Suck my balls you stupid creationists!

[Dan]

This is really one of those things which people should be more aware of, actually. I live in an Islamic country, and after hearing people say that the earth floats on rock, and there is an energy field that prevents us from reaching the moon, I would very much prefer that a bastion of scientific trust exists somewhere.

You can't prove that the earth doesn't float on rock or that there isn't an energy field that prevents us from reaching the moon without referring to second hand knowledge which you learned from someone else. So you are accepting what you were taught on faith. For simple Newtonian physics you can see the applications and effects in your everyday world, so it is easy to accept those.

But things like quarks, neutrons, black holes, general relativity, they are so far removed from their impact on your world that you have to accept their implications on faith in someone else's observations and reasoning because only someone that studies those things can prove them. Because many people tend to lump all of science together as one body of knowledge that exists "somewhere out there", they make the connection that because simple observable stuff is true, that the more complex stuff is true as well.

Basically what I am saying is that you should all be a lot more skeptical of everything. Learning to accept everything you are taught in school is the same as learning to accept everything you are told in church. It's easy to say, but to actually question everyday stuff is tough without turning your whole world upside-down. If you were educated a few decades ago or so, probably a lot of things you learned in school are wrong by today's standard. There used to be 9 planets, Russians were baby-eating communists, smoking was good for you, Bin Laden was a friend of America, etc etc.

 

[Narvi]

Admit it. You're just as bad as the ultra-religious.

*facepalm*

I didn't want to debate with you because it honestly does not seem worth it, and it'd likely start a flamewar (since it would be hard for me to avoid references to religion that other members might practice) not due to lack of argument on my side. But I'll go forward if you wish to impugn me. I honestly will aim to be polite, but this is difficult, since I prefer profanity in my debate, so the next few paragraphs will be exceedingly formal.

So we're just as bad as the ultra-religious now? We try to censor basic reality and restrict civil liberties based on ethical ideas that made very little sense even two thousand years ago?

We're not averse to new ideas, either. A scientific mindset is different from an ultra-religious mindset simply because it allows you to evaluate an idea based upon its pros and cons, not due to a predetermined value set that might not make sense with new developments.

Certainly errors exist in science... but note, these are eventually corrected. The religious point this out as an example of the "fallibility" of science, but it is better than sticking to an idealogy which believes it is infallible, even in cases where it is obviously wrong. Darwin, for instance, was initially lambasted for his theories, and the guy who worked out the geographic plate idea met some initial stiff resistance; but guess what? People confirmed their theories and it is accepted scientific parlance today. As opposed to religion, where new developments are introduced only due to massive social and economic realities.

Your entire premise is based upon the idea that I approve of blind faith in science. This is inaccurate; I approve of science due to observing the benefits of a scientific mindset, and I believe that the public should trust it more. Blind faith in anything is retarded, (see: Communism,) but blind faith in science is preferrable to the alternatives because it is self-correcting to a degree. Unless the scientific community becomes as conservative as the churches and synagogues of the world, they are as trustable as anything can be, though critical thinking in the public is important to keep it so.

Changing human nature is somewhat beyond science (for now...), and belief in science itself is not a bad thing. Unless you're one of those people who believe that just because somebody believes in something strongly they are just as bad as the assholes who believe in something strongly.

"Murderers should be locked up/shot/rehabilitated!"
"You're very vocal on this! You must be bad as those screwball ministers who want to ban books!"
"..."

You can't prove that the earth doesn't float on rock or that there isn't an energy field that prevents us from reaching the moon without referring to second hand knowledge which you learned from someone else. So you are accepting what you were taught on faith. For simple Newtonian physics you can see the applications and effects in your everyday world, so it is easy to accept those.

But things like quarks, neutrons, black holes, general relativity, they are so far removed from their impact on your world that you have to accept their implications on faith in someone else's observations and reasoning because only someone that studies those things can prove them. Because many people tend to lump all of science together as one body of knowledge that exists "somewhere out there", they make the connection that because simple observable stuff is true, that the more complex stuff is true as well.

Basically what I am saying is that you should all be a lot more skeptical of everything. Learning to accept everything you are taught in school is the same as learning to accept everything you are told in church. It's easy to say, but to actually question everyday stuff is tough without turning your whole world upside-down. If you were educated a few decades ago or so, probably a lot of things you learned in school are wrong by today's standard. There used to be 9 planets, Russians were baby-eating communists, smoking was good for you, Bin Laden was a friend of America, etc etc.

Critical thinking ftw? If you went to a doctor, you'd trust his advice. Trust is an important part of society; blind faith in religion is not.

