Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why isn't ISS exclusively atheistic in outlook?
-
23-05-2005 12:31pm#1Please forgive me if I'm resurrecting a dead issue with this one, but........
I've only just joined ISS [nice to meeet you all
] and haven't heard the arguments for or against on this point (except the little blurb on the website). I would have thought that an organisation that holds science and rationality in such high esteem would have atheism as its default position.
I think the nice clear divide that the website places between the material "(the realm of science)" and non-material world doesn't actually exist.
Is it that ISS have more pressing (and admittedly, very important) fish to fry, where being openly atheistic hinders those agendas with the public? Or is there an ideological reason for not taking a position?
Are there many theists in ISS?0
Comments
-
-
-
Hi Robin. When you say outright atheist I take it you mean dogmatic atheism (which I wouldn’t subscribe to). I don’t think any sceptic worthy of the name can justifiably hold any dogmatic belief, since surely dogmatism and scepticism are oxymoronic (if that’s a word
). KCF makes this point too, I think.
But I don’t believe non-dogmatic atheism is as logically indefensible a position as (outright) theism [do we need the ‘outright’ there?]. Neither do I believe it to be a faith position; at least not in the way it is for theists. We do not always need faith to bridge the gap between proof and belief and a lack of absolute proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief, since we can still have overwhelming evidence for one explanation over another. Science using abduction, I believe, would suggest that the best explanation would be atheism, naturally to be review in light of substantive new evidence. So on this matter I’m closer to KCF’s position when he says atheism should naturally be the “'working assumption' of anybody with a skeptical outlook”.
On this basis, I do feel that the “Are Skeptics Anti-Religious?” section of the ISS website is a bit disingenuous. Since we are ………… really. I also think atheism should be honourably mentioned within the section, not as an article of faith but as a working assumption. Anyway……atheism, agnosticism and theism, by themselves, are really non-issuesI do agree that there is no point at all in focusing on beliefs about unknowable things. It is much more important to address the practices that stem from these beliefs
I’m reassured that you both catalogue god in terms of evidence in the same bracket as the Easter bunny, orbiting teapots and their ilk. But I would like to make a case for the special treatment of god.
Firstly, I concede that the more urgent side of the religious debate is the one centred on people’s behaviour, particularly with the rise of state religious fundamentalism (not just in the US either
).
The reason belief in a god is special is that god uniquely gives “meaning” to things. Few people look up at the stars or down a microscope and are awe struck by the greatness of the Easter bunny. God gives meaning (perhaps purpose is a better word), he gives absolutes, and he gives permanents. It is this ‘meaning’ that is the lynchpin of irrational extrapolation to the weird and wonderful beliefs that a lot of people base their more erroneous behaviour on.
We see how the large organised religious churches in the west are shrinking but not the belief in god. Some of the most vicious attacks on Darwinism come from people who are willing to accept the science but not the lack of a god director that it implies, hence ‘intelligent design’. People seem to “need” for things to have meaning, perhaps because we ARE rational rather than not (or perhaps because of human arrogance – “life can’t be an accident”). Even scientists are not immune to this “need”; take Prof. Reveille in the Irish times as a prime example :mad: .
I, however, firmly (but not dogmatically) believe that science via evolution and the like shows the purposelessness of life. It is not until we come to terms with this fact and realise we must give life our own meanings that significant progress on a lot social/political fronts can be made. (Not that it’s a pre-requisite for improvement on any of these fronts.)
In the long run I think the cause of scepticism will be futile (over stating it perhaps
) if people aren’t weaned off the “need” to have an external meaning to existence. A big ask, I know. But if people no longer look outside for meaning the rational endeavour has a chance.
Basically, I believe god forms too big a foundation to irrational beliefs to be regarded in the same league as the Easter bunny or to be just ignored. I wouldn’t be interested in replacing the bread-and-butter stuff of ISS with an atheist campaign, but the “specialness” of the issue should be acknowledged.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
ISAW: you were replying to my first posting only not the second where I think I laid out some of the case against religious belief, so I think you’re a little wide of the mark here.
Anyway, in response to your post…..
In the face of scientific reason the best religion can do, when it does not turn to fundamentalism, is reinterpret its scripture in allegorical terms and hide behind the claim that religious truths cannot be understood by mere humanity. Is that what you mean by high esteem for science?ISAW
The Roamn church holds science in high esteem and has adopted Greek rationality
Religion proclaims absolute incontrovertible truths that hold for all eternity – god exists and is good. Science uses verifiable evidence and dogma-free rational thought to inform its view of the world. Religion imposes limits on thought and comes in many different incompatible flavours. Science is consistent, self-correcting and will re-evaluate any theory in the presence of new evidence. Science says that no matter how much Latin you talk to it, bread does not turn into flesh and no one, regrettably, rises from the dead. AND as stated above science suggests there is no grand meaning behind it all. (Not views that the RC church holds in high esteem now are they?) If I may, let me accuse the church of being strictly à la Carte about science, despite their justified abhorrence of the practice. (If you don’t share the churches main (irrational) beliefs you ain’t Catholic/Muslim/Jewish etc.)ISAW
many centuries ago via Thomas Acquinas.
