nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limitations of Science?

nagirrac

The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Eramen

Zombrex wrote: »

Of course it is evidence. As for observation, you can observe the rules that are evidence that numbers are infinite.

For example, this is Euclid's proof of infinite primes

Theorem.
There are infinitely many primes.
Proof.
Suppose that p1=2 < p2 = 3 < ... < pr are all of the primes. Let P = p1p2...pr+1 and let p be a prime dividing P; then p can not be any of p1, p2, ..., pr, otherwise p would divide the difference P-p1p2...pr=1, which is impossible. So this prime p is still another prime, and p1, p2, ..., pr would not be all of the primes.

You and I are now observing this.

Yes, I observed the writing and the numbers but it is only when I made the information intelligible in my mind, through my understanding of the ideas of maths that it became understood as a proof. It's the consciousness that produces proof.

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok.. that doesn't counter my point

I'm not trying to Zombrex, I like the discussion of ideas!

Zombrex wrote: »

Well right now I'm reading your posts ... oh, you meant spiritually I imagine.

You could say that but it's more than that too.

A person who is caught up their own desires, feeling, rewards, errors, pain, elation, embarrassment and anything else humans are liable to be sensitive to, creates eventual suffering physically and mentally in whatever form. It's a daily facet of our lives that is a part of our existence.

But the man who questions what is the cause of all the former experiences; why is he acting/thinking in a certain way; to what ends he is moving and to why is he attached to feelings that usually end up in suffering, is surely a very intelligent person.

When people do this, the world becomes a little bit less terrible.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well you will notice that the major strives in improving human quality of life only were made after the Enlightenment and the abandonment of magical thinking.

Certainly the material rewards and living has increased since then. Yet this is correlated more with economic developments, with the technological ability to harness great quantities of energy using cheap petrochemicals and coal so that items could be mass-produced for everyone in the west. This is the reason for our material abundance.

Religion (and not the positive kind) is still around, Salafism, evangelical 'Christianity' which have no bearing or root in the actual religions they suppose to come from. Also new 'unquestionable sacred cows' have arrived on the scene. The cult of absolute equality, everyone is the same, belief in empirical science only, wealth as happiness, economic globalization, social-marxism, democracy as freedom et all: Superstitions.

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what evidence is.

Evidence and proof are different, I'm using them in the mathematical / philosophical sense. You are using them legally.

EmmettInc

Everyone here needs to separate concepts from realities...

EmmettInc

All you need to do is see the caliber and intelligence of top-line atheists and compare it to that of top-line theists and you very quickly begin to see a pattern...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfNgCaqLIR0

Eramen

EmmettInc wrote: »

All you need to do is see the caliber and intelligence of top-line atheists and compare it to that of top-line theists and you very quickly begin to see a pattern...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfNgCaqLIR0

Dick Dawkins is a well-paid PR. He would want to be good.

Leinsterr

I didn't bother reading the OP's post so I'll try to answer the title "Limitations of Science". In my opinion, first and foremost, what will limit science in the future will be our energy resources. Considering we don't have an unlimited amount of energy we cannot create certain scientific things (sorry for grammar, really tired). I have more but about to fall asleep

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

All you need to do is see the caliber and intelligence of top-line atheists and compare it to that of top-line theists and you very quickly begin to see a pattern...

Four atheists clapping each other on the back and agreeing with each other is a compelling argument for intelligence?
Must try harder..

Sarky

But you'll accept four 'philosophers' clapping eachother on the back and agreeing with eachother that there must be more.

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

EmmettInc wrote: »

All you need to do is see the caliber and intelligence of top-line atheists and compare it to that of top-line theists and you very quickly begin to see a pattern...

Four atheists clapping each other on the back and agreeing with each other is a compelling argument for intelligence?
Must try harder..

No, what they're saying is... You really really don't get this do you?

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

No, but if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people...

You obviously don't understand anything to do with quantum mechanics..

Prove God exists... If you cannot, then explain why he must in order for the universe to make sense...

Firstly, I am not religious as you would know if you actually read anything I have written. Posting up videos of atheists rubbishing what religious believe is not going to prove anything to someone who does not take what religious people believe very seriously.

As for introudicng quantum mechanics into the discussion, I suspect I understand it as well as you do considering nobody truly understands it, but out of curiosity, what is your leaning on interpretation of QM and why, the Copenhagen Interpretation or Many Worlds or one of the other ten interpretations?

I cannot prove to you that God exists. I have however personally concluded that he exists for the universe to make sense to me. I also accept that I do not understand the underlying reality of the universe, a factor you might want to consider in your own thinking on concepts and reality.

science_biggot

Can theism or divinity explain any of what you just said?

