Faith in Science as Ridiculous as Faith in God.

monosharp · 04-03-2010 12:45AM

DeBunny wrote: »

There is a lot that science has yet to explain, for example, how do chromosomes form into their X and Y shapes?

What I want to know is how DNA is made up of all those Latin alphabet letters. Why doesn't DNA contain other kinda of symbols like Chinese.

I suppose god was making it easier for Christians to read. :pac:

Oh and how come computers understand 1's and 0's ? Why not 2's and 3's ? Its very strange.

Science can tell us what is happening yet, in many cases, it can't tell us how.

When science can't answer something we call that an unknown, as in "We don't know".

Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''. I find this as ridiculous as the concept of religion. How can anyone know this? I also find that scientists and atheists can be just as dogmatic and unyielding as the most fervent bible basher.

Eventually is a long time but personally I don't believe that nor do I know anyone who believes that. I think its very likely we will discover the answers to an innumerable amount of questions.

At the risk of being labeled a creationist *shudder* I can see some sort of intelligence within nature. We can see, from quantum physics, that If everything is broken down to it's smallest property we can see that all it is, is information. Surely information would need something intelligent for it to exist?

When you read the information in DNA could you tell me what the message is ?

My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

Why ?

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?

I don't think it does.

DeBunny · 04-03-2010 12:50AM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

But what is "incoherent"?
What if we just interpret certain things as coherent and incoherent because the universe just is like it is?

This argument/debate/row for one.

The fact that we have a concept of what is coherent shows (to me) that there is an order to the universe, and that order appears to be intelligent.
If we were to let this it go on for as long as it I think it could then it would be a good metaphor for the cyclical nature of . . . . everything.

DeBunny · 04-03-2010 12:59AM

monosharp wrote: »

What I want to know is how DNA is made up of all those Latin alphabet letters. Why doesn't DNA contain other kinda of symbols like Chinese.
I suppose god was making it easier for Christians to read. :pac:
Oh and how come computers understand 1's and 0's ? Why not 2's and 3's ? Its very strange.
When science can't answer something we call that an unknown, as in "We don't know".
Eventually is a long time but personally I don't believe that nor do I know anyone who believes that. I think its very likely we will discover the answers to an innumerable amount of questions.
When you read the information in DNA could you tell me what the message is ?
Why ?
I don't think it does.

Thanks for the sarcasm but you're a bit late.

Herbal Deity · 04-03-2010 01:12AM

DeBunny wrote: »

This argument/debate/row for one.

The fact that we have a concept of what is coherent shows (to me) that there is an order to the universe, and that order appears to be intelligent.
If we were to let this it go on for as long as it I think it could then it would be a good metaphor for the cyclical nature of . . . . everything.

But "intelligent" is an adjective used to describe a human trait...

We exist because the universe is as it is. You can't call the universe intelligent because it is simply not an adjective that applies to it in any meaningful sense.

I mean, can you describe to me what the universe would be like if it were unintelligent?

DeBunny · 04-03-2010 01:34AM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

But "intelligent" is an adjective used to describe a human trait...

We exist because the universe is as it is. You can't call the universe intelligent because it is simply not an adjective that applies to it in any meaningful sense.

I mean, can you describe to me what the universe would be like if it were unintelligent?

It would probably be something like this

. . . . ahem . . . . . . duhhhh duhhhhh unggggggg bluhh bluhhhh dudhuhuhduhduhduhd doi doi dhoih. . . . . . .ahem.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously though. I can't describe what the universe would like if it were unintelligent. If there was an unintelligent universe then something would have to know it was unintelligent for it to be unintelligent, thereby becoming intelligent. I know, I know . . . . . . . I've been listening to a lot of Allan Watts.

We are made of star dust. I see myself (and every thing) as part of the universe (''one'' as it were) so I can apply the word intelligence in a totally meaningful sense.

[EDIT]: Any way, as some one who disagrees with my view point it's up to you to tell me why the universe is unintelligent.

Kepti · 04-03-2010 03:25AM

DeBunny wrote: »

Sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously though. I can't describe what the universe would like if it were unintelligent. If there was an unintelligent universe then something would have to know it was unintelligent for it to be unintelligent, thereby becoming intelligent. I know, I know . . . . . . . I've been listening to a lot of Allan Watts.