Re: Tom A(c)quinas, wasn’t he the philosopher who got it wrong, just like; Boethius, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Plato, ……. Philosophy may be your strong point so don’t get me wrong, it has its role, but without science it can’t tell us very little about the nature of reality. Without science philosophy is bubble-gum for the brain or good pub conversation. (Perhaps I’m prejudice because I’m more in the “philosophers only interpret the world; the point is to change it” vein. )ISAW
see where scientism leads you?
You seem to want to bracket me into scientism. I don’t think I belong in the bracket but I’d need to hear what you mean by “scientism”. I would even argue that science is anti-scientism since it has no starting absolutes, no article of faith; all of it can be questioned and tested. It is a dogma free meritocracy! I also think there is a distinct case that can be made for rationale enquiry (the unpinning of science) being used in all areas, history, sociology, etc (I think most areas do use it, despite the near past post-modern fad). Of course the counter argument to this is that mice don’t wear trousers and motorbikes don’t have windows.
I think science has proved itself (and goes on proving itself). It’s proved itself the most successful way of gleaming reliable knowledge about the world. It is unique in this endeavour. It has made any philosophy that is not consistent with it nonsense. If you do not accept the unique relationship that science has to truth about the universe (albeit an incomplete, inaccurate one) then I see little benefit in debating these points with you. (If you really don’t accept this relationship then there are better sources than me to help enlighten you AND what are you doing in the ISS? (Or is it what am I doing in the ISS?!)ISAW
IO man what exactly is a photon?
Well a photon, off the top of my head, is ........a quantum of light energy that is emitted when an electron transition occurs from a higher to a lower energy level. The photon emitted will have a fixed measurable frequency for that transition, which determines the colour of the light (a fact that forms the basis of a large amount of analytical chemistry (spectroscopy) and also of astronomy, lasers, LEDs etc.).
In vision photons are reflected off an object after emission from a light bulb say and enter the eye where photosensitive cells detect them and allow our brain to “see” said object. No light = no photons = no vision. Of course if you have a better theory on the matter I’d be happy to hear it. Maybe you should even publish it in a refereed journal and we can all compare. Until then, since atoms and photon have been detected and conform well to the rest of the vast body of scientific knowledge I’m happy to take it on face value that they, or something with their properties and behaviours, exist.
You being sceptical of the existence of atoms, photon etc leads me to ask about the level of scepticism you apply to the world. When you sit down aren’t you concerned that the “atoms” in the chair will change the attitude they have had to your arse up ‘til now and will let it pass straight through? Do you suspect that someday your computer will turn into cabbage? I saw you somewhere quoting the laws of physics so I take it you don’t.
Is it a heresy to say, as a sceptic, that there is an objective physical reality?ISAW
Or have you seen a representation of one?
Are you implying science is just one of many equal “representations” of reality? Please tell me you aren’t.
*I’ve gone off message with all that. Back to religion. Can it be benign?*
IMHO it is dogmatism that leads to moral contradictions, once you accept something as sacrosanct everything else must bend to that. How can you argue morals with someone who says, “Because the Bible/Koran/Torah says so!” or “It is the will of God/Allah!”? Science has through history aligned itself with the forces of progress and enlightenment, both in interpreting the natural world and in understanding social issues, and has led the way out of darkness. (A grandiose statement perhaps, but I believe an accurate one.)
*Sorry these posts are so bloody long! I’ll try keep’em shorter from now on and let other people have a go.*0 -
-
-
Yossie wrote:
In the face of scientific reason the best religion can do, when it does not turn to fundamentalism, is reinterpret its scripture in allegorical terms and hide behind the claim that religious truths cannot be understood by mere humanity. Is that what you mean by high esteem for science?
You are setting up a false dichotomy. Science is not something that "faces off" with religion. Indeed, as I pointed out, one can argue that the "reason" of science is no different form the reason of religion.Religion proclaims absolute incontrovertible truths that hold for all eternity
In a way it doesn't. Take the geocentric theory. Does science hold some things absolute? That matter exists? (or a mass energy constant?) Does not science holds absolute truths?god exists and is good.
some religions e.g. Buddism do not attest to the existance of God. Others do not hold that a God need be good. So all religions can not be tarred with your broad brushstrokes.Science uses verifiable evidence and dogma-free rational thought to inform its view of the world. Religion imposes limits on thought and comes in many different incompatible flavours.
Science is dogma free? How about existence of space and time? postulates of relativity? principles of cosmology? homogenity or isotropy? Science only moves from these in revolutions. I refer here to the "scientific revolutions" which Kuhn's philosophy refers to. Have you read "the Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? It is worth a read. Analogous theological and political constructs in the Church changed in the Reformation and counter Reformation.
Religion also uses evidence. It is ultimately based on faith but how are you so sure science is not? Furthermore religion can not repeat events to do with say Jesus because the person is not around. In another way religious can argue that he is continually around in spirit and physically in a religious service like communion.Science is consistent, self-correcting and will re-evaluate any theory in the presence of new evidence.
and Rome re-evaluating the Sun being at the centre was not so? Remember galileo's problem did not originate with the Church but with the peripathetic academics of the day!Science says that no matter how much Latin you talk to it, bread does not turn into flesh and no one, regrettably, rises from the dead.
Nor does religion! Transubstanciation is not accepted by Protestants and
vernacular is common since the Reformation and in the roman church since Vatican II. Anyway isn't that a form of "re-evaluate any theory in the presence of new evidence"?AND as stated above science suggests there is no grand meaning behind it all.