You're assuming faith is the same thing as trust. They are two different things. Obviously no one can be perfect, but can we leave this shit to the people who actually know what the **** they are talking about? Do I go up to a doctor and tell him that his diagnosis is obviously wrong? How would I know? Quack doctors exist, and sometimes the doctor's knowledge is a bit out-of-date, but in respectable institutes these cases are far less; creationists are the quack doctors (who go on about Shamanic magic and crystals) of the scientific world.

 

[kirovman]

Actually I have faith in the aircraft and the ground crew -- God does not exist and science does me shit with everything gets hairy.

Then I presume you have faith in the engineers who build the aircraft, adhering to engineering standards based on scientific principles.

edit: yes, trust is probably a more apt word.

 

[Cheomesh]

*facepalm*

I didn't want to debate with you because it honestly does not seem worth it, and it'd likely start a flamewar (since it would be hard for me to avoid references to religion that other members might practice) not due to lack of argument on my side. But I'll go forward if you wish to impugn me. I honestly will aim to be polite, but this is difficult, since I prefer profanity in my debate, so the next few paragraphs will be exceedingly formal.

So we're just as bad as the ultra-religious now? We try to censor basic reality and restrict civil liberties based on ethical ideas that made very little sense even two thousand years ago?

We're not averse to new ideas, either. A scientific mindset is different from an ultra-religious mindset simply because it allows you to evaluate an idea based upon its pros and cons, not due to a predetermined value set that might not make sense with new developments.

Certainly errors exist in science... but note, these are eventually corrected. The religious point this out as an example of the "fallibility" of science, but it is better than sticking to an idealogy which believes it is infallible, even in cases where it is obviously wrong. Darwin, for instance, was initially lambasted for his theories, and the guy who worked out the geographic plate idea met some initial stiff resistance; but guess what? People confirmed their theories and it is accepted scientific parlance today. As opposed to religion, where new developments are introduced only due to massive social and economic realities.

Your entire premise is based upon the idea that I approve of blind faith in science. This is inaccurate; I approve of science due to observing the benefits of a scientific mindset, and I believe that the public should trust it more. Blind faith in anything is retarded, (see: Communism,) but blind faith in science is preferrable to the alternatives because it is self-correcting to a degree. Unless the scientific community becomes as conservative as the churches and synagogues of the world, they are as trustable as anything can be, though critical thinking in the public is important to keep it so.

Changing human nature is somewhat beyond science (for now...), and belief in science itself is not a bad thing. Unless you're one of those people who believe that just because somebody believes in something strongly they are just as bad as the assholes who believe in something strongly.

"Murderers should be locked up/shot/rehabilitated!"
"You're very vocal on this! You must be bad as those screwball ministers who want to ban books!"
"..."

Actually I was getting at being two ends of a spectrum for not finding things out for yourself, but since you went so far to type all that out, that's very nice of you.

Then I presume you have faith in the engineers who build the aircraft, adhering to engineering standards based on scientific principles.

edit: yes, trust is probably a more apt word.

Good point; Was thinking more of "in that moment". Though, from what they taught me about how wings work in middle school, flight doesn't work, or something. Hard to word when I'm this tired . I remember them teaching us a principal that because a wing is curved on top it has lower air pressure on top, and higher on the bottom, causing lift. Apparently they where wrong about that :|

 

[Narvi]

Actually I was getting at being two ends of a spectrum for not finding things out for yourself, but since you went so far to type all that out, that's very nice of you.

So you insulted me by assuming I was one of those... two ends of a spectrum... use grammar, damn it.

I deal with antiscientific shit all the time in real life. I don't need it in hl2.net.

Good point; Was thinking more of "in that moment". Though, from what they taught me about how wings work in middle school, flight doesn't work, or something. Hard to word when I'm this tired . I remember them teaching us a principal that because a wing is curved on top it has lower air pressure on top, and higher on the bottom, causing lift. Apparently they where wrong about that :|

It's quite a bit more complex than that. They only teach you the extraordinarily basic stuff in high school. For an example, do you know what spdf electron notation is?

 

[Cheomesh]

So you insulted me by assuming I was one of those... two ends of a spectrum... use grammar, damn it.

I deal with antiscientific shit all the time in real life. I don't need it in hl2.net.

I misspelled a word. Cry me a river.

It's quite a bit more complex than that. They only teach you the extraordinarily basic stuff in high school. For an example, do you know what spdf electron notation is?

Yeah, I know it's more complex. And I said middle school. I was making an example. In the future I guess to please you I'll submit a 1,000 word essay detailing what I'm trying to say.

Now, it's 8AM, I'm going to bed.

 

[15357]

Then I presume you have faith in the engineers who build the aircraft, adhering to engineering standards based on scientific principles.

edit: yes, trust is probably a more apt word.

The Cult Mechanicus and the Tech-Priests will not be pleased. Have faith in the machine-sprit that keeps you alive.