We are made of star dust. I see myself (and every thing) as part of the universe (''one'' as it were) so I can apply the word intelligence in a totally meaningful sense.

[EDIT]: Any way, as some one who disagrees with my view point it's up to you to tell me why the universe is unintelligent.

No, since you made the assertion the burden of proof is on you.

There's a good Sagan quote that goes "We are a way for the universe to know itself". You can say the universe spawned intelligence, but calling the universe itself intelligent is meaningless.

Thanks for creating the thread, it's been an interesting read.

Zillah · 04-03-2010 06:24AM

If I drop a penny on the ground, is the penny considered intelligent because it knew it was supposed to fall? Or was the penny simply following a predictable course of cause and effect based upon the rules of the universe?

Where did the rules of the universe come from, why are they constant or why do they exist at all? We don't know. I'm not going to say it's magic.

Being quite honest, your universal intelligence response is no less worthless than the Bible-God response from a Christian. You're both making claims that you can't verify and you're both making them because they appeal to you personally, not because they have evidence. I suggest giving more thought that what exactly you mean when you refer to 'intelligence', and also to consider whether this notion is one derived from the best evidence, or if it's just something that strikes you as interesting or cool.

Finally, it'd be sweet if people could cut out the sarcastic jackassery, this isn't some cocky deist taunting us about Hell or a charlatan extorting money from the desperate, DeBunny is obviously making an effort to explore ideas unfamiliar to him.

Zillah · 04-03-2010 06:32AM

DeBunny wrote:

Would it be fair to say that the perception of atheists is that they have a faith in science, whether this is the case or not?

In relation to this, I would say no. It is a very common perception that atheists can be arrogant, dismissive and condescending, sure. I've been guilty of all of these things, but obviously I think I'm right. It's very hard to not come across as condescending when you are essentially telling someone that their cherished beliefs are ridiculous, and that the only reason they believe them is because their brain has failed.

Some people, generally those who don't understand science or who are desperate to discredit atheism, will accuse atheists of having faith in science. As I hope I clarified in my earlier posts, this is not a fair accusation. For the former we can try to dispel the confusion, for the latter we can expose them for the disingenuous frauds that they are.

Xluna · 04-03-2010 08:39AM

1:If God does'nt need a cause then why not say the same about the universe.
2:Because it has a good track record.

liamw · 04-03-2010 08:49AM

DeBunny, you keep bringing up 'intelligence' and where it came from. You do understand the process of evolution by natural selection right?

If you do have a grasp of this concept, could you please explain what it is that you don't understand?

JimiTime · 04-03-2010 11:19AM

Zillah wrote: »

there is no connection between any atheists. We don't have a Bible or a Pope or any ties at all really. If one atheist says something stupid then the only person you can hold that against is that atheist

Not many in this life get this luxery. Be you atheist, Jew, Muslim or Christian, people don't like not being able to put you in a box. Thats why you'll have someone post a video of an atheist saying something dumb and point to it as representative. Similarly, you'll have someone post a video of a Christian saying something stupid and use it as representative. It happens to us all. You say you are an atheist, people will have a pre-conception of you. Say you are a Christian, the same. If they don't know you, they tend to use their own idea's gained from elsewhere about you. The problem occurs when people are dishonestly seeking to put you in the box 'they' made for you.

Undergod · 04-03-2010 11:28AM

DeBunny wrote: »

Yes, science as a field is not faith based but too many people see it that way.

Yep. The problem is not with science, it's with people.

Science doesn't have faith that it will solve everything, science is just a way of testing hypotheses.

Goduznt Xzst · 04-03-2010 11:36AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4

seamus · 04-03-2010 12:01PM

monosharp wrote: »

Oh and how come computers understand 1's and 0's ? Why not 2's and 3's ? Its very strange.

There's a question which actually can be answered.

Turtwig · 04-03-2010 12:24PM

seamus wrote: »

There's a question which actually can be answered.

Go on...:p

seamus · 04-03-2010 12:42PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Go on...:p

What, here in one post?

