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

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

1…34689…11

Comments

  • #152
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    togster wrote: »
    Can Science exist without idea?

    I'm starting to see why science is so important tbh. An idea without science is just an idea.

    But Science without an idea is just....?

    Science can't really exist without idea. It's all about testing hypotheses so if you have no hypotheses there's nothing to test


  • #153
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    The sciences left the central philosophical journey to head out along it's various branches.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "left"

    Science and the philosophy behind it is a branch, but you seem to be implying that to do science a person must forget about all the other branches of philosophy, such as ethics.

    Which isn't really true. Science won't tell you if it is moral to kill a man, but that doesn't mean that to do science you have to ignore that question. You just don't use science (or history, or film studies, or gardening) to answer it.

    It is sort of like saying once I learn to drive I never play tennis. One does not require the abandonment of the other.

    Perhaps if you could give a more concrete example people might understand better where you are coming from because at the moment this is just turning into a long series of "No it doesn't" responses to your posts.
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Without answering the deep ontological questions that better men and women than us have struggle with for thousands of year some would have us believe science has all the answers we need.

    Again that depends on how you define "we need"

    So before we can answer does science have all the answers we need we need to ask Well what do we need and in what context do we need it?

    Some people seem to need a lot more than others. That was the point of my post a few pages back about the man on the street complaining that science can't tell him why he is special and important.

    Science does what it does and tries and answers what it answers. The only people who seem to think that science is failing are those who accuse others of putting to much faith in it. If you realise and expect science to do what it does and don't expect more it is hard to see how science fails anyone.
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Science just convieniently assumes that all the questions it can't answer aren't relevant and drives on.
    As it is supposed to. They aren't relevant to the field it is designed to study, phenomena of the natural world.

    Trying to find a answer with science to a question that cannot be answered with science is futile and pointless. Recognising this, what cannot actually be answered by science, is a very good skill to have.


  • #154
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    TedB wrote: »
    It is basic human nature for the strongest male to have sexual intercourse with the most attractive female. Why do human beings therefore behave in a way contrary to our most fundamental genetical process? Science has a go at answering questions like that, but all it can ever do is speculate.

    Nonsense.

    It is statements like that that makes everyone here think you have no idea what you are talking about

    Science does not "speculate". Science does not prove. Science does not guess. Science does not moralize. Science does not provide truth. Science does not require faith.

    Science forms testable theories (models) of natural phenomena and then tests these theories with controlled experiments to judge how accurate the models are at modeling a natural observable phenomena for the purposes of understand the phenomena.

    This thread is basically one long misrepresentation of what science is with people giving out about the failings of imaginary "science", rather than what science actually is.


  • #155
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Science takes philosophy and finds out which parts of it are true.
    This is not right.

    In broad terms, philosophy is the study -- usually with at least a brief tip of the hat to some kind of guiding reason reason or logic -- of the abstract realm of ideas, and it's most usually concerned with life, love, art, ethics, beauty, truth and so on.

    Knowledge of the physical world, as revealed by scientific study, may help to deepen one's appreciation of one aspect or another of some philosophical ideas, or provide some instance of some philosophical idea, but such knowledge does not determine whether or not the philosophical idea is valid, or even true.

    Philosophy exists independently of the physical world -- just as maths does -- and it's a category error to believe that the second controls the first.


  • #156
    pts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    robindch wrote: »
    This is not right.

    What's this, disagreement in the herd! :D


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    robindch wrote: »
    This is not right.

    In broad terms, philosophy is the study -- usually with at least a brief tip of the hat to some kind of guiding reason reason or logic -- of the abstract realm of ideas, and it's most usually concerned with life, love, art, ethics, beauty, truth and so on.

    Knowledge of the physical world, as revealed by scientific study, may help to deepen one's appreciation of one aspect or another of some philosophical ideas, or provide some instance of some philosophical idea, but such knowledge does not determine whether or not the philosophical idea is valid, or even true.

