For all the ex-religious.

This is hilarious.

"I DONT NEED SCIENCE BECUASE I HAVE A HORSE AND A PLOW HERP DERP"

Fair ****s, like. If you're content to live without Science, enjoy your horse and plow. Yet you're now, your on a PC which wouldn't exist without Science...


Seriously, please spend a paragraph outlining your position. Is it that Science is shit? Unnecessary? I really don't understand.
 
The strangeness of luddites using the internet never ceases to impress me...
 
Fine, Sheepo. Here's one of the quotes:

Stiggy said:
Religion doesn't explain shit, pardon my French. It's a bunch of stories that have only a tangential, metaphorical relevance to life, society, and morality. Science can at least make educated guesses as to the function and mechanics of love; we know it's largely controlled by hormones and various patterns of thought.
Click to expand...
'Tangential metaphorical relevance to life': Pretend you're Job in a modern context. Your company fails, you get no bailout. All your prospects are dead. You are told to keep hope. How? You've lost everything. Your children can no longer get an education.

No, a story like Job's isn't related at ALL to contemporary existence, living, and dealing with life's misfortunes. It's all completely tangential and unrelated, only to serve the evil delusions of pedophile priests.

Love: it has been the discussion, debate, and debacle of religious and philosophical thought over 3000 years. Tell me, how has science quantified love? Do you love your mom or your dad more? How many hormones does it take for 'true love'? You're right: science makes guesses as to the function and the mechanism, but does nothing to carefully study the HUMAN SENSATION of love. Find me a study where that was the goal. Science tends to throw individual experience out the window: the experiences of one are meaningless and myriad, after all.

Philosophy tries to embrace that intangible part of the individual. It doesn't pretend to quantify every individual's love.

Solaris said:
This is hilarious.

"I DONT NEED SCIENCE BECUASE I HAVE A HORSE AND A PLOW HERP DERP"

Fair ****s, like. If you're content to live without Science, enjoy your horse and plow. Yet you're now, your on a PC which wouldn't exist without Science...
Click to expand...
Strawman. Also: ironic misunderstanding of the point. But then again, most members aren't too strong in the department of understanding arguments.

Solaris said:
Seriously, please spend a paragraph outlining your position. Is it that Science is shit? Unnecessary? I really don't understand.
Click to expand...
Oh, you really want me to fit into one of your little categories. What shall it be? Religious nut? Historical snob? Amish wiseass? Armchair general?

Let's say I'm rather sick of both Dawkins and most of the religious extremists of the States: I think they both vastly misrepresent the philosophical and historical giants on whose shoulders they stand. I would much rather read about Faraday and Jerome than Dawkins and Pastor Fred.

And my yearly post quota in the politics forum is up! If you would like to have a truly meaningful debate, I highly suggest going and studying this topic at an educational institution, rather than making a 27 page post thread about it!
 
I still don't understand this.

Science has not explained the sensation of love? I kind of agree with you, I don't think Science will ever explain things like that and conciousness properly. I think the answers to these questions are better provided by certain Eastern philosophy's.

But Science can certainly tell us a lot about these things through brain scans and what not.

I don't want you to fix in any of my 'little categories'. But usually here, people state a position and then defend it, all you're doing is vaguely attacking everyone else, it's degenerating into nonsense.
 
I have no idea what just happened, but I like this guy.
 
Viperidae said:
No, I'm saying that within reasonable limits, technology can exist without science. I never said technology doesn't give technology a huge leg up.

The plow existed before the tractor. The horse existed before the car. Many proponents of science pretend that it is technology. You know, the kind that post pictures of cell phones in these kinds of threads and say LOOK HOW SCIENCE HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES. To which I reply: fire. Horses. Boats. Changed our species quite a bit, didn't they. Didn't need much science.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call a horse or a plough technology. The horse is an animal and the plough is just a tool.

On the subject of food, if it wasn't for science we wouldn't be able to feed the world. The Haber process plays a major role in providing food for the world and eventually GM crops will help feed an ever increasing population.

Fire? That isn't technology either, that just a natural "force" which requires science to understand the mechanism behind it.

Boats, mostly newer boats not just carved out of wood needed science i.e the testing of new materials, the mathematics/physics behind stress,strain all needed to come together to build boats.

But science will be able to explain morals, we see morals in animals they seem to be a natural phenomenon. Science by it self will not be a moral system, it won't be used as a basis for a moral code.

Solaris said:
I still don't understand this.

Science has not explained the sensation of love? I kind of agree with you, I don't think Science will ever explain things like that and conciousness properly. I think the answers to these questions are better provided by certain Eastern philosophy's.

But Science can certainly tell us a lot about these things through brain scans and what not.