Put simply, it all boils down to electrical voltages. A computer decides whether something is a one or a zero by measuring the voltage on a particular line at a particular point in time. If the voltage is at or near zero, you have a zero. If the voltage is at or near 5V (I think), then you have a 1. The problem is that it's next to impossible to get precisely the right voltage on the line at the right instant. Put simply, from a computer's point of view it doesn't actually care all that much about the actual voltage, by and large it's a case of

No voltage = 0
Some voltage = 1

But sometimes mistakes are made, and a 1 is read instead of a zero and vice-versa. So if you were to try and introduce an additional digit in there, say a 2, you would then have 3 cases:

No voltage = 0
Some voltage = 1
More voltage = 2

But how do you tell the difference between "some voltage" and "more voltage"? Particularly when you get down to logic gates, which are for all intents and purposes the "atoms" of computers, this becomes a difficult prospect. But not impossible.

At some point, we may find a way to implement electronic systems with more than 1's and 0's in a way that's cheap and quick like we have at the moment, but given that computers are now the backbone running the entire planet's economy and that binary is what every single one of them is based upon, it will be a while.

Herbal Deity · 04-03-2010 12:47PM

I think monosharp's point was that computers don't literally understand the numerals 1 and 0, just like X and Y chromosomes aren't literally X and Y shaped...

seamus · 04-03-2010 12:52PM

Oh I'm pretty sure it was tongue-in-cheek

Zombrex · 04-03-2010 01:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Not many in this life get this luxery. Be you atheist, Jew, Muslim or Christian, people don't like not being able to put you in a box. Thats why you'll have someone post a video of an atheist saying something dumb and point to it as representative. Similarly, you'll have someone post a video of a Christian saying something stupid and use it as representative. It happens to us all. You say you are an atheist, people will have a pre-conception of you. Say you are a Christian, the same. If they don't know you, they tend to use their own idea's gained from elsewhere about you. The problem occurs when people are dishonestly seeking to put you in the box 'they' made for you.

Yeah but the difference is Christians put themselves in a box

Yes you can argue that the box is often misrepresented. For example someone claiming that Christians hate homosexuals, you are a Christian, therefore you hate homosexuals.

I appreciate this is frustrating, but it is a question of misunderstanding what Christianity is rather than saying that there is no box.

Imagine this but worse because with atheism it is not even a question of misunderstanding, it is a question of complete false assumption that atheism actually is a box in the first place.

monosharp · 04-03-2010 01:25PM

seamus wrote: »

Oh I'm pretty sure it was tongue-in-cheek

Monosharps starting his postgrad in comp sci next week so it better have been tongue in cheek or monosharp is going to be a little confused once classes start

JimiTime · 04-03-2010 01:30PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but the difference is Christians put themselves in a box

As do atheists. The problem is when other people dishonestly fit you into the box 'they' made for you. Once you call yourself something based on a thought process, you have placed yourself into the metaphorical box. It may only represent one idea, but it doesn't stop others putting many other labels on the pigeon hole.

Zombrex · 04-03-2010 01:41PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Once you call yourself something based on a thought process, you have placed yourself into the metaphorical box. It may only represent one idea, but it doesn't stop others putting many other labels on the pigeon hole.

I'm still not sure I would call that putting yourself into a box.

Christians say "I am a Christian, I believe in Jesus Christ, this is what I believe"

Atheists don't do anything like that.

Ickle Magoo · 04-03-2010 01:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

As do atheists. The problem is when other people dishonestly fit you into the box 'they' made for you. Once you call yourself something based on a thought process, you have placed yourself into the metaphorical box. It may only represent one idea, but it doesn't stop others putting many other labels on the pigeon hole.

That's the thing tho, atheism isn't a group idea or something I would ever have the need to call myself if no such thing as theists existed - it's a lack of a group idea, it's the name I automatically earn just by not being one of a group of people who DO think something, who DO have a group idea...

JimiTime · 04-03-2010 02:05PM

I wont get pedantic about your views of yourselves and the things you believe or don't believe. The fact is, people rarely get the luxery of a clean slate once they present themselves with a title, I.E. Atheist, Christian, Jew, whatever. Once you say you are an atheist, Christian, whatever, you conjure up pre-conceptions in many people. They can have pre-conceptions about your beliefs, your personality etc. One can then only rely on peoples honesty and humility when corrected. On many occasions though, they can simply seek the things that confirm their notions and ignore the rest.

Ickle Magoo · 04-03-2010 02:25PM

Atheist - lack of belief...Mods, I think this needs a sticky at this stage because constantly having to spell out the basic definition of a word which is in the forum title three times a day is hard going. There would be no atheists without theists, it's not a title people would present for themselves, it's not a title they would have if it wasn't for those who believe in something. It's a collection of people only with a lack of belief in god/gods in common; a-theist - without god/s, the Greek equivalent of deity-less.