    Philosophy exists independently of the physical world -- just as maths does -- and it's a category error to believe that the second controls the first.

    don't confuse him :D

    I know philosophy deals with lots of things that science doesn't, I was talking only in terms of philosophy that attempts to understand the physical world such as ideas of how the universe came into being. I'm talking about when philosophy tries to muscle in on science's territory :D

    Similar to how people on this thread are saying that it's a weakness of science that it doesn't muscle in on philosophy's territory, ie it can't tell you why it's wrong to kill or why a flower is beautiful. That's where philosophy comes in.

    The lines get blurred with things like religion where a form of philosophy is trying to give us explanations for our origins and to assert these explanations as true. Whether or not the christian god exists is not a philosophical question, it's a factual question. He either exists or he doesn't and no amount of talking about it will change that


  • #158
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    Wicknight wrote: »

    Perhaps if you could give a more concrete example people might understand better where you are coming from because at the moment this is just turning into a long series of "No it doesn't" responses to your posts.

    I agree with you that the posts are getting a bit tennis like. That is probably because we are on opposite sides of the fence on this one. You might find it suprising therefore that I don't believe in God, organised religion or an after life, although I say that with melancholy rather than pride. I believe the opinion that you can engage in scientific endeavour and still be ethical is valid but is not supported by history. The scientists who created the atomic bomb created it first and only began to allow the ethical questions dawn on them afterwards. This is repeated time and time again especially as we enter the new world of the mapped genome.


    But I don't want to start the tennis again. Here's my best attempt at a concrete example of what I'm trying to say. I'm trusting your interested in dialogue rather than tennis on this one.

    JJR Tolkien told this story ' A man had a round tower in a field and he was determined to find the origins and purpose of the tower. He called in the architects and other advisors to research and analysis the building. They photographed and documented the building extensively along with digging trenches around the tower to investigate. Having had a few theories all of which required further investigation they proceed to remove the roof careful and on and on until the round tower was a pile of stones in the field. The original reason that someone had built the building was from the top of that tower you could see the sea.' (to say Tolkien put it better is beyond understatement)

    You lose something when you imagine yourself capable of abstracting yourself from the world to analysis it scientifically.

    Just in case that is too hippy wishy washy for ye try - Unrestrained science has had a more destructive impact on the planet than all organised religion put together in the twentieth century.


  • #159
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Just in case that is too hippy wishy washy for ye try - Unrestrained science has had a more destructive impact on the planet than all organised religion put together in the twentieth century.

    No it hasn't, people unrestrained by ethics or morality have had a destructive impact on the planet. Scientists made the atomic bomb but it was people who used it, mostly people who believed in God. Just like scientists made airplanes but it was religious people who flew them into buildings. The pursuit of knowledge should never be restrained for fear of how this knowledge will be put to use. It's up to ethicists, philosophers and, yes, even religious people to make sure this new knowledge isn't misused. Science and morality are separate fields of study


  • #160
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,592 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Unrestrained science has had a more destructive impact on the planet than all organised religion put together in the twentieth century.
    Unrestrained science in whose hands? Sorry - I require some supporting data for this assertion!


  • #161
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dades wrote: »
    Unrestrained science in whose hands? Sorry - I require some supporting data for this assertion!

    Typical atheist :P


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's up to ethicists, philosophers and, yes, even religious people to make sure this new knowledge isn't misused. Science and morality are separate fields of study

    I couldn't disagree more. The first question is what are the consequences of our actions before we act. The effectivness of science and technological activity has encouraged a specialisation through all sections of society that allows us to abdicate responsibility to some specialist, a pseudo priest, who will decide for us. Now we engaged in scientific activity so complex that it has been said that there are only a few people in the world who have the required knowledge to be able to decide on them.

    Science has done some much. We now can feed everyone on the world twice over, cure the vast magority of diseases that are out there and prevent practically all the remainder.

    Unfortunately now that science has killed God we appear to lack the motivation.