Eramen

EmmettInc wrote: »

No, but if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people...

I would support the notion that modern atheism is no longer a cultural movement but a semi-religious one because of their pushing on the general populace their one-time cultural views now fashioned as a universal reality that is not just true for them, but true for everybody! This is the definition of religious organisation.

They are very cute, because the reason they can say 'it's true for everybody' is because they dress it all up as science, which is only very partially true, and you know, 'empirical science is reality' - so they think they ought to tell you what to believe. An intelligent man would see right through the charade of course.

They have the literature (I'm not talking about scientific, but Dawkins, Hitchens....) the leaders, the finance, the events, the striving for a consensus reality among all atheists, their central tenet of anti-theism but again central to it, and what makes it different from a cultural/intellectual view is their pushing of their reality of life on all people regardless of the convictions of those people. They tell those people "You are wrong! Listen to my version of reality for only I know! It's merely science I tell you!'

This is why today there is a bit of a gag of how militant atheists and even your average one 'just won't shut up about it all' with a :rolleyes: . Patently they try with much missionary zeal to win people to their worldview/ideology/semi-religion. People get cheesed off, and fairly so.

The difference between most Christians in Europe, as well people like myself is: If people want to believe or not to believe in God, its fine. But if someone is a better person, improving themselves and those around for having a god then I simply say more power to them! It's not something that bothers me. What bothers me is the end result in the times we now live in.

Atheism, Salafism and American evangelism are dangers, ideologies that must be dealt with wisely.

EmmettInc wrote: »

You obviously don't understand anything to do with quantum mechanics, or the principles of concept and reality, and you're just making up things at this stage... I value my time more than to have these conversations with people that aren't open to being proven wrong...

People of all stripes like reading scientific material. Atheists have no right on them.

EmmettInc wrote: »

Prove God exists... If you cannot, then explain why he must in order for the universe to make sense... That would turn your hypothesis into a theory, but if you cannot then it remains a hypothesis- a poor one, but a hypothesis... Now if you're hypothesis can be disputed by by a better hypothesis, then it still is a hypothesis but is not as valid as a better one...

Perhaps people should investigate the conundrum of empirical belief also. "Why do I believe that which is relative [the material] to be real?"

'Prove god exists?' is but the last stand of an empiricist-only. It's his first and last question, that is all they know.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nagirrac wrote: »

I also accept that I do not understand the underlying reality of the universe

In fairness, you're right that no-one does. And, in that situation, there's no particular benefit in opting for a more or less extravagant explanation of reality.

EmmettInc

Eramen wrote: »

I would support the notion that modern atheism is no longer a cultural movement but a semi-religious one because of their pushing on the general populace their one-time cultural views now fashioned as a universal reality that is not just true for them, but true for everybody! This is the definition of religious organisation.

They have the literature (I'm not talking about scientific, but Dawkins, Hitchens....) the leaders, the finance, the events, the striving for a consensus reality among all atheists, their central tenet of anti-theism but again central to it, and what makes it different from a cultural/intellectual view is their pushing of their reality of life on all people regardless of the convictions of those people. They tell those people "You are wrong! Listen to my version of reality for only I know!'

This is why today there is a bit of a gag of how militant atheists and even your average one 'just won't shut up about it all' with a :rolleyes: . Patently they try with much missionary zeal to win people to their worldview/ideology/semi-religion.

The difference between most Christians in Europe, as well people like myself is: If people want to believe or not to believe in God, its fine. But if someone is a better person, improving themselves and those around for having a god then I simply say more power to them! It's not something that bothers me. What bothers me is the end result in the times we now live in.

Atheism, Salafism and American evangelism are dangers, ideologies that must be dealt with wisely.

People of all stripes like reading scientific material. Atheists have no right on them.

Perhaps people should investigate the conundrum of empirical belief also. "Why do I believe that that which is relative [the material] to be real?"

'Prove god exists?' is but the last stand of an empiricist-only. It's his first and last question, that is all they know.

Saying atheism is like a religion is like saying abstinence is a sexual position... But to that point, whats wrong with Atheism being religion-like, it's based on logic so there spread of logic vs fairy tale is good.

I never said science was exclusive to atheists, but I'd appreciate if theists would actually pay some attention to it.

and

Just saying something is "only" empirical, doesn't make it any less legitimate of a question, and in fact discrediting such challenges as "limited" proves just how desperate the challenger is...

nagirrac

Sarky wrote: »

But you'll accept four 'philosophers' clapping eachother on the back and agreeing with eachother that there must be more.

Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are/were all philosophers, Dawkins was a scientist but is now a philosopher.

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

Harris, Dennett and Hitchens are/were all philosophers, Dawkins was a scientist but is now a philosopher.

You know thats not what was meant... Now who's being literal...

Eramen

EmmettInc wrote: »

Saying atheism is like a religion is like saying abstinence is a sexual position... But to that point, whats wrong with Atheism being religion-like, it's based on logic so there spread of logic vs fairy tale is good.

I never said science was exclusive to atheists, but I'd appreciate if theists would actually pay some attention to it.

and

Just saying something is "only" empirical, doesn't make it any less legitimate of a question, and in fact discrediting such challenges as "limited" proves just how desperate the challenger is...

I cruise these forums a little bit. Atheists in the utmost of logic I'm certain, at least to themselves, proclaim that all people are equal, society needs to be 'inclusive', religion is bad, secular societies are surely better, the utopia approaches, how best can we mock people of the out-group today, a dash of science here as a precaution, as if dropping a strand of lettuce on a double cheeseburger qualifies as healthy food. Enlightened bunch of lads.

I don't believe this, call it logic or not. It's delusional at best.

Atheist and Christian, if I be honest, are very similar in belief. In fact they come from the same backgrounds and family, work the same jobs, same education, aims, life, interests.. I reckon they should pull it together and stop the bull.

Not many of these groups are logical when all is said, but they do try to be as best they can be as people, and that's really what matters. Christians have settled down, continued with their culture and religion, they aren't pretentious and in your face, in Europe and parts elsewhere.

Atheists should learn from their brothers. Drop the bs, settle down and work hand in hand with the religious for a better country, culture, and common vision of the future.

From an outside perceptive, Christians and Atheists do agitate each other, but atheism is now slightly worse a culprit in the west. Christian, atheist, same thing, same people, let's get to work, we've bigger fish to fry.

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

You know thats not what was meant... Now who's being literal...

Sorry, now I get it. The only philosophers to be taken seriously and considered intelligent are those who deny the existance of God and make their living selling books and doing world tours to convert people to their view

Zombrex

Eramen wrote: »

Yes, I observed the writing and the numbers but it is only when I made the information intelligible in my mind, through my understanding of the ideas of maths that it became understood as a proof. It's the consciousness that produces proof.

It would be true whether you believed it or not, or whether you understood it or not. Your consciousness does nothing but allow you, personally, to understand it.

Eramen wrote: »

I'm not trying to Zombrex, I like the discussion of ideas!

So you accept the point?

Eramen wrote: »

A person who is caught up their own desires, feeling, rewards, errors, pain, elation, embarrassment and anything else humans are liable to be sensitive to, creates eventual suffering physically and mentally in whatever form. It's a daily facet of our lives that is a part of our existence.

But the man who questions what is the cause of all the former experiences; why is he acting/thinking in a certain way; to what ends he is moving and to why is he attached to feelings that usually end up in suffering, is surely a very intelligent person.

Ok ... what does this have to do with the question of god?

Eramen wrote: »

Certainly the material rewards and living has increased since then.

Do you count not dying of small pox as a "material reward"?

Eramen wrote: »

Evidence and proof are different, I'm using them in the mathematical / philosophical sense. You are using them legally.

Evidence is anything that reveals or supports the truth or accuracy of a claim. That is what evidence is, whether it is mathematical or philosophical or legal.

EmmettInc

Eramen wrote: »

I cruise these forums a little bit. Atheists in the utmost of logic I'm certain, at least to themselves, proclaim that all people are equal, society needs to be 'inclusive', religion is bad, secular societies are surely better, the utopia approaches, how best can we mock people of the out-group today, a dash of science here as a precaution, as if dropping a strand of lettuce on a double cheeseburger qualifies as healthy food etc. Enlightened bunch of lads.

I don't believe this, call it logic or not. It's delusional at best.

Atheist and Christian, if I be honest, are very similar in belief. In fact they come from the same backgrounds and family, work the same jobs, same education, aims, life, interests.. I reckon they should stop the bull.

Not many of these groups are logical when all is said, but they do try to be as best they can be as people, and that's really what matters. Christians have settled down, continued with their culture and religion, they aren't pretentious and in your face, in Europe and parts elsewhere.

Atheists should learn from their brothers. Drop the bs, settle down and work hand in hand with the religious for a better country, culture, and common vision of the future.

From an outside perceptive, Christians and Atheists do agitate each other, but atheism is now slightly worse a culprit in the west. Christian, atheist, same thing, same people, settle down, let's get to work, we've bigger fish to fry.