 

[Krynn72]

The Cult Mechanicus and the Tech-Priests will not be pleased. Have faith in the machine-sprit that keeps you alive.

Thread over. Machine Spirit > god and science.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Lots of generally accepted scientific principles are known by laymen in their lie-to-children versions; we all 'know' that an atom is a little tiny hollow ball with a group of even smaller balls inside it and little electric sparks whizzing around the centre in orbit?

In actuality the structure of an atom is far more complex and probably more uncertain; more of a quantum smear, maybe. But the lie-to-children detailed above works very well as an easily-understandable and functionally correct provisional image that most people can easily understand and is fit for the level at which they understand it.

But there's no dogma or elitism there, because anyone can choose to go further and enhance their knowledge, through education or through just reading books.

Actually I have faith in the aircraft and the ground crew -- God does not exist and science does me shit with everything gets hairy.

If one day you have a heart attack and are revived by medical professionals, I'll expect you to change that opinion.

 

[bbson john]

What is so important about right and wrong? Can't we just get alone?

p.s. I am not a creationist.

 

[theotherguy]

Faith doesnt necessarily have to mean you believe something with no evidence. We have faith in the scientists research because in the past they have typically been correct. If we dont seek out the evidence, then it is faith on our part if we still believe in it.

Bullshit.

There is a HUGE difference between trusting scientific knowledge and having faith in religious dogma.

Let me repeat it:
Faith is belief without evidence. Without. Evidence. It cannot be faith if it has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up.

If I wanted to (and often I do), I could read the scientsts' papers, examine their evidence, and come to my own conclusions.

But if I wanted to look for a theologians evidence of God or the truth of the Bible, the farthest I would get is "just because", and not even the "just because" science will give you if you go very very far out, but "just because" for even the simplest, most profoundly stupid things in the Bible.

There is verifiable evidence for science, and if I had a distrust in it, I could look at the evidence and change my opinion. There is zero evidence for any god, and if I had distrust in it, I would not be able to find such evidence.

Therefore, religion is based on faith, and science is based on reasonable conclusions from evidence.

Stop conflating the two.

Just stop it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I agree, but:

Therefore, religion is based on faith, and science is based on reasonable conclusions from evidence.

I think you're conflating science/religion unfairly.

Better to say: religion is typified by faith as an epistemological device, whereas science is a method of gleaning reasonable conclusions from evidence.

It's very important to emphasise that science is primarily a methodology where religions are vast and intricate cultural constructs. 'Science' is not a gestalt but a way of doing.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

If god truly made man in his own image, then why the **** do I sometimes chew the inside of my own cheek by accident?

 

[[Matt]]

Illegalize creationism. Easy solution.


"What? You don't think Darwin was right? You believe in creation? Take this you deluded egocentrical loony!" *electric baton bzzzt*

















Uh.. ahem.

Bzzzt.

The good news is thats it against the US constitution to teach creationism in US schools.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Can't we just get alone?

:naughty:

Sorry, I know that was a mistake. Very interesting vid there by Delusional...

 

[[Matt]]

I'm alsio going to add this...


A lot of creationists including President bush wshen talking about the subject of evolution have a tendancy to say 'its just a theory.' However thyey dont seem to realise that for some reason the public understanding of the word theory seems to have changed significantly over the years to mean a posh word for 'idea' or 'guess'. In science the word theory is used in a completely different manner. In science when you have an educated guess as to how something new may work based on past evidence its refered to as a hypothesis. Above that you have pure facts which in science are so common as to be ten a penny. Im sure every hl2 dot netter can think of 10 scientific facts without much trouble, even such basic facts such as water starts to solidify's and freeze when it dips below 0 degrees centigrade. The word theory in science is a much higher level of understanding than a single fact as a theory encompasses several facts into one mathmatical or logical explanation as to how such facts work together in a testable environment. You do sometimes find that some fringe scientists sometimes stretch the word theory to cover an untestable hypothesis as some physicists have done with string theory which at the moment is completely untestable until the large hadron collidor at CERN comes online later this year.