  • #163
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more. The first question is what are the consequences of our actions before we act. The effectivness of science and technological activity has encouraged a specialisation through all sections of society that allows us to abdicate responsibility to some specialist, a pseudo priest, who will decide for us. Now we engaged in scientific activity so complex that it has been said that there are only a few people in the world who have the required knowledge to be able to decide on them.

    Science has done some much. We now can feed everyone on the world twice over, cure the vast magority of diseases that are out there and prevent practically all the remainder.

    Unfortunately now that science has killed God we appear to lack the motivation.

    I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the progress of science has led to people not caring about world hunger?

    Edit: Are you making a "morality comes from religion" argument?


  • #164
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    Now we engaged in scientific activity so complex that it has been said that there are only a few people in the world who have the required knowledge to be able to decide on them.
    Bring back the Middle Ages -- down with smart people and high-falutin' talk!


  • #165
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »

    Just in case that is too hippy wishy washy for ye try - Unrestrained science has had a more destructive impact on the planet than all organised religion put together in the twentieth century.

    While I am not suggesting that exponential population growth is a good thing. There are at least 4.5 Billion reasons why that statement is just so wrong.

    DJ Dodgy wrote: »

    Unfortunately now that science has killed God we appear to lack the motivation.
    :confused:


  • #166
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more. The first question is what are the consequences of our actions before we act. The effectivness of science and technological activity has encouraged a specialisation through all sections of society that allows us to abdicate responsibility to some specialist, a pseudo priest, who will decide for us. Now we engaged in scientific activity so complex that it has been said that there are only a few people in the world who have the required knowledge to be able to decide on them.

    Science has done some much. We now can feed everyone on the world twice over, cure the vast magority of diseases that are out there and prevent practically all the remainder.

    Unfortunately now that science has killed God we appear to lack the motivation.


    All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order...

    what has Science ever done for us? :D


  • #167
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the progress of science has led to people not caring about world hunger?

    Edit: Are you making a "morality comes from religion" argument?

    No I'm making 'the science is amoral' argument, and given the potential of some of the discoveries being made to really mess things up I don't think that is such a good thing.

    If I had the figure on how many people work on weapons research or cosmetics rather than famine relief or malnutrition I might have more empirical answer for ye.


  • #168
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    No I'm making 'the science is amoral' argument, and given the potential of some of the discoveries being made to really mess things up I don't think that is such a good thing.

    If I had the figure on how many people work on weapons research or cosmetics rather than famine relief or malnutrition I might have more empirical answer for ye.

    Of course science is amoral, no one ever claimed it was moral. In fact people keep clarifying that it's not and that there's nothing wrong with that. See here where I said science and morality are separate fields of study.

    you say that some of the discoveries being made can really mess things up but no one knows if they're going to mess things up until they have been discovered. You are saying we should stop learning out of fear because people can't be trusted to know the secrets of the universe. Correct?

    You'd fit right in with the Amish tbh


  • #169
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    No I'm making 'the science is amoral' argument, and given the potential of some of the discoveries being made to really mess things up I don't think that is such a good thing.

    Then science isn't the problem people are?
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    If I had the figure on how many people work on weapons research or cosmetics rather than famine relief or malnutrition I might have more empirical answer for ye.

    I think you're confusing science with engineering.


  • #170
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    You gave the example of the atom bomb but the study of nuclear energy has produced nuclear power, radiation therapy for cancer and smoke alarms. It has taught us the dangers of being around radioactive materials (eg X-rays) and thereby saved lives. Radioactive materials used to be put into all manner of products before their carcinogenic nature was discovered.

    Would you rather we didn't have all of these beneficial products and all this beneficial knowledge?


  • #171
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I think you're confusing science with engineering.

    Economics, not engineering.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    marco_polo wrote: »
    All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order...

    what has Science ever done for us? :D

    By us I assume you mean us white anglo saxon northerners. The lucky one billion of the 4.5 you mentioned earlier. I doubt your 'us' would include an African children born with aids in civil war torn countries because then the :D doesn't work quite as well, and the statement stands up.

    By the way all those things emerged by communties deeply submerged in religion long ago.