I don't want you to fix in any of my 'little categories'. But usually here, people state a position and then defend it, all you're doing is vaguely attacking everyone else, it's degenerating into nonsense.
Click to expand...

I do think science will explain all these things but it will take a long time (~century). Neuroscience is still I would say in its infancy. But arguing on these forums tend to be overly aggressive and there tends to be alot of shit throwing on both sides and put downs. Would like the idea of having a civil conservation about these topics.
 
Hmm, welll okay, I suppose I didn't read his post as strictly as you did, and yes, the bible and religious teachings have far more relevance to life than he suggests. That still doesn't completely nullify his point though. Religion (Christianity) is really just some mythology to explain our existence and helping guide people through life, but that's pretty much it. Also, he doesn't say or imply that religion's sole contribution to the world is serving pedophile priests though (so booooo). I am however inclined to agree with him on what religion says on love: nothing. It exists and it is an expression of your love for god. Awesome. The only really interesting accounts of or efforts to understand love I find are personal experience. Just because science can't give us a good account on the meaning of love and such concepts doesn't mean we have to go after the lowest common denominator of explanations-that-aren't-really-explanations.

Also, technology refers to virtually anything that unnatural that helps s to survive, no matter how rudimentary.
 
Viper, I'd really like to know how you read my post as trading out religion with science to answer the same questions.

Raken stated that science cannot explain love. If he is referring to the underlying mechanics that can be said to bring about love, he is demonstrably wrong. If he is speaking about the "human sensation" as you term it, then I still don't see where religion garners the credentials to speak on such matters with any seriousness. I was not advocating that science be the agent for investigating such matters (but who knows, it might be able to in a few decades' time), but railing against the argument that religion is somehow the appropriate alternative to fall back on in absence of science's ability.

I know there are no hard, fast rules in philosophy. But any establishment that has to frame the human condition within origins from a supernatural deity has to be starting off on the wrong foot.
 
So this thread has effectively derailed from God vs Science to Science vs Philosophy?

Yet Religion is being thrown in with Philosophy and no else finds this to be wrong?

Religion/Theology and Philosophy may have things in common but they are still fundamentally different at the end of the day. While philosophy can attempt to understand or serve as a framework for how we choose to live our lives, theology attempts to do the same but only in regards to it's religious doctrine. The same doctrine that states you are reincarnated as an ant when you die if you've lived a bad life, or if you're gay then you're going to burn in torment forever and ever, or if someone offends you then you must kill them.

The argument here shouldn't be that Science is no substitute for Philosophy. After all, science simply allows us to understand the physical universe in measurable ways. It can't help us understand what political group is the best to vote for, what system of governance is better for all, is abortion right or wrong these are all undefinable, immeasurable things.

So why are we comparing Science to Philosophy (which no longer attempts to explain physical things in the same manner as science) and lumping in Religion with Philosophy (which DOES attempt to explain physical things in the same manner as science only with mysticism instead)?

Philosophy and Science will continue throughout humanity's existence no matter what. We continue to use science to attempt to understand the universe and create new technologies thanks to new discoveries and inventions. Humanity simply won't stop being curious, so neither will scientific advancement. Philosophy will always be there, underlying our ethics and morality. But Religion is the only thing in this argument that could grow redundant. After all, most religions have never changed since inception.
 
Mogi67 said:
Not so. Viper is quite on track. Science is irrelevant to the resolution of philosophical problems. Neuroscience can potentially explain the mechanics of all mental states, but there are still questions to be had.
Click to expand...

You're working under the assumption that understanding human emotions fall under the purview solely of philosophy (and religion?) rather than science.
That caused this entire tangent, yet what is your basis for believing that?

Viper seems to be operating under the false dichotomy that if science can't now explain something it must be covered by a God of the Gaps - fairy tales made up by primitive farmers. This seems to reject a willingness to accept our own ignorance in certain areas. Invoking superstition to answer questions which still puzzle us rather than simply admitting we don't know is pathetic.
 
I think most (though perhaps not all) people in this thread don't seem to realise that science is a philosophical ideology based around the search for knowledge using certain frameworks (the scientific method). Not all technology comes from science and science is not any quest for knowledge but a system of investigating the world in a specific way. In fact, a lot of science comes from technology; coming up with theories of how things that are known to work, do.
 
Eejit said:
You're working under the assumption that understanding human emotions fall under the purview solely of philosophy (and religion?) rather than science.
That caused this entire tangent, yet what is your basis for believing that?
Click to expand...