Say you! There are those who do insist there are Grand Unified Theories. Isnt the insistance on GUT's a dogmatic position? after all there is only theory there and we havent measured what is suggested since we havent got particle accelerators capable of those energies. And before you say that we havent got them "yet" while we can build some e.g. the LHC coming on line we can not reach the energies of the early Universe. The current status is taken on fairt based on what we see now.
Furthermore the idea that "over the next hill or round the next bend science has the answer" to all our problems and religion economics morality law etc. can be laughed at is to me a form of scientism.
And to suggest that science insists everything is ultimatley meaningless requires some evidence on your part.(Not views that the RC church holds in high esteem now are they?)
Well the Church are quite adept in their knowledge of these issues. If you have a problem about there being some profound contradiction I suggest you contact the Vatican Observatory and I am sure some Astronomer who also is a cleric will put you right. The RC Church have held rationality in very high esteem. Have you ever read the philosophies of Wotila before he became Pope? If you want a more philosophical basis you might try Ratsinger form say about 15 years ago.
One can not look at Berkeley Hume and other Churchmen and claim their rationality was not held in esteem.If I may, let me accuse the church of being strictly a la Carte about science, despite their justified abhorrence of the practice.
Please tell me a field in science that a churchman did not practice in and please show how the Church abhorred that field. then you can move on to trying to prove your unsupported general point that any Church abhorred science.(If you dont share the churches main (irrational) beliefs you aint Catholic/Muslim/Jewish etc.)
And if you dont share the laws of thermodynamics and the cosmological principle what sort of a physicist are you? I would suggest a "heretic" physicist i.e. a crackpot. Ironically many clerical scientists oppose crackpots.Re: Tom A(c)quinas, wasn+//0-t he the philosopher who got it wrong, just like; Boethius, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Plato, +//3//Q-.
I don't know what you mean. what did he spicifically get wrong that you are referring to? Remember by the way that a world run by scientists, a scientocracy, would be a very sad place. And Acquinas also wrote about natural law and other things (see the Natural Law thread for a discussion of that) and not just about what we regard as science today. By the way Mendle Newton and others "got things wrong" in an imperical scientific sense but I don't understand your absolutist view that there is somehow a "right" view. have you not already suggested that science is only an approximate view which is corrected and revised as time goes on? Otherwise it is you who are being either contradictory or dogmatic in you suggestion that science can say someone "got it wrong" i.e. that "science is right".Philosophy may be your strong point so dont get me wrong, it has its role, but without science it cant tell us very little about the nature of reality.
You are missing the point. It is that science itself has a philosophy onuerlying it! One could even argue sever philosophies. It is not so absolutley certain and consistent as you seem to imagine. And parts of it are based on faith.Without science philosophy is bubble-gum for the brain or good pub conversation. (Perhaps Im prejudice because Im more in the philosophers only interpret the world; the point is to change it vein. )
Your quote from Marx Theses on Feuerbach, whose humanistic re-interpretation of Christianity in his book The Essence of Christianity had a big influence on the young Marx is quite telling.
One might go so far as to say that the young Marx's views on alienation, and on the pursuit of money and materialism have a strong religious undercurrent.
But Marx's wasn't saying that philosophers should change the world as opposed to trying to interpret it
Possibly no academic philosopher ever desired more desperately not merely to interpret the world, but to change it.
I would suggest you point to me one great scientists who was not a philosopher.You seem to want to bracket me into scientism. I dont think I belong in the bracket but I+//0-d need to hear what you mean by "scientism".
the skeptic dictionary would say that Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.
In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter. This view is summed up nicely by Michael Shermer.
I was pointing in the dogmatic society run by scientists model.
I think science has proved itself (and goes on proving itself). It+//0-s proved itself the most successful way of gleaming reliable knowledge about the world.
Yes. And so what? Is it sufficient? don't scientists have to consider ethics morality and other issues not determined by science?It has made any philosophy that is not consistent with it nonsense. If you do not accept the unique relationship that science has to truth about the universe (albeit an incomplete, inaccurate one) then I see little benefit in debating these points with you. (If you really don+//0-t accept this relationship then there are better sources than me to help enlighten you AND what are you doing in the ISS? (Or is it what am I doing in the ISS?!)
I made this point at the founding meeting of ISS. It is the false dichotomy I referred to above. Religion is not opposed to science! I won't be drawn into a philosophical debate on what the truth is. there are different kinds of truth. Religion can respect how the Universe works as can societies. they can accept the best way to describe things are devised by science but that does not detract from the value of economics, law , religion etc.Well a photon, off the top of my head, is ........a quantum of light energy that is emitted ....
Just as the Bohr model of the atom explained all electromagnetism up to that point? But it wasn't correct was it? What is this "quantum of light energy"?
Even Einstein couldn't say. Why do these packets of energy behave like waves in Young's slits when you can actually count the particles and see where they are going?
continued next post0 -
... Maybe you should even publish it in a refereed journal and we can all compare. Until then, since atoms and photon have been detected and conform well to the rest of the vast body of scientific knowledge I+//0-m happy to take it on face value that they, or something with their properties and behaviours, exist.