You're right in where you're coming from, but that utopia will never happen as long as you have organised religion, as they profess authority... I'm not saying secular society is better, but at the same time, religion gets too much protection...

You cannot out non-sense on the same level as sense and claim that it equates to a balance argument...

My only problem with theism is that it is so unwilling to being proven wrong... Even if conclusive proof that god does not exist could be presented to a theist they would still not believe it, they would just come up with another cop-out, where as atheists are open to being proven wrong, just don't say the absence of evidence is itself evidence...

EmmettInc

Okay, so science is limited, that we can all accept, but at least it doesn't fill the gaps in with whatever sounds best...

Imagine this scenario:

A man walks into a crowded room... He claims that he has been visited by an angel-like being, this being assures him that the universe and all existence has been created not by a god but by a being to be known as "HigherPower"... This being is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful, this being is also loving and caring and it is to him where all our "souls" go to live in paradise at his side when our life here on earth ends, for all eternity... And that he was asked to deliver this message to mankind... Now, this man has no record of mental illness nor does any of his recent ancestry...

Would the crowded room:

a) Believe him, based on blind faith and his "HigherPower" given authority
b) Ask him questions to validate the claim
c) Consider him mad as a bag of weasels
d) Exit the room slowly and cautiously whilst avoiding eye contact
e) other:

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, now I get it. The only philosophers to be taken seriously and considered intelligent are those who deny the existance of God and make their living selling books and doing world tours to convert people to their view .

Nope, the only philosophers to be taken seriously are the ones who examine what we know and proffer what might be as opposed to the ones who arrange what we think we know to arrive at a preconceived conclusion...

You can be intelligent and still be wrong about one thing... One thing that by the way has no baring on reality, due to the fact that it is only a concept...

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

nagirrac wrote: »

That can certainly be debated but the fact that so many scientists both historically and contemporary are believers in God suggests your probability conclusion is a fallacy.

[...] it can be hard to find anybody in a senior scientific post who supports a single truth-claim made by a religious outfit.

Ah, the old smart people do not believe in God argument and even taking it a step further the smarter you are the less likely you are to believe. Talk about a plea to authority.

I'm the one appealing to authority?

EmmettInc

Is it safe to change the tone of the conversation a small bit... As opposed to examining does go exist or not, ask yourself this question- Why do you believe in god... not why do you doubt or not believe in god, why do you believe in god?

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

Nope, the only philosophers to be taken seriously are the ones who examine what we know and proffer what might be as opposed to the ones who arrange what we think we know to arrive at a preconceived conclusion

I agree but you have it the wrong way round. Those you claim should be taken seriously are sophists and not philosophers.

Dawkins, Harris, etc. are actually modern day sophists who use current scientific evidence to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that excludes God, and preach this conclusion in the pursuit of monetary gain. If Aristotle were around today he would have about as much time for them as he had for the sophists in his day. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge to attain personal wisdom, not to sell books.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I'm the one appealing to authority?

Absolutely. Your claim is that most senior scientists do not believe any religious truth-claims and somehow this is relevant to the question of God's existance. How is that not an appeal to authority?

Leaving aside the senior scientists who do believe these truth-claims (and there are many), why on earth would a scientist who is brilliant in one area of human endeavour have any more personal insight into the truth regarding the existance of God than anyone else?

May as well say most plumbers believe in God so God must exist.

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree but you have it the wrong way round. Those you claim should be taken seriously are sophists and not philosophers.

Dawkins, Harris, etc. are actually modern day sophists who use current scientific evidence to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that excludes God, and preach this conclusion in the pursuit of monetary gain. If Aristotle were around today he would have about as much time for them as he had for the sophists in his day. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge to attain personal wisdom, not to sell books.

I've no bother with anyone making money off their chosen field of expertise, but to say that they have arrived at preconceived conclusions is not correct... They are happy to arrive at a conclusion which makes sense, that conclusion is that there is a very small likelihood that god exists... They are open to being proven wrong, but they cannot be... The true Sophists are in fact the clergy who proffer to have answers to all lives problems, and get paid very handsomely to do so... Given the meaning of sophism in it's rawest form, it almost exactly describes the catholic church of today in fact... But that's not a valid point in this regard... Just being a sophist doesn't mean you're wrong...

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

Is it safe to change the tone of the conversation a small bit... As opposed to examining does go exist or not, ask yourself this question- Why do you believe in god... not why do you doubt or not believe in god, why do you believe in god?