It goes beyond human emotions with him, he wants to place a number next to every possible human concept.
 
ríomhaire said:
I think most (though perhaps not all) people in this thread don't seem to realise that science is a philosophical ideology based around the search for knowledge using certain frameworks (the scientific method). Not all technology comes from science and science is not any quest for knowledge but a system of investigating the world in a specific way. In fact, a lot of science comes from technology; coming up with theories of how things that are known to work, do.
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of a technology that wasn't invented through scientific means? Where, then, did it come from?
 
Eejit said:
You're working under the assumption that understanding human emotions fall under the purview solely of philosophy (and religion?) rather than science.
That caused this entire tangent, yet what is your basis for believing that?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. But I fail to see how neuroscience is expected to explain anything about human emotions other than mechanics.
 
Mogi67 said:
Not exactly. But I fail to see how neuroscience is expected to explain anything about human emotions other than mechanics.
Click to expand...

It's pretty cut and dry. Hormones, chemicals. There is no mystical part to emotion, just what people decide to make of it.
 
Mogi67 said:
Not exactly. But I fail to see how neuroscience is expected to explain anything about human emotions other than mechanics.
Click to expand...

For the rest there's psychology.

No need for sky wizards.
 
Mogi67 said:
Not exactly. But I fail to see how neuroscience is expected to explain anything about human emotions other than mechanics.
Click to expand...

....religion doesnt even do that; there is no explanation whatsoever about human emotions either mechanical or otherwise. and really are you saying there hasnt been a single innovation in ways of thinking in 2000 years? that that is about as much as there is to know about humanity?
 
Krynn72 said:
Can you give an example of a technology that wasn't invented through scientific means? Where, then, did it come from?
Click to expand...

Very few recently, but I think what people mean to say is any technology that is created by chance or upon noticing a demand, is created unscientifically (without the scientific method).
 
Like matches and basic farming techniques. My point is not to say we don't owe our technologies to science (almost everything we use today has been refined by science, if not discovered through it) but more along this idea of philosophy Vs science that is creeping in a bit. Science is not opposed to philosophy as science is a philosophy!
 
Fine, let's put religion to the test:

How does it explain in-group preference?
How does it explain depression?
How does it explain acquired conditioning?

Science has an answer to all of these. The answers may be wrong, but they have gotten more and more accurate with each decade's innovation.

Religion is not an answer. It never was. It is akin to a child (or Sarah Palin) saying, "I don't know, and I'm sure I'll never know!"

riomhaire said:
I think most (though perhaps not all) people in this thread don't seem to realise that science is a philosophical ideology based around the search for knowledge using certain frameworks (the scientific method). Not all technology comes from science and science is not any quest for knowledge but a system of investigating the world in a specific way. In fact, a lot of science comes from technology; coming up with theories of how things that are known to work, do.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the scientific method isn't just 'a' framework to analyse the world, it is 'the' framework. It is the formalization of the one and only logical way to understand the world:

--> (induction) Hypothesis --> Experiment --> (deduction) Theory --> Extensive testing --> Scientific "fact" (may be revised later; meanwhile, used to frame new hypotheses) -->

There is simply no other way the human mind can interact with the universe. Babies understand this, how come we as adults don't?
 
CptStern said:
....religion doesnt even do that; there is no explanation whatsoever about human emotions either mechanical or otherwise. and really are you saying there hasnt been a single innovation in ways of thinking in 2000 years? that that is about as much as there is to know about humanity?
Click to expand...

There are still philosophical questions which are raised even in light of neuroscience and the knowledge of the workings of the brain that science can't answer. The natural sciences are a tool, it can't answer questions of ethics or morality. This has nothing to do with religion.
 
Mogi67 said:
There are still philosophical questions which are raised even in light of neuroscience and the knowledge of the workings of the brain that science can't answer. The natural sciences are a tool, it can't answer questions of ethics or morality. This has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

that doesnt mean we've stopped looking for answers or that we've learned everything there is to know or that we'll eventually answer them. with religion those answers are set in stone ..well at least until someone reinterprets them to suit an agenda. and for the record religion cant answer those questions either ..or any other questions for that matter; they just have a catch all phrase to explain everything: god
 
Mogi67 said:
There are still philosophical questions which are raised even in light of neuroscience and the knowledge of the workings of the brain that science can't answer. The natural sciences are a tool, it can't answer questions of ethics or morality. This has nothing to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Philosophical questions about what?

I agree with your statement in its current (retardedly broad) form though, nobody ever said neuroscience is going to answer all philosophical questions. Perhaps you'd care to refine your message?
 
I believe I understand what he's getting at. We can't explain with science some things that are explained through reasoning; say, an ethical question like 'You could stop the war in Israel [by doing X] indefinitely, but thousands of innocents may die. Is it worth it?'

You could hypothetically say you can explain this with science by balancing out how many while die by doing X, and how many will die if the war continues with terrorist attacks, and then making a decision. But such accurate approximations of deaths would almost never be available, and so it is a question of ethics.
 