I am not suggesting that reality does not exist. that is a philosophical argument. I do not doubt something is really there. But while the description is adaquate for the need to explain how we create technologies it is not logical and defies such simplistic definitions as you imagine. many many papers already exist on this topic Bohm, Aspect and others have produced results that defy current reasoning and explainations of reality.You being sceptical of the existence of atoms, photon etc leads me to ask about the level of scepticism you apply to the world. When you sit down aren+//0-t you concerned that the +//0-atoms+//0- in the chair will change the attitude they have had to your arse up +//0-til now and will let it pass straight through? Do you suspect that someday your computer will turn into cabbage? I saw you somewhere quoting the laws of physics so I take it you don+//0-t.
I won't get into personal insults and personal attacks. I asked you a question about your certainty in a single underlying philosophy of science. "Up your arse," is not a rational reply in my book.Is it a heresy to say, as a sceptic, that there is an objective physical reality?
i dealt with this above. I was not claiming there was not such a reality. Many scientists would disagree with me and say there is NO such reality. I was not claiming the world does not exiat. I was asking you how you are so certain of your model of the world and how you think this applies to all science. Matter of fact you are now embarking (again) on the very "we have the model" dogma which you accused the Church of doing.Are you implying science is just one of many equal +//0-representations+//0- of reality? Please tell me you aren+//0-t.
I am not. My last comment shows what I am asking you.*I+//0-ve gone off message with all that. Back to religion. Can it be benign?*
See above to a reply i.e. not ALL religions are.IMHO it is dogmatism that leads to moral contradictions, once you accept something as sacrosanct everything else must bend to that. How can you argue morals with someone who says, +//0-Because the Bible/Koran/Torah says so!+//0- or +//0-It is the will of God/Allah!+//0-? Science has through history aligned itself with the forces of progress and enlightenment, both in interpreting the natural world and in understanding social issues, and has led the way out of darkness. (A grandiose statement perhaps, but I believe an accurate one.)
But you believe that the mass energy of the Universe is constant? that is a recent idea. Do you believe it? AS to social issues how does science inform you whether abortion is wrong or whether ownership of property is fair?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Hi ISAW. Just want to resolve one quick issue.
Re the
[“You being sceptical of the existence of atoms, photon etc leads me to ask about the level of scepticism you apply to the world. When you sit down aren’t you concerned that the “atoms” in the chair will change the attitude they have had to your arse up ‘til now and will let it pass straight through? Do you suspect that someday your computer will turn into cabbage? I saw you somewhere quoting the laws of physics so I take it you don’t.]
remark.
And theISAW
I won't get into personal insults and personal attacks. I asked you a question about your certainty in a single underlying philosophy of science. "Up your arse," is not a rational reply in my book.
In short, I was attempting to make a joke. The smiley face was supposed to imply that. I had thought from your earlier reference to me as “IO man” (since corrected) that we were working closer to the vernacular than we actually were.
I think, having reread my comments, that you might be just a little thin skinned about it, since I don’t think I came close to saying “up your arse” - as you stated.
Having said that, can I take this opportunity to say that I did not, and still don’t, want to insult you. I’m sorry if it read to you, or anybody else as a personal insult/attack. It honestly was just an attempt at some comic relief; perhaps a poor attempt. I’ll be more careful in future. (Tone is something I find it hard to convey in text and I’m v. unfamiliar with posting etiquette.)
Busy day, so responses to the rest of your post to follow
All the best,
Yossie
PS We’ll have to give up on writing these epics.0 -
Then try J. Peerman Nesselrod's book 'Clinical proctology' , available from Amazon.com.ISAW wrote:"Up your arse," is not a rational reply in my book.
(Sorry ISAW, couldn't resist it! )
Fascinating thread so far, keep up the good work!0 -
Yossie wrote:Hi ISAW. Just want to resolve one quick issue.
Re the
When you sit down aren’t you concerned that the “atoms” in the chair will change the attitude they have had to your arse up ‘til now and will let it pass straight through?
Didnt see the joke. I see what you meant now but humor isnt funny third time around whan you analyse it is it?Do you suspect that someday your computer will turn into cabbage? I saw you somewhere quoting the laws of physics so I take it you don’t[/I].]
Ironically, I made a comment similar to the above. I think it was here or in paranormal forum. the point was made by Randi when he spoke in the RDS. He asked all the people who had checked his seat to raise their hands. Nobody did. His point was that we dont check everything nor do we have to. WE assume the chair will be okay and skepticism does not mean having to verify everything we see and checking every peer review journal artical is actually is the original (though mind you if doing reasearch one should actually find the primary source ir repeat the experiment). Oddly I DID check my seat before I sat down!I think, having reread my comments, that you might be just a little thin skinned about it, since I don’t think I came close to saying “up your arse” - as you stated.
see! SEE! hes doing it again!Having said that, can I take this opportunity to say ...
forget it. I probably took you up wrong. I probably should have paid more attention.
I was also going to continue this but my chair just collapsed so I am also busy elsewhere. Now where is that rubber glove?0 -
-
-
-
*Be warned: When I said the last time that I was going to keep it short - I lied *
I think to a certain degree ISAW you are nitpicking around some of my arguments :cool: .
In response to your nitpick about transubstantiation - Catholicism is the religion I’m most familiar with, hence my habit of assuming I’m arguing against it, but my main points still stand.