However the word theory when referred to evolution is an example of the former as even if the theory that we have evolved from the lower apes turns out to be wrong it wont change as thing as evolution has been observed in the wild thousands of times. Examples of such observed evolution are really too numerous to mention but i will mention one of my favourite examples. In the Chobe national park in Botswana due to mans influence from climate change and hunting there seems to be a huge drop in numbers of herbivores. The lions of the region for the past several decades are going through some extreme times of hardship. Several decades or so ago naturalists oberved one particular pride of lions in desperation start to prey on small baby and junior elephants. Now this is very dangerous the for the lions as the adult elephants are very protective of their young and also quite aggressive compared to predators who only kill out of necessity (elephants actually kill more people per year than lions do). Over the years the lions have improved their elephant hunting tactics to the point that they're now starting to hunt large female cow elephants instead of the calfs. As a consequence only the strongest and healthiest lions can cope with the hardships of hunting such hard to kill such prey. As such this particular pride of lions are now around 10% larger and much more muscular than the other lion prides in the same region. Some of you may know that male lions born to a pride never stay in the pride past their teens and usually go solitary or pair with a brother until they find a pride of lions they can take over by force. Once they do so they usually kill the the pride patriarch and kill and eat any cubs within the pride so that they can use the females to father their own young. Because of this the male lions of the elephant killing pride are now passing on their genes to surrounding tribes to produce larger and stronger cubs. I've had a quick look on google but cant find the scientific journal i read the paper i got this info from.

Another of my favourite examples i like to cite is that of japanese scientists in 1975 discovering a strain of flavobacterium that can use a new type of enzyme to digest nylon byproducts despite these byproducts only existing since nylons invention in 1935. For this i did manage to find a link.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nylon-eating-bacteria-1

Note the part about scientists bieng able to induce another strain of bacterium to evolve this capability.

"Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The Pseudomonas strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain."

 

[Dan]

Critical thinking ftw? If you went to a doctor, you'd trust his advice. Trust is an important part of society; blind faith in religion is not.

Personally, no I wouldn't have a lot of faith in doctors. Medicine has made lots of mistakes in the past, and a hospital is not someplace I would chose to go voluntarily. Some of the practices today I don't trust. The "simple" things like stitches, setting broken bones, I consider to be personally observable phenomena. They would be lumped in with aircraft engineers. I have flown in an airplane before, it didn't crash. If I flew in a plane that was powered by Jesus, I would consider that observable proof of Jesus. But some of the surgeries and other routines I completely don't trust.

I had a couple bulging discs a few years ago and my doctor recommended surgery to fuse my vertebrae together. It was the standard treatment at the time, but I didn't like the idea of having bits of metal on my spine for the rest of my life. Now I look on the internet for back treatments and there are tons of people complaining about that very same surgery.

Take bacteria (I am gonna paraphrase from 12 Monkeys here). 200 years ago, you tell people that there are tiny little lifeforms that are too small to see, and that that is the reason people get sick, you would be thought to be completely loony. You would go straight to the crazy shack. But you say that typhoid fever is because you made god angry and nobody would blink twice. We are living with misconceptions all around us all the time. You just can't see the ones that are around us. We only have the power of hindsight into the past, and it is people like you who think that everything we know today is correct that are actually the same as the god loving bacteria naysayers.

But there's no dogma or elitism there, because anyone can choose to go further and enhance their knowledge, through education or through just reading books.

Tell that to a Brazilian wage labourer.

Bullshit.

There is a HUGE difference between trusting scientific knowledge and having faith in religious dogma.

If I wanted to (and often I do), I could read the scientsts' papers, examine their evidence, and come to my own conclusions.

Actually you can't examine their evidence, only their findings. Unless you have access to some pretty hefty corporate funding, you will not be repeating any cutting edge science in your kitchen. Thus you are bound to trusting someone else's observations. Those observations usually aren't even first hand, they are taking hundreds of other observations that they trust and a little bit of what they see through an electron microscope and combining it to come up with a new theory. We are way past the renaissance man days where Isaac Newton can discover everything on his own. You have to have blind faith in what someone else is telling you. And if someone else proves a piece of science wrong, you would have to have blind faith in what that person says or what the scientific community agrees on. Prove to me the charge of an electron without having blind faith in something.

 

[Solaris]

tl;dr check a spell checker

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

The glorious day we all become like combine advisors?

I can't wait. Spiteful, cowerdly, angry and you get to control huge armies! Its like a real life RTS game!

 

[Cole]

Sure you could call science faith. Yeah I believe in a lot of things I have learned in science without question. But why do I believe them without question? Blind faith? Lets see, why do I believe what I learn about light and electricity in science class? Simple. Because we have build TV's, Microwaves, and we have minipulated electricity based on what I was taught in science class. I believe it because it is being used in applications that I use every day.


Why do I believe that objects fall to the ground at -9.81 m/s/s on earth(for the most part) and what im taught about 2 dimensional motion? Because in physic class I rolled a ball down a ramp off of a table and calculated where it would fall on a target. However close the ball landed to the center was our grade. I got a 96%. Considering the target wasn't set up 100% perfectly and was eyeballed combined with air resistance gives me a lot more than blind faith that science has correctly taught me how to calculate 2 dimensional motion without air resistance.