Oh, so he's trying to send the thread off on a philosophy and ethics vs science tangent simply because he's given up defending religion but doesn't want to admit it?
Cool.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
I believe I understand what he's getting at. We can't explain with science some things that are explained through reasoning; say, an ethical question like 'You could stop the war in Israel [by doing X] indefinitely, but thousands of innocents may die. Is it worth it?'

You could hypothetically say you can explain this with science by balancing out how many while die by doing X, and how many will die if the war continues with terrorist attacks, and then making a decision. But such accurate approximations of deaths would almost never be available, and so it is a question of ethics.
Click to expand...

Actually, we still have to use reason to interpret scientific observations. The whole idea of the scientific method is itself based on reason.
 
Yup, looks like they've all given up on religion. Good work Team Atheism!
 
99.vikram said:
I disagree, the scientific method isn't just 'a' framework to analyse the world, it is 'the' framework. It is the formalization of the one and only logical way to understand the world:

--> (induction) Hypothesis --> Experiment --> (deduction) Theory --> Extensive testing --> Scientific "fact" (may be revised later; meanwhile, used to frame new hypotheses) -->

There is simply no other way the human mind can interact with the universe. Babies understand this, how come we as adults don't?
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm not trying to downplay science (I'm a physics student for god's sake!) but it is a philosophical construct.
 
Sheepo said:
Very few recently, but I think what people mean to say is any technology that is created by chance or upon noticing a demand, is created unscientifically (without the scientific method).
Click to expand...

I meant to quote this in my post before to say that I still don't believe that there are many (if any) technological advances that were not scientifically founded. Even if someone doesn't go "hmm, according to the scientific method, I must now make a hypothesis!" doesn't mean their methods were not simply scientific without their realizing. A person who attaches a rock to a stick and throws it in the water may not have consciously followed the scientific method to invent a way to make things sink, but it was still very much a scientific process and not a philosophical one.
 
Krynn72 said:
Also, for Mogi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Click to expand...

There was already a thread on this. I wouldn't put too much faith in Harris, his arguments are fundamentally flawed. I'll elaborate when I have more time.

Eejit said:
Oh, so he's trying to send the thread off on a philosophy and ethics vs science tangent simply because he's given up defending religion but doesn't want to admit it?
Cool.
Click to expand...

I haven't given up on defending religion, nor am I trying to send the thread off on any tangent. It's not even a philosophy and ethics vs. science matter at all. Science is just an empirical tool. I would be glad to argue more in depth but my time online is limited, it's finals week and I've got a big paper on Heidegger occupying me.
 
So we all agree. Tim Minchin is funny.

Job well done, thread
 
Sheepo said:
Very few recently, but I think what people mean to say is any technology that is created by chance or upon noticing a demand, is created unscientifically (without the scientific method).
Click to expand...

Uh, no. A technology might be DISCOVERED by accident, but the actual DEVELOPMENT of it is very much a scientific process.

Yes, the matches were DISCOVERED by accident. But before they were introduced to the public as a PRODUCT, the inventor surely has spent a lot of time figuring out the exact method to duplicate the instance, so that he can mass produce matches and get ****ing rich.

In short, he was DEVELOPING stuff.
 
That really only accounts for large scale production, doesn't it?
 
I would think most inventions of consequence are complex enough to not be though up in a single moment of creative clarity. Science is essentially the structured gathering of correct information, so any instance of somebody merely being rational and level-headed about how they approach a problem is scientific.
 
Sheepo said:
That really only accounts for large scale production, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What hes saying is that science was involved in figuring out how to recreate the technology, so that it can then be produced large scale. If you accidentally happen upon a new technology, but it was a one time thing that you don't understand and can't recreate... thats not inventing a technology or even discovering one, since you have no idea what just happened. Science is required to actually discover what it is and how its made.

Also, where is this matches example coming from? I looked them up on wikipedia (i know, i know) and it says nothing about someone discovering them by chance. The earliest record, apparently was when some Chinese dude soaked sticks in sulfur. They obviously knew what sulfur did, so the guy's thought process seems fairly simple to deduce.

Define the problem: We need an easier way to light fires
Hypotheses: soaking a stick in sulfur will make the stick easy to ignite
Experiment: soaked stick in sulfur and introduced it to a spark
Conclusion: OH GOD I'M ON FIRE

And then friction matches were invented in the 1800s by a freaking Chemist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tyguy
The History of St. Patricks Day
Replies
20
Views
2K
gFrohman
gFrohman
Atomic_Piggy
2007: bad year for God squadders
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
Munro
The Meaning of Half-Life
Replies
0
Views
1K
Munro
Munro
Back
Top