My central (and in your view overly simplistic) thesis is that atheism is superior to theism (and agnosticism). From what I can see (if I understand you correctly) you have three main points against this:
1. Science is no different from religion in having to take a leap of faith/accept dogma.ISAW
Religion also uses evidence. It is ultimately based on faith but how are you so sure science is not?
You are missing the point. It is that science itself has a philosophy underlying it! One could even argue several philosophies. It is not so absolutley certain and consistent as you seem to imagine. And parts of it are based on faith.
2. You can use rational thought/evidence and end up with a theistic conclusion.ISAW
Religion also uses evidence.
Indeed, as I pointed out, one can argue that the "reason" of science is no different form the reason of religion.
Religion can respect how the Universe works as can societies. they can accept the best way to describe things are devised by science but that does not detract from the value of economics, law , religion etc.
3. Atheism/science cannot provide moral direction.
(I do apologise if I’m wide of the mark on any of these.)ISAW
AS to social issues how does science inform you whether abortion is wrong or whether ownership of property is fair?
don't scientists have to consider ethics morality and other issues not determined by science?
Against your 1st point:
All religious/spiritual beliefs, with or without a god, (to include your nitpick about Buddhism) are dogmatic to a greater or lesser extent. As you stated all religious beliefs are ultimately based on a leap of faith. I would say blind faith. You argue that science too must take something on faith.
You say science has an underlying philosophy (not the same thing as the philosophies of science), I would agree it does, although I prefer to say worldview. These underlying worldviews/philosophies are the foundation upon which explanations of the universe etc are built. They are the assumptions that we use to start getting a handle on what happens in reality (which you accept exists). It’s the nature of this worldview that differentiates rational enquiry (i.e. science) from dogmatic belief (i.e. religion). Let me explain once again why.
Let us suppose that after many long, hard months in the lab and a lot of research you realise that atoms do not actually exist. (I chose atoms to carry on our previous use of them as example. I could have chosen something that is thought not to exist either.) Now you prove your idea about atoms by observing that if they did exist the world would behave in a different way than it actually does in reality. However, as people will always point out, you have made assumptions about the experiment and also about what the results mean. You of course will justify your assumptions with a proof, who’s assumptions then require another proof and off we go again. Eventually and rationally you must accept that there are assumption that you cannot prove. There is no other choice. Everybody ends here when faced with a infinite series of “But why?"s.
I believe the example above to be true for everybody using a rational approach to prove/explain something about reality whether they be scientist, atheist or theist. In this, they are all equal.
However, the difference between them comes when we examine the assumptions that are made and see if they are reasonable. Are these necessary assumptions “a leap of faith”? How many assumptions is it reasonable to make? How fixed should any of these assumptions be? What happens when evidence contradicts one of the assumptions; which gives way? How do we test these assumptions and check our new theories? What do we do when we have two or more equally valid theories? Importantly, are they the right assumptions? It is the answer to these questions that put science on one side and dogmatic(religious) belief on the other and give you that dichotomy you want!
Science assumes the minimum to start with, no assumption being sacrosanct. It then examines how things behave in reality based on these assumptions and will re-evaluate founding assumptions in light of evidence. No unnecessary assumptions are made. Importantly science makes predictions that can be used to check its theories. Over time some of these theories have prove themselves to mirror reality very well and are considered facts (i.e. data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement). These are your
Religious belief on the other hand does hold fixed i.e. dogma-based assumptions, whether that be, a god existing or some other spiritual belief. All evidence must be viewed only in light of this assumption and cannot shake that primary assumption.
I could outline a scenario where I and scientists-in-general would, through empirical evidence and rational argument, give up any of our scientific beliefs, including the one’s you mentioned.
Tell me what evidence would convince you (and other theists) to give up your belief in god. I would suspect none since they are based on faith. That is your dichotomy!ISAW
Science is dogma free? How about existence of space and time? postulates of relativity? principles of cosmology? homogenity or isotropy?
But you believe that the mass energy of the Universe is constant? that is a recent idea. Do you believe it?
It’s interesting that you mention Kuhn and his “revolutions”, since I come across him much more through social constructionists (mis)quoting him, to show that scientific knowledge is only a construct, than through philosophers of science. I’m not sure but I think most philosophers of science have backed away from the more radical claims purported to be in Kuhn’s theory of “paradigm shift”.
I also wonder about your “other kinds of truth”, is it that natural law debate about objective moral realities? I’ll comment on this in point 3.
Against your 2nd point:
I grant you philosophy can be rational (I never said it couldn’t). I have great respect for philosophy and it certainly has added immensely to the processes of rational enquiry. (To my shame I don’t know enough philosophy.) However, I don’t think it can stand-alone without reference to reality.
Descartes was being rational when he came up with his Cartesian dichotomy to prove god. [You’ve made dichotomy my new word J] But Rene was also wrong. Newton killed Cartesianism off with gravity (there were other problems too, I know). (A fact Newton was never happy with, but his theory was bigger than him.) Even with rational thought we ultimately arrive back at the starting point of faith. And on that, here’s an interesting quote of Tom Aquinas’s from Wikidedia:
Perhaps the pinnacle of organized exposition of theological dogma is the Roman Catholic Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, who proposes this relationship between faith and objection: "If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith".
I thus refer you to my first point again.