Many reasons, but if I had to commit to one I would say because we have freedom or rather free will. If you believe in a deterministic material reality and reflect on what that implies, it is very difficult to believe that humans have free will. From neuroscience we know that decisions are made by the brain before we are conscious of them. However, our mind can overrule those decisions. This leads me to the conclusion that we are not slaves to our brains and our freedom is God given.

EmmettInc

nagirrac wrote: »

Many reasons, but if I had to commit to one I would say because we have freedom or rather free will. If you believe in a deterministic material reality and reflect on what that implies, it is very difficult to believe that humans have free will. From neuroscience we know that decisions are made by the brain before we are conscious of them. However, our mind can overrule those decisions. This leads me to the conclusion that we are not slaves to our brains and our freedom is God given.

Yes, free will exists, but the thing you have have to understand is that we use that free will based on what we have previously been exposed to... A theoretical alternative reality exists when we are posed with a dilemma, but as we follow through with action or inaction that theoretical alternative reality ceases to exist... Therefore, our free will, all be it a true thing, is predicated that we can only choose one forward movement in space and time, to create one present reality... So, given that we cannot change that which has been done, and we know not what is coming or what will be (theoretically speaking) it only stands that everything is deterministic in the sense that reality is as it is, and will be as it will be, as a result of what was.
Free will is a biological function, a real thing, a tool, but like anything else it is influenced entirely by the environment in which it exists, and what it has experienced, and all observable and comprehend-able factors thereto.

Example:

Big Bang ---- Lot's of time passes and events occur ---- and hey presto we're here now ---- I have innumerable options as to what I can do in this very moment in time, and in 5 minutes from now, everything from continue lie here typing and scratch my nose, to going into the next room and slapping my sleeping aunt with a fly swatter to getting dressed catching a taxi and heading to a night club... All these are options because I have free will, but I can only do one exactly five minutes from now... I cannot be doing all three at the exact same time, now my experience in life thus far teaches me that hitting my aunt will result in adverse consequences for me, going to the nightclub could be very fun, but I'd be tired tomorrow, and lying here scratching my nose is going to be rather inconsequential... But only one of these is going to be a reallity, or in fact none of them, the house I'm in could catch fire, or I could have to use the toilet, but in the end the series of events that started almost 13.7 billion years ago (apx) have lead to this moment in time and space, and as much as I have free will to do whatever I want in the fashion which I want, that can of coke I had half an hour ago, could really affect my plans to scratch my nose whilst lying here in this bed five minutes from now... Unless I wet myself, which I won't because I have free will, and will go to the bathroom, and who know's what fun could then ensue...

So my point is this, yes free will exists, but what we do with it has already been decided, I know that seems hard to comprehend but it is the reality, I didn't believe it 12 months ago, but when I thought about it a bit more, it made sense, and in fact my previous opinions made no sense whatsoever in hindsight...

So, the existence of free will doesn't stand up to scrutiny as a reason for there to be a god... And even if we did have true free will unaffected by any form of determinism, it would not be reasonable to think god gave it to us, rather that it was a consequence of evolution... I think it's also important o know that all living creatures exhibit almost identical free will to humans, but a dog might not snap at you for hitting him once, but the second time you might not get close enough to...

nagirrac

EmmettInc wrote: »

I've no bother with anyone making money off their chosen field of expertise, but to say that they have arrived at preconceived conclusions is not correct... They are happy to arrive at a conclusion which makes sense, that conclusion is that there is a very small likelihood that god exists... They are open to being proven wrong, but they cannot be... The true Sophists are in fact the clergy who proffer to have answers to all lives problems, and get paid very handsomely to do so... Given the meaning of sophism in it's rawest form, it almost exactly describes the catholic church of today in fact... But that's not a valid point in this regard... Just being a sophist doesn't mean you're wrong...

They argue their conclusion based on science, an endevour which says nothing on the question unless you are biased, so in this sense they are in complete concert with creationists.

We certainly agree strongly on one point. I agree the Catholic church is the best example of sophism, and a blight on reason.. but its no different to strong atheism in that regard. We cannot have direct knowledge of God if he exists outside our material universe. I know outside our material universe is a difficult concept to many, and in particular scientists, but the only way to be aware of God is indirectly.

What we have in common with God is our minds, we are a small subset of what he must be like. This is what should convince us that the world in terms of underlying reality is mental and not material. How can you listen to Beethoven's 9th and not agree? Can your dog compose that? If dogs evolved enough would they compose that? and even if they could do it physically like a monkey could randomly compose Shakespeare, why would they do it?

nagirrac

.. because we are storytelling chimps, I get it.