 

[Dan]

Sure you could call science faith. Yeah I believe in a lot of things I have learned in science without question. But why do I believe them without question? Blind faith? Lets see, why do I believe what I learn about light and electricity in science class? Simple. Because we have build TV's, Microwaves, and we have manipulated electricity based on what I was taught in science class. I believe it because it is being used in applications that I use every day.

So you are saying that if schools taught you that God is the cause of everything the electronics companies told you that TV's and microwaves were powered by God then that would be evidence enough for you? How do you know what they are saying is true?

Why do I believe that objects fall to the ground at -9.81 m/s/s on earth(for the most part) and what im taught about 2 dimensional motion? Because in physic class I rolled a ball down a ramp off of a table and calculated where it would fall on a target. However close the ball landed to the center was our grade. I got a 96%. Considering the target wasn't set up 100% perfectly and was eyeballed combined with air resistance gives me a lot more than blind faith that science has correctly taught me how to calculate 2 dimensional motion without air resistance.

That is what I meant by observable phenomena. And it is worth noting that you will never be able to accurately predict the trajectory of a real world ball, even with air resistance and all of the FEA computing in the world you will still be wrong by a finite amount.

 

[[Matt]]

Believing science is faith until you observe the evidence for which science provides the tools in abundance to do so. Its your own fault if you're too ignorant to go search for the facts which the science is based upon. Believing in religion is blind faith as there is no evidence to observe in the first place.

As for people who claim evidence for truth in religion try to remember that so called creation science isnt science as it works in completely the reverse order to true science. To come to a scientific conclusion a scientist disregards any preconceived notions whilst observing the evidence and simply drawns conclusions from the evidence alone. Creation science takes its preconceived notion of how things work and goes in search of evidence to support its claims... that isnt science by definition.

 

[Dan]

Believing science is faith until you observe the evidence for which science provides the tools in abundance to do so. Its your own fault if you're too ignorant to go search for the facts which the science is based upon. Believing in religion is blind faith as there is no evidence to observe in the first place.

I will try another tact to get you to understand this and then I give up.

Did you ever take philosophy? It is impossible to prove anything true through evidence, you can only prove something untrue. Certainties can only exist in abstract relationships such as mathematics. In the real world causation is an assumption. I'll give you a simple example, the law of gravity. Basically it states that all matter has a force of attraction with other matter proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them. You would prove this wrong if in any instance two bodies did not exhibit such force, but all of the evidence in the world doesn't prove it right, it simply doesn't prove it wrong. So it is still faith, even with evidence.

Most people don't exhibit this kind of skepticism because it isn't practical for everyday life. You need to have a rough understanding of the world around you to function. What we do then, is make up a theory that fits the real world experience we have. For gravity, an early human would quickly learn that stuff falls down. We can't quantify it, because we don't have quantifiable experience. And we only know that it acts down because we have no idea that the world is round. We take whatever theory or body of theories about how everything in the world interacts and accept it as true until it contradicts an observable phenomenon. Then you modify your theory to match reality. You have faith in it until otherwise proven wrong.

Religion is an all encompassing form such a theory. It explains all of the observable phenomena in our world. The sun is pulled across the sky by Helios, God created everything. When bad things happen it is because you mad God angry. It explains things in a rational way to someone who deals with stuff like chariots and angry people in everyday life but has never observed hydrogen fusion or viruses (and nobody ever has directly). You cannot directly prove either of these theories wrong because they both match the evidence which you observe, and by Occam's razor religion is the simpler of the two.

However, as public theories become more complex, they are not describing experiences that you have directly observed, they are describing experiences 2nd, and 3rd hand experiences and even further removed evidence. You need faith in what people tell you just to accept the natural phenomena on which a theory is based and then you need faith to accept the explanation. You also need faith to accept the religious explanation. The evidence for this is also removed from first 1st hand experience, mainly through the bible.

So you have one theory based 2nd hand information which explains things you haven't seen, and you have another theory based on 2nd hand information which explains things you haven't seen. Which do you choose? It used to be easy, everyone believed religion. You have 10 people telling you that the bible explanation is true, and 1 crazy guy trying to say the world is round. Neither theory makes an observable difference to you, so you pick the one that your friends pick. You say, well you could always go and check evidence for yourself, and you could for some things, but you can't check everything. You can't even check 1% of everything. And you haven't, you have just accepted that "scientists" are right. At some point you have to accept that what someone else is telling you is true. You have faith in their study of the subject. This is the same as having faith in a member of the Church.

 

[Cole]

So you are saying that if schools taught you that God is the cause of everything the electronics companies told you that TV's and microwaves were powered by God then that would be evidence enough for you? How do you know what they are saying is true?