Of course religion uses rational thought, evidence and even astronomy but they are “like a giants robe upon a dwarfish thief”. Just like some CAM practitioners etc. use “science” as a cloak to hide their underlying foundations that are based on unsupported mystical beliefs; the church uses rational thought to hide the fact that it is grounded on dogmatic faith only.ISAW
I suggest you contact the Vatican Observatory and I am sure some Astronomer who also is a cleric will put you right. The RC Church have held rationality in very high esteem.
Strong scientism and the Cretan paradox; Wittgenstein? Do we dare enter the minefield that is language? I’d sooner not. I don't hold to Strong Scientism. [Wasn’t Wittgenstein the beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel?]ISAW
the skeptic dictionary would say that Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922)
As regard language though may I quote Chief Wiggum - “Behold, the rarest of the rare, the mythological two-headed hound born with only one head.” “Ooh, and here, out of the mists of history, the legendary Esquilax, the horse with the head of a rabbit, and the body of a rabbit”. The joke being that it IS just a dog (with only one head) and it IS just a rabbit. The point being, language (and philosophy) not consistent with reality is lost due to its extreme malleability to any argument. Although, both can still be interesting hence the “bubble-gum” remark, they can also be heavy on sophistry and rhetoric. (And, as was suggested to you on a different tread, belong in a different forum.) Let’s keep it real!
Cont.......0 -
Re: Am I in the scientism bracket?
That weak definition by Michael Shermer of scientism I, and probably most sceptics, could live with. i.e.
Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).
What I don’t like about (theistic) philosophy is how it can be used to intellectually intimidate people into positions such as agnosticism or get them to join the “that which is without remedy show be without regard”-brigade, when its lynchpin is still just a question of faith no matter how many names you throw at it.
As regards theists being sceptics; I don’t have much of problem with it but to quote the late great Joe Strummer “I believe in this - and it's been tested by research, he who “sleeps with” nuns will later join the church.”
Quote myself about religion being the basis for ………Yossie
Basically, I believe god forms too big a foundation to irrational beliefs to be regarded in the same league as the Easter bunny or to be just ignored. I wouldn’t be interested in replacing the bread-and-butter stuff of ISS with an atheist campaign, but the “specialness” of the issue should be acknowledged.
Against your 3rd point:
I didn’t suggest that …ISAW
..... and religion economics morality law etc. can be laughed at is to me a form of scientism.
I’d have to be a fanatic to believe that!
Far from it – I believe they are of utmost important to us, as a society.
This is part of the - “People are more concerned with ethics than electrons and love than lasers.” - debate. “Science is good for understanding the universe and providing technology; Religion is good for morals and meaning.” It an interesting aside to the debate we are having here and I’ve plenty to say on it, but perhaps I will address them in the “Natural Law” thread. What I would say here is that we’ve left the strict evidence and rational thought debate.
Some miscellaneous points:
“Insist”? Don’t you mean there are those who say that the evidence and trend would suggest to them that a GUT exists? One of the most powerful assets of science is its ability to be ambiguity tolerant, to wait until more evidence in favour of one theory or another shows, until eventual something becomes a fact.ISAW
There are those who do insist there are Grand Unified Theories.
Nothing can. That's why we use histroical analysis. Historical analysis is a part of the rational enquiry community and I fully support it (and you in your debates with the Holocaust deniers!) Although I say science everywhere, something doesn’t have to be a natural science to be free of dogma and have a healthy respect for evidence and rational thought, like most of historical analysis does. As do most academic areas of enquiry.ISAW
Furthermore religion can not repeat events to do with say Jesus because the person is not around.
I think you’re a little hard on our scientist colleagues here, since...ISAW
Remember by the way that a world run by scientists, a scientocracy, would be a very sad place.ISAW
I would suggest you point to me one great scientists who was not a philosopher.
I agree, but some we also musicians, artists, writers, comedians, etc. NB I don’t want a world run by scientists either!
Re: religion abhorrence of science. I’m afraid that was a mistake due to a combination of my bad grammar and inarticulateness. What I was saying was the church was justified in their abhorrence of à la Carteism – not “the church abhors science”. I’ll make that change now.
Purposelessness I do think is suggested by the fact that…
We have to give life its meaning is what I think, (I'm not a nihilist).Obni
"we're just a bunch of monkeys on a rock".
Aside:
How many people were at the founding of the ISS? How much influence did you have with your point about “false dichotomy”? Was there many opposed to your view? How many were atheistic in their leanings? Feel free not to answer these questions. But if any ISS members could answer theses I’d appreciate it.
I think I’m nearly all tapped out for arguments in this debate, with the exception of the morality question, but just want to reiterate…….Yossie
I, however, firmly (but not dogmatically) believe that science via evolution and the like shows the purposelessness of life. It is not until we come to terms with this fact and realise we must give life our own meanings that significant progress on a lot social/political fronts can be made. (Not that it’s a pre-requisite for improvement on any of these fronts.)
Now back to the war against the purveyors of nonsense!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dear ISAW,
IMHO you haven’t made your case that science is dogmatic, yet. Somehow you want people to consider that believing in the 2nd law of Theromdynamics is an act of dogma.
As I stated earlier one would only accept the law as a fact (i.e. data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement).ISAW
On the science side if you believe there is no scientific dogma then I refer you to the Second Law of thermodynamics.
The scientific establishment would take a lot of convincing to drop this law but as I already stated they would give it up if the evidence were there, how is that then dogma?For those of you interested; here’s the simple version of the law.