  • #173
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    By us I assume you mean us white anglo saxon northerners. The lucky one billion of the 4.5 you mentioned earlier. I doubt your 'us' would include an African children born with aids in civil war torn countries because then the :D doesn't work quite as well, and the statement stands up.

    By the way all those things emerged by communties deeply submerged in religion long ago.

    You're right, just look what happens in countries that don't have all these scientific advances ;)


  • #174
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    The ability to study something without having to be mindful of its consequences has yielded us alot of benefits. Just like wars have yielded us huge advances in technology and many other fields of study. I just don't believe we can afford the luxury anymore of driving the 'pursuit of knowledge' train without some idea of where it is going to bring us. We are now capable of destroying ourselves with weapons. We are probably slowly destroying ourselves through unchecked industrial activity. The world has always had religious and political fundamentalists but now they are accessing advanced weaponry.

    Just to bring this all back home

    How about 5 questions all scientists should ask themselves?

    other than who will pay me more Lockheed Martin or Marlboro?


  • #175
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    I just don't believe we can afford the luxury anymore of driving the 'pursuit of knowledge' train without some idea of where it is going to bring us

    If we are pursuing knowledge then by definition we don't know where it's going to bring us. you are arguing that the pursuit of knowledge should cease out of fear. Not gonna happen mate.


  • #176
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,536 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Once again, Engineering...

    And I'm a dirty Aero Engineer!


  • #177
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    No I'm making 'the science is amoral' argument, and given the potential of some of the discoveries being made to really mess things up I don't think that is such a good thing.

    Of course science is amoral, its the practise of using models to determine facts about reality and use those facts to produce more models. Its up to people themselves to be moral. Honestly, you might as well argue that the five-times-tables are immoral.
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    If I had the figure on how many people work on weapons research or cosmetics rather than famine relief or malnutrition I might have more empirical answer for ye.

    All that would show you is there are immoral people who use science for immoral reasons. Just like there are immoral people who use religion for immoral reasons. You argument only leads to the conclusion that people need to examine the morality of everything they do (the field of ethics). Just because its immoral to kill someone with a hammer, doesn't mean its immoral to build a house with one.


  • #178
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    By us I assume you mean us white anglo saxon northerners. The lucky one billion of the 4.5 you mentioned earlier. I doubt your 'us' would include an African children born with aids in civil war torn countries because then the :D doesn't work quite as well, and the statement stands up.

    Science causes civil wars in Africa now does it?
    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    By the way all those things emerged by communties deeply submerged in religion long ago.

    But they improved through science.


  • #179
    DJ Dodgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭DJ Dodgy


    Just checking. The Atom bomb that was engineering too right?


  • #180
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    DJ Dodgy wrote: »
    The ability to study something without having to be mindful of its consequences has yielded us alot of benefits. Just like wars have yielded us huge advances in technology and many other fields of study. I just don't believe we can afford the luxury anymore of driving the 'pursuit of knowledge' train without some idea of where it is going to bring us. We are now capable of destroying ourselves with weapons. We are probably slowly destroying ourselves through unchecked industrial activity. The world has always had religious and political fundamentalists but now they are accessing advanced weaponry.

    Just to bring this all back home

    How about 5 questions all scientists should ask themselves?

    other than who will pay me more Lockheed Martin or Marlboro?


    So we should just ask everyone to stop? How would that work exactly?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Of course it was. Science is just the knowledge. Engineering is the application of that knowledge.

    Your argument is poor because pretty much everything man has ever made can be misused to some extent. Someone could go on a killing spree with a spoon but that does not mean that spoons should never have been invented, it means that proper controls need to be put in to prevent our advances being misused.

    Even making an atomic bomb is not necessarily bad because it can be used as a deterrent or even to blow meteors out of the sky before they wipe us out. Whether it's a gun or a bomb or a rubber chicken, we just have to try to prevent misuse. The pursuit of knowledge is never going to stop out of fear of the possible applications of that knowledge


Advertisement