



We're having a conversation on a computerised bulletin board over the internet. How do you think that came about?

Robindch was talking about the uniqueness of the scientific endeavor. As a way of elevating it above other modes of truth-arrival. This uniqueness has issues.

There is no denying that science has made a tremendous impact, but it is in the eye of the beholder to decide on the totality of it's contribution: positive / negative / erroneous. There is no particular need to view science the ultimate truth-giver - other than by own subjective measure.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Robindch was talking about the uniqueness of the scientific endeavor. As a way of elevating it above other modes of truth-arrival. This uniqueness has issues.

What issues specifically?

There is no denying that science has made a tremendous impact, but it is in the eye of the beholder to decide on the totality of it's contribution: positive / negative / erroneous. There is no particular need to view science the ultimate truth-giver - other than by own subjective measure.

That we have time to even ponder these issues as we do, largely in good health with a comfortable life-style is largely a result of scientific endeavour. You might argue that the value of that is subjective, but when you consider the alternative you'd be in a small minority. Observation, experimentation and revision based on the results provided are core to any form of real world progress.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

What issues specifically?

See my post no. 70, the one you responded to initially. Science (by virtue of it's success) has come to occupy a position of infallibility in peoples minds. You might say that that's the peoples fault but it's not entirely: science's faith in itself has it pronounce in such a way as to suggest it is correct. Whereas it is only pointing where the current evidence indicates it ought to.

There is the problem of science corrupted too. Pharma financing research, for example

That we have time to even ponder these issues as we do, largely in good health with a comfortable life-style is largely a result of scientific endeavour. You might argue that the value of that is subjective, but when you consider the alternative you'd be in a small minority. Observation, experimentation and revision based on the results provided are core to any form of real world progress.

..and regress. How do you think the collapse of the financial markets (and the activities that set things up for a fall) came about? Do you think the current gross imbalance of wealth in the world has anything to do with what science has achieved.

We might be in good health with a comfortable lifestyle - the majority of folk aren't however. We also live in a time where the products of science are allowing the rape of the planets resources at unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

The majority who suppose all well in their comfortable corner of the world might not be considering anything much other than their comfort in their corner of the world. I'm not inclined towards an argument from the majority view. Trump, anyone?

.........

Anyone who thinks it's science vs faith doesn't understand one of them or both of them.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

That we have time to even ponder these issues as we do, largely in good health with a comfortable life-style is largely a result of scientific endeavour.

It's actually a combination of a whole load of factors, including scientific endeavour, politics, philosophy, economics etc.

These all helped produce a society where we have the time and freedom to discuss stuff on the internet rather than most of us working as slaves down a salt mine somewhere. And, of course, a huge proportion of the world's population is unable to ponder these issues, or to enjoy good health or a comfortable lifestyle. The fact that they are unable to do so is not because of a lack of scientific endeavour, but because their lives are screwed up by lots of other things not being right.

I'm not much of a scientist myself, but I'm very grateful for its benefits. And I I'm grateful for many other aspects of life that cooperate with, rather than compete with, science.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

And I I'm grateful for many other aspects of life that cooperate with, rather than compete with, science.

Likewise. Science certainly improves our lifestyle in some very important regards but is just part of the jigsaw. Social cohesion is also critically important, which science doesn't contribute to so much, other than giving us the time and space to think by automating so many of the manual tasks the would otherwise occupy all of our waking hours just in order to survive.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

See my post no. 70, the one you responded to initially. Science (by virtue of it's success) has come to occupy a position of infallibility in peoples minds. You might say that that's the peoples fault but it's not entirely: science's faith in itself has it pronounce in such a way as to suggest it is correct. Whereas it is only pointing where the current evidence indicates it ought to.

Science doesn't have faith though. People have faith or not, and where they place their faith is often questionable.

There is the problem of science corrupted too. Pharma financing research, for example

Not a problem with science so much as capitalism. That we as a society need ongoing scientific research into medicine is obvious. How we choose to fund it is not a scientific nor technological issue.

..and regress. How do you think the collapse of the financial markets (and the activities that set things up for a fall) came about? Do you think the current gross imbalance of wealth in the world has anything to do with what science has achieved.

We might be in good health with a comfortable lifestyle - the majority of folk aren't however. We also live in a time where the products of science are allowing the rape of the planets resources at unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

The majority who suppose all well in their comfortable corner of the world might not be considering anything much other than their comfort in their corner of the world. I'm not inclined towards an argument from the majority view. Trump, anyone?

And again, you're repeatedly laying the faults with right wing capitalist politics at the door of science. These are political issues, not scientific ones.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Science doesn't have faith though. People have faith or not, and where they place their faith is often questionable.

People are encouraged to place their faith in science by scientists. Scientists have a reason to promote themselves, their findings and products of their findings. They have bills to pay and are, like I said, people first and scientists second.