Sure God powers my TV. But how does he power it? Science doesn't just tell me that "its powered by electricity". It tells me how its powered by electricity. We go through how electricity is produced all the way in early middle school via power plants. We expand into more fundmanetal reasoning on it freshman year in high school. Depending on the classes you take in junior/senior year you are making and developing applications on various aspects of science based on what science has taught you.

If it was true that God did indeed control all electricity, and coroporations asked god to control electiricty a certain way to power there product. Then I should assume that I would be able to ask god to produce electricity a certain way to power my application. However this is not the case.
\
Science explains how. Saying "God does it" doesn't make much sense to me, because "how does god do it". Science is constantly changing and evolving. Theories are based off of observerations, and always subject to change. So yes you could say I am putting faith into many parts of science and because of that its pretty much a religion. However, thats pretty abstract. Just because religion and science both have faith doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. It takes faith to believe that we exist, that anything exists, that were not living in a dream, or that we arn't a computer simulation. However, there is a difference of faith based on logic, reason, and observations vs faith based on tradition and ancient text. They are not the same. At an abstract level sure you could say religion = science, but then you could also say: You = pet rock = horse = dog because they all have atoms.


Back to the original question: How do I know what they are saying is true? I can develop my own applications based on what they said. Furthermore, I can subject what they say to indirect proofs.

 

[theotherguy]

Prove to me the charge of an electron without having blind faith in something.

I already did, in physics class, using the Milikan Oil Drop Experiment.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28582/history/millexp.htm

 

[jondy]

At some point you have to accept that what someone else is telling you is true. You have faith in their study of the subject. This is the same as having faith in a member of the Church.

I'd probably argue that faith in a subject that takes empirical evidence to be the foundation of its nomothetic reasoning, is better placed than faith in an institution basing its teachings on a 2000 year old amalgam of distorted historical fallacies.

the 'faith' in the application of reason /= religious faith

 

[Silaz]

From what I have gathered thus far from this topic; If I use a thesaurus while writing, I will appear more intelligent. Rock on!

All kidding aside, after reading the last five pages I feel inadequate with my current level of knowledge. And of all things, this is a half-life 2 forum.

 

[PvtRyan]

I will try another tact to get you to understand this and then I give up.

Did you ever take philosophy? It is impossible to prove anything true through evidence, you can only prove something untrue. Certainties can only exist in abstract relationships such as mathematics. In the real world causation is an assumption. I'll give you a simple example, the law of gravity. Basically it states that all matter has a force of attraction with other matter proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them. You would prove this wrong if in any instance two bodies did not exhibit such force, but all of the evidence in the world doesn't prove it right, it simply doesn't prove it wrong. So it is still faith, even with evidence.

Most people don't exhibit this kind of skepticism because it isn't practical for everyday life. You need to have a rough understanding of the world around you to function. What we do then, is make up a theory that fits the real world experience we have. For gravity, an early human would quickly learn that stuff falls down. We can't quantify it, because we don't have quantifiable experience. And we only know that it acts down because we have no idea that the world is round. We take whatever theory or body of theories about how everything in the world interacts and accept it as true until it contradicts an observable phenomenon. Then you modify your theory to match reality. You have faith in it until otherwise proven wrong.

Religion is an all encompassing form such a theory. It explains all of the observable phenomena in our world. The sun is pulled across the sky by Helios, God created everything. When bad things happen it is because you mad God angry. It explains things in a rational way to someone who deals with stuff like chariots and angry people in everyday life but has never observed hydrogen fusion or viruses (and nobody ever has directly). You cannot directly prove either of these theories wrong because they both match the evidence which you observe, and by Occam's razor religion is the simpler of the two.

However, as public theories become more complex, they are not describing experiences that you have directly observed, they are describing experiences 2nd, and 3rd hand experiences and even further removed evidence. You need faith in what people tell you just to accept the natural phenomena on which a theory is based and then you need faith to accept the explanation. You also need faith to accept the religious explanation. The evidence for this is also removed from first 1st hand experience, mainly through the bible.

So you have one theory based 2nd hand information which explains things you haven't seen, and you have another theory based on 2nd hand information which explains things you haven't seen. Which do you choose? It used to be easy, everyone believed religion. You have 10 people telling you that the bible explanation is true, and 1 crazy guy trying to say the world is round. Neither theory makes an observable difference to you, so you pick the one that your friends pick. You say, well you could always go and check evidence for yourself, and you could for some things, but you can't check everything. You can't even check 1% of everything. And you haven't, you have just accepted that "scientists" are right. At some point you have to accept that what someone else is telling you is true. You have faith in their study of the subject. This is the same as having faith in a member of the Church.