Entropy (a measure of disorder) is always increasing.
Or
According to Woody Allen “Sooner or later everything turns to sh!t” - a bit like this debate perhaps:(
I repeat - under what condition would a theist give up their faith. None? "None" would indicate a dogma to me!
You ask about the fundamental theory of science.
I think, in fact, this is the crux of your problem.ISAW
Tell me what would convince you to give up your belief in a fundamental theory of science. That is your problem.
Science is not an ever-increasing body of scientific facts/theories to explain the world, which one must accept dogmatically. It is primarily a methodology, the best process that we use to investigate the world. Within it EVERYTHING is up for revision/question, hence no dogma! (Unless you are redefining dogma.)
When you ask what would convince me to give up my belief in a fundamental theory of science (if there is such a thing) you are asking me what would it take for me to give up my belief in rationality, which is impossible to answer rationally!
PS (By science I mean all dogma-free rational enquiry, this can include the humanities etc.)0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yossie wrote:Please forgive me if I'm resurrecting a dead issue with this one, but........
It would seem that you also are influenced by religion. apparently you believe in ressurection of the dead! 0 -
> science also contains beliefs about the reality of things
> in the universe.
Science, or rather, 'knowledge', does not contain 'beliefs' in the religious sense of the word and you're mixing up two meanings in this sentence. Science/knowledge assumes that evidence exists for some proposition, and that interested parties agree, for the time being, that the evidence is good, allowing one to generate a conclusion about the state of the world that one can then 'believe' (scientific-sense) in, knowing that there's some supporting evidence. OTOH, when used with god/religion/theism etc, the word 'believe' implies a conclusion about the state of the world without any supporting evidence (and adherents think this is a good thing; see, for example, Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.").
> People happen to believe that there is more to humanity
> than can be explained away by random genetic shuffles
> and mathematics.
Quite right. And the reason, imho, that they believe this is because they seem mostly unable to face the possibility that they might indeed be the result (crudely put) of genetic shuffling, or (more politely put), the result of millions of years of the nature, and the natural laws, which they casually apply to everything except themselves. Hence, creationism, btw
Tracking back to 'morality' briefly -- any chance of a tentative definition?0 -
Perhaps :cool:ISAW wrote:It would seem that you also are influenced by religion. apparently you believe in ressurection of the dead!
I think you're a little like a "dogma in a manger" though 0 -
-
Obni wrote:
Science tries to construct a working model of this universe. A model that at present requires the acceptance some unproven, perhaps ultimately unprovable, principles; principles that must be cast aside or refined if proven false in their present form.
But whether God exists or not is not within the realm of science (well those who adhere to the falisfyability definition) since it can not disprove God's existance.A religion is a sham if the existence of the God, as declared by that religion, is proven false.
But not a sham if a natural assumption from that is anthrocentrism and therefore geocentric cosmology is arrived at and later disproven.You: No science does not believe in anything it can disprove.
Me: Neither does religion.
Other: Yet science at least accepts evidence that disproves its accepted principles, and at least part of the scientific community actively seeks to disprove the claims of other members.
This has also happened throughout the history of the Church. Abelard, Roger Bacon, Erasmus, Galileo, Luther. I accept some of them were treated badly but the Church eventually accepted the evidence that disproved it's accepted theory. Furthermore sometimes the problem was not with the church but with the scientists of the day. In Galileos case for example. The problems originally arose not because he challenged the Church. Indeed the Pope admired him. Galileo challenged the whole established Aristotlean school of academics. Thats who he fell out with! and they resisted what he taught not because of the Bible but because of experiments which they referred to.
actually sometimes yes they do. Ever heard of the Reformation or counter reformation.Other than as an intellectual exercise in seminaries and schools of philosophy, do members of religions pursue lines of inquiry to disprove elements of their faith?
One can argue that without the possibility of doubt there is not real faith. Furthermore, other than thought experiments in their research groups or pet projects in their particle accelerators do particle physicists and mathematical cosmologists pursue lines of enquiry to disprove their belief in Quarks or General Relativity? Very rarely does this happen. Mostly they confirm theory. I mean takle the eclipse that "confirmed" relitivity. Eddington was it? the results were not a confirmation but the theory looked so good they said it was! there are other examples. mendel's pea expirements (and he was a monk!) He doctored the results. Now people have argued here that science is what scientists do. so dont say eddington and Mendel were humans and were not following the "true" method of science or you are off into a "one true scotsman" .
How is Idealising something which people don't do because they are imperfect a superior belief to an ideal being?In my poor understanding of such matters I have always thought of theology as the study of the nature of God and of religion. There are anthropological and social elements to this subject, that do not require that God exists, however, the bulk of theology is simply pointless unless God exists.
To a believer yes. If God made the laws of the universe then she would be importand wouldnt she? But lets say there were always atheists. Let us say all modern science was developed by believers (and most of it has been to now). Is any atheist going to say the science developed by believers was pointless?
Also, one can argue if there is no God and the idea of the universe being a random series of events leading to the human race. then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason for it. they can reject any moral behaviour. Now I accept atheistic ethical systems can be built but isnt that just the same as religion without God? some theologian would hold it is just the same as some churchesIn the same way my reaction to any number of things; my children, my wife's smile, Keats, Handel, a birdie on the index 1 in Druid's Glen, dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring, my reaction to these phenomona cannot be simply and succinctly described by a man in a white coat clutching a test-tube, but with a little analysis each can be explained by branches of science.