I think your point just goes back to the auld stamp collecting analogy. We don't tend to box people by what they don't do but by what they do. The other point being, if atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods and everyone to a greater or lesser degree has a lack of belief in god or gods then it's an absolutely pointless exercise to group everyone in the one big box - it shows nothing.

liamw · 04-03-2010 02:38PM

I think JimiTime is just saying that when you label yourself people will have preconceptions. Those preconceptions may be ill-founded but they exist nonetheless. I have experienced this myself on several occasions, and I've gotten so sick of people trying to argue what an atheist is with me, I just tell people I'm non-religious now. It's easier.

I also agree with Ickle, on a forum like this there should be a sticky 'What is an atheist' and it should describe all the common misconceptions.

Ickle Magoo · 04-03-2010 02:52PM

liamw wrote: »

I think JimiTime is just saying that when you label yourself people will have preconceptions. Those preconceptions may be ill-founded but they exist nonetheless. I have experienced this myself on several occasions, and I've gotten so sick of people trying to argue what an atheist is with me, I just tell people I'm non-religious now. It's easier.

I know what you mean, my point was; I don't label myself. I have never believed in a god, making me an atheist before I knew what one was - it wasn't a club I heard about and liked the sound of so joined up and now proclaim myself to be "An Atheist". It's like a non-stamp collector. Other people may claim to know what atheist represents and create a box to put us all in but really it's based on their stereotypes and often fairly inaccurate generalities rather than any title I give to myself...which would be closer to an agnostic-atheist-humanist-secularist-equalitist or something along those lines. :pac:

Of course christians are all different, as are all buddhists, hindus, etc and they hold their faith to varying degrees but it is a very specific set of criteria that they deliberately affiliate themselves to that creates the group title & the box they choose to sit in.

robindch · 04-03-2010 03:26PM

liamw wrote: »

I just tell people I'm non-religious now. It's easier.

Likewise. Having to wade through the subtleties of the differing classifications of atheist means is simply too much for most people who, I get the impression, would be much happier referring to me as a "militant". So, yes, saying "non-religious" tends to cause far less upset and induces far less ranting from the self-righteous than referring to oneself as an atheist.

I wonder does anybody do "Thank You For Not Provoking My Uncontrollable Lust to Rant About My Misapprehensions Concerning Your Non-belief" tee-shirts?

seamus · 04-03-2010 03:40PM

liamw wrote: »

I just tell people I'm non-religious now. It's easier.

I'm agnostic personally, but if the question ever comes up it's either, "I'm not Catholic" or "I have no religion". If you make a declaration about being *something* such as atheist or agnostic, then you're inevitably going to have someone who will try to start a religious debate or discussion with you.
However, if you just say you're not something, they'll often leave you alone.

I particularly like, "I'm not Catholic", because people are then afraid to ask, "What are you" for fear of offending you

. It really only works though when you're prompted with something such as an offer to do the rosary or whatever.

I don't avoid the question out of any fear of engaging, but rather because I know that for most people if I end up getting into the conversation with a lifelong adherent (they don't even need to be devout), someone is going to get annoyed or upset, and that someone won't be me, but I'll be seen as the bad guy.
I've had extended family (not blood!) end up in tears over a religious argument - "Who will Paul McCartney meet in heaven, Linda, Heather or Nancy?" - so when the topic comes up, I keep out of it completely.

liamw · 04-03-2010 03:40PM

robindch wrote: »

Likewise. Having to wade through the subtleties of the differing classifications of atheist means is simply too much for most people who, I get the impression, would be much happier referring to me as a "militant". So, yes, saying "non-religious" tends to cause far less upset and induces far less ranting from the self-righteous than referring to oneself as an atheist.

I wonder does anybody do "Thank You For Not Provoking My Uncontrollable Lust to Rant About My Misapprehensions Concerning Your Non-belief" tee-shirts?

The main misconception seems to be 'atheist' = 'anti-theist'. In the eyes of the general public I get the impression that defining youself as an athiest automatically classifies you as 'militant anti-theist'. Personally, I only care about the truth and reality, I tend not to focus on whether religion has a positive or negative influence on society as a whole. It doesn't really interest me.

Faith in Science as Ridiculous as Faith in God.

Comments