Seriously, what a completely meaningless semi-philosophical argument.. :|

Of course there isn't 100% certainty, there never will be. But then to claim that because of that fact, taking the word of a scientist as truth is the same as taking the word of a clergyman as truth is complete bullshit. Look, it's simple and there is no need to drag meaningless philosophy into it in an attempt to sound interesting: because there is no 100% certainty, you have to make predictions and test those predictions and see how close the result is to your prediction.

Out of all metaphysical predictions that religion has made, such as "there is a God", not one has been observed and verified. The predictions of science hold ground 99 out of 100 times on the things that are claimed as true. And that's a huge underestimate, because the prediction that an electron has a charge of X is being proved billions of times a second by your PC alone. Not enough to ever be 100% sure that an electron has that charge, but approaching it. And then to say the guy who is right 0 out of 100 times is as believable as the guy who is right 99 out of 100 times because neither are right 100 out of 100 times is just nonsense.

If you wanna be pedantic, you could claim that accepting that an electron has a charge of -1.602176487 x 10e-19 Coulomb takes faith, because it's not absolutely 100% sure. But for all intents and purposes, it's true because the tests have backed that claim up trillions of times. Unless you wanna argue that reality is an illusion and that observed evidence means nothing, but that's another entirely worthless debate.

And no, religion is not the favored explanation by Occam's Razor because it's not a simpler claim. Religion claims a very complex or even infinitely complex - either way at least as complex as the universe he created - being at the beginning of the universe, while a naturalistic explanation does not claim (infinite) complexity at the beginning of the universe. Religion makes a much more complex claim than science does.

 

[Dan]

I already did, in physics class, using the Milikan Oil Drop Experiment.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28582/history/millexp.htm

Ah that's what I expected, but I doubt you actually performed the experiment in class, you read about it. And even if you did perform it, to accept the results you have faith in many other concepts. First of all it is built upon the entire theory of electromagnetism, you have to first believe that, a very large body of knowledge to be sure, to believe the experiment valid. It is also based on the theory of gravitational attraction. And lastly, the experiment does not prove anything, it simply collects data upon which the fundamental charge of an electron can be assumed. Nothing in the experiment precludes the possibility that electrons always clump in ionized pairs and thus the charge he measured might in fact be double the charge of a single electron. Or perhaps it was all just luck that a common factor appeared at all. It also doesn't preclude the possibility that an invisible Jesus was there the whole time tampering with the molecules of oil.

Sure God powers my TV. But how does he power it? Science doesn't just tell me that "its powered by electricity". It tells me how its powered by electricity. We go through how electricity is produced all the way in early middle school via power plants. We expand into more fundamental reasoning on it freshman year in high school. Depending on the classes you take in junior/senior year you are making and developing applications on various aspects of science based on what science has taught you.

Keep asking why something happens, and eventually you down to a fundamental law. Ask why that exists and you get "just because". Why does gravity exist? Just because it does. This works out to the same thing as "just because God says so". So eventually the reason that your TV works and that electrons have a charge is just because they do. And then your reasoning is no more compelling than just saying that God heated up your burrito in the first place.

 

[Dan]

Seriously, what a completely meaningless semi-philosophical argument.. :|

Of course there isn't 100% certainty, there never will be. But then to claim that because of that fact, taking the word of a scientist as truth is the same as taking the word of a clergyman as truth is complete bullshit. Look, it's simple and there is no need to drag meaningless philosophy into it in an attempt to sound interesting: because there is no 100% certainty, you have to make predictions and test those predictions and see how close the result is to your prediction.

Out of all metaphysical predictions that religion has made, such as "there is a God", not one has been observed and verified. The predictions of science hold ground 99 out of 100 times on the things that are claimed as true. And that's a huge underestimate, because the prediction that an electron has a charge of X is being proved billions of times a second by your PC alone. Not enough to ever be 100% sure that an electron has that charge, but approaching it. And then to say the guy who is right 0 out of 100 times is as believable as the guy who is right 99 out of 100 times because neither are right 100 out of 100 times is just nonsense.

If you wanna be pedantic, you could claim that accepting that an electron has a charge of -1.602176487 x 10e-19 Coulomb takes faith, because it's not absolutely 100% sure. But for all intents and purposes, it's true because the tests have backed that claim up trillions of times. Unless you wanna argue that reality is an illusion and that observed evidence means nothing, but that's another entirely worthless debate.

And no, religion is not the favored explanation by Occam's Razor because it's not a simpler claim. Religion claims a very complex or even infinitely complex - either way at least as complex as the universe he created - being at the beginning of the universe, while a naturalistic explanation does not claim (infinite) complexity at the beginning of the universe. Religion makes a much more complex claim than science does.

You look at your computer and you immediately understand how it works? Most likely you are basing it on what you have learned from others. And then you are basing your observations for the charge on an electron on something you have learned from others. How do you know it is true? Because you observe your computer to work? That is a direct observation. But you are trusting the person or book who taught you on the how. You are also trusting a lot of other knowledge you have been told all your life. Your actual direct observations would not get you any further than the first caveman. For all you know, without having faith in the things others have told you, the technology we have is all magic. You have faith in it and the reasoning behind it because it is so ingrained in your everyday life. For someone who believes what the bible tells them vs what scientists and teachers tell them, all of life is proof of God.

I think I have said all I can possibly say on the subject. Find an actual invalid argument anywhere and I will give you a reply, but otherwise it is all written in the last couple of pages.

 

[PvtRyan]

You look at your computer and you immediately understand how it works? Most likely you are basing it on what you have learned from others. And then you are basing your observations for the charge on an electron on something you have learned from others. How do you know it is true? Because you observe your computer to work? That is a direct observation. But you are trusting the person or book who taught you on the how. You are also trusting a lot of other knowledge you have been told all your life. Your actual direct observations would not get you any further than the first caveman. For all you know, without having faith in the things others have told you, the technology we have is all magic. You have faith in it and the reasoning behind it because it is so ingrained in your everyday life. For someone who believes what the bible tells them vs what scientists and teachers tell them, all of life is proof of God.

I think I have said all I can possibly say on the subject. Find an actual invalid argument anywhere and I will give you a reply, but otherwise it is all written in the last couple of pages.

Look, we get it OK? We know what you are saying, we understand it. And quite frankly, no one is impressed by your argument because it's all very obvious. Of course the claim that nothing is 100% certain is true. No one is disputing that. So you are right on the fundamental level. No one is disputing that either. It's the conclusions you are drawing from it:

A = Religion has never been right, and operates by dogma
B = Science is often right and if not, changes its mind

Neither is ALWAYS right so therefor A is equal to B and we lump acceptance of both under the word "faith".

...

You're arguing a real pedantic point here. Faith = conviction with evidence. There is evidence for the claims of science, so by definition acceptance of science isn't faith. Unless, of course, you wanna argue what constitutes evidence and therefor question the nature and existence of reality itself. Which is, as I said, another and pointless debate.

 

[theotherguy]

Are you suggesting then, Dan, the idiotic presumption that one must prove all fundamental laws by himself in order to come to a conclusion about scientific data? If so, science would get nowhere.

It doesn't take faith to trust the findings of previous scientists, it only takes replication and further experimentation. To say it takes the same level of faith to trust the commonly accepted charge of an electron as to presume a magical invisible skydaddy exists is pure lunacy. Indeed, to not trust the volumes of scientific data on the charge of an electron, for example, would in itself be more a sign of complete idiocy or insanity than rational thought, especially in a field where anyone with the proper training and equipment can experiment, find evidence, and verify any point themselves.

Let me lay out for you the difference between a "reasonable assumption" and a "faith-based assumption."

Let's say you have "faith" that your car will start. If this "faith" was based on a rational assumption rather than faith alone, if your car failed to start, it would not be an earth-shattering experience. Indeed, you don't have faith that your car will start at all, but only a reasonable assumption that it will start based on previous experience. If you had a reasonable assumption that your car would start and it did not start, you would then make the reasonable assumption that the battery must be dead, the car must be out of gas, or the engine is damaged.

However, if you had religious faith that your car would start, akin to religious faith in God, you would assume automatically that the car would start in spite of evidence. If it failed to start, you would blame the evidence. A person whose car would not start and who had faith that it would start would blame his own senses. He would conclude that he is deaf and can't hear the engine, and that his wheels must be stuck to the ground so he can't move, etc.

That is a fundamental difference. We have a reasonable assumption that science works based on previous experience and the obvious evidence all around us that it does work, and so the scientific explanations on the fact must be at least mostly correct. Furthermore, if a scientific idea is wrong, we change it to fit new evidence. If a particular scientist comes up with strange data and nobody can replicate it, we conclude that the scientists methods were wrong and he was in error.

In contrast, religious dogma is accepted on faith alone. It is foundationless. It lacks evidence. The dogma is accepted with a religious faith akin to believing your car will start against all evidence. If a religious idea is wrong, it can never be taken down because it can never be proven or disproven. If a religious leader is a liar and a thief, he cannot be disbarred from his villainous practices, because his claims are unverifiable.

Thus, our reliance on science is a reasonable assumption, not an act of faith. It is reasonable to assume that certain aspects of scientific literature are true, because they produce valuable results, and all the data is free to access and replicate. It is unreasonable to assume that religious dogma must be true, because religion is closed to replication, is not based on evidence, and does not make good predications. Where are assumptions are reasonable they are just that, assumptions, and where they are unreasonable, they are faith.

 

[Cole]