Some don't believe the value of them can. If so, then one can argue that you talking to me is just a series of vibrations which ultimately have no meaning. It is just like a nice looking fractal pattern. where does the "niceness" come from?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
> I accept some of them were treated badly but the Church
> eventually accepted the evidence that disproved it's accepted
> theory. [...] In Galileos case [...] the Pope admired him.
> they resisted what he taught not because of the Bible but
> because of experiments which they referred to.
I think this is painting an excessively sympathetic view of the church's position. In the case of Galileo, the church finally admitted that he was right thirteen years ago -- yes, thirteen years ago! -- in 1992, three hundred and fifty-nine years after he was arrested and confined to his house for life. I'm not sure if JPII instructed his cardinals to issue an apology along with the admission, but I doubt it (anyone know for sure?)
While I'm sure that the Jesuits liked neither the Copernican system nor Galileo's observations, the church's condemnation of Galileo was nonetheless firmed couched in the cold terms of the inerrancy of the church's interpretation of various selected biblical texts. See the formal sentencing document which states this explicitly.
> then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason
> for it. they can reject any moral behaviour.
You've missed the points of my postings above. One's belief in god has precisely *nothing* to do with one's behaviour, except for the trivial case of the small proportion of the population whose actions are self-regulated by the expectation of an eternity in 'heaven', or the fear of an eternity in 'hell'.
People who reject 'any moral behaviour' (and I don't know of any; an example, please, or a definition of 'moral' ?), are simply conjured up to form a credible threat by religious people to their own peculiar views, when in fact, the threat to society which arises from such rejectionists, like much else in the religious world, is illusory and exists simply to provide self-justification. 0 -
> In the same way my reaction to any number of things [...]
> dawn at the side of Muckross lake in late spring,
<sigh> I know it well, having grown up a few miles away While on the topic of wine + disputation, a slice of Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat seems in order:
Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scatter'd, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.
Into this Universe, and why not knowing,
Nor whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not whither, willy-nilly blowing.
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.
But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
The Quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.
Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
And Wilderness is Paradise enow.
The full text of Fitzgerald's four editions is here -- enjoy.0 -
True. An age-old issue, and one not to be resolved in these pages. One cannot use a set of rules to disprove something that must exist outside the boundary within which those rules have effect.ISAW wrote:But whether God exists or not is not within the realm of science (well those who adhere to the falisfyability definition) since it can not disprove God's existance.
Not sure if I follow that.ISAW wrote:But not a sham if a natural assumption from that is anthrocentrism and therefore geocentric cosmology is arrived at and later disproven.
Are you pointing out that elements of the belief in God helped form some of the earliest models of how we view our universe, and so even if they were false beliefs they served a useful purpose?
Disputes over variations in the form of dogma, the application of dogma, the working practices of those dispensing dogma, or attempts to bring religion into line with what was as much an intellectual, a political and a social upheaval in Europe, is not the same as challenging the real basis of faith. Is there a God, and if so, is that God the God we believe in?ISAW wrote:Ever heard of the Reformation or counter reformation.
I don't idealise science and certainly not scientists. I would argue that an explanation of our this crazy mixed-up universe that doesn't include God is superior to one without God because it is more accurate.ISAW wrote:How is Idealising something which people don't do because they are imperfect a superior belief to an ideal being?
If my house was on fire and my neighbours formed a chain to deliver bucket after bucket of water (assuming I lived in the old west as depicted in a corny black and white Hollywood western), then the useful work carried out by believers and non-believers would be of equal worth. Ditto science.ISAW wrote:Is any atheist going to say the science developed by believers was pointless?
There is no point to life or any reason for it.ISAW wrote:Also, one can argue if there is no God and the idea of the universe being a random series of events leading to the human race. then some can argue ther is no point to life and no reason for it.
They can reject moral absolutes, and can accept that morality is a useful tool developed by humans from instinctive protective behaviours into a complex system of social guidelines to best serve the majority in any society that adopts those morals. (cf. Natural Law)ISAW wrote:they can reject any moral behaviour.
No, more like religion without the useless bits.ISAW wrote:Now I accept atheistic ethical systems can be built but isnt that just the same as religion without God?
Just when I talk, or when anyone talks?ISAW wrote:If so, then one can argue that you talking to me is just a series of vibrations which ultimately have no meaning.
The niceness is simply the magnificent human brain being engaged without stress in the contemplation of colour and form while searching for meaningful patterns within a meaningless form.ISAW wrote:It is just like a nice looking fractal pattern. where does the "niceness" come from?0 -
Obni wrote:True. An age-old issue, and one not to be resolved in these pages. One cannot use a set of rules to disprove something that must exist outside the boundary within which those rules have effect.
You just reminded me of Godel's incompleteness theorem:
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/godel3.htm
Now that is just his introduction and comes to 25 pages in the journal.
Rucker, Infinity and the Mind:
The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:
Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
"I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
Think about it - it grows on you ...
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.
Which is shorter?Not sure if I follow that.
Are you pointing out that elements of the belief in God helped form some of the earliest models of how we view our universe, and so even if they were false beliefs they served a useful purpose?
That and the fact that "dogma" can be changed! It also happens in science.0 -
-
Advertisement
Advertisement