They, like anyone who has a vested interest in something, can be expected to promote the positive and suppress the problematic.

Not a problem with science so much as capitalism.

That's the Nuremberg Defence by another name. Scientists are culpable for the work they do (how best to kill people, pesticides they develop, etc). You can't detach yourself from the end product.

That we as a society need ongoing scientific research into medicine is obvious. How we choose to fund it is not a scientific nor technological issue.

It is when the scientists that are involved permit their independence to be diluted/corrupted by the hand that feeds. These are choices individuals make and individuals are responsible for the choices that they make.

And again, you're repeatedly laying the faults with right wing capitalist politics at the door of science. These are political issues, not scientific ones.

See above. It might well be that politics has allowed pharma into the driving seat - but individual scientists make choices for which they are responsible.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is when the scientists that are involved permit their independence to be diluted/corrupted by the hand that feeds.

Has it ever occurred to you that we are the hand that feeds? Have you ever received an anti-biotic? Have you ever taken a pain killer? Do you use a smart phone? Have you ever eaten a Golden delicious apple? Do you use the internet? Do you have electricity in your home?

The answer is of course yes to most if not all of these things, and this complicity extends to for every other point you raise. Easy to point an accusatory finger at others for all the woes of the first world and third world, but which of us is less guilty than the scientists you're so keen to vilify and which us has done as much to improve our lot?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Has it ever occurred to you that we are the hand that feeds? Have you ever received an anti-biotic? Have you ever taken a pain killer? Do you use a smart phone? Have you ever eaten a Golden delicious apple? Do you use the internet? Do you have electricity in your home?

I was pointing out a problem (because you asked for one). Big Pharma doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that taking into own pocket one of the potential stumbling blocks to creating more wealth for itself (rather shareholders) is a sensible thing to do.

Are you content that's a problem .. or do you figure corporate world a bunch of Florence Nightengales in suits?

Easy to point an accusatory finger at others for all the woes of the first world and third world, but which of us is less guilty than the scientists you're so keen to vilify and which us has done as much to improve our lot?

I'm not vilifying science or scientists. I've pointed out that scientists are people first and scientists second. Just like me and you. Which means problems must and do exist with the notion that science is some neutral agent steered along for better or worse by others.

smacl

Again your pointing the accusatory finger at science for the faults of commerce and big business. Why? Big business lacks scruples. Big business benefits from its investment in science and unfairly profits from the poor as a result. This is not a fault with the scientists, it is a shortcoming with our society for not investing in science such that all of society benefits from the results. That we allow big business to dominate us is our weakness and ours alone. We really need to stop pandering to large and powerful monolithic organisations of all sorts.

EirWatchr

Scientific study seeks to perfect our understanding of the natural universe, while at the same time we are forced by human reality to acknowledge that there is imperfection.

Where do our notions come from then, that some things in our universe (- especially in our own human nature & society -) are not perfect, or that we have a role in bringing creation closer to that perfection?

Historically, to understand these things, we've had to revert also to philosophical and religious study in order to progress as a society and as individuals. Modern scientism is only the present-day incarnation of just one (of many) bounded philosophical schools of thought - materialism - which existed in its earliest form at the same time the book of genesis was being written.

It does a huge disservice to the past generational intellectual struggles of mankind, and impoverishes our present generation, to exalt just one strand of the entire body of human experience (and in some extreme instances, to deify it), to the exclusion of others.

smacl

EirWatchr wrote: »

It does a huge disservice to the past generational intellectual struggles of mankind, and impoverishes our present generation, to exalt just one strand of the entire body of human experience (and in some extreme instances, to deify it), to the exclusion of others.

You might want to point out where that's being done on this thread, and whether it is reference to science or religion.

NeitherJohn

smacl wrote: »

Again your pointing the accusatory finger at science for the faults of commerce and big business. Why? Big business lacks scruples. Big business benefits from its investment in science and unfairly profits from the poor as a result. This is not a fault with the scientists, it is a shortcoming with our society for not investing in science such that all of society benefits from the results. That we allow big business to dominate us is our weakness and ours alone. We really need to stop pandering to large and powerful monolithic organisations of all sorts.

Doesn't big religion benefit from church plate collections and the like? Doesn't it unfairly profit?

homer911

NeitherJohn wrote: »

Doesn't big religion benefit from church plate collections and the like? Doesn't it unfairly profit?

Sounds like a topic for a whole thread in its own right!

smacl

NeitherJohn wrote: »

Doesn't big religion benefit from church plate collections and the like? Doesn't it unfairly profit?

Given reported mass attendance, I don't reckon too many parish priests will be living the high life from what they get from the collection plate. Large multi-national religious charities being handed publicly funded maternity hospitals on the other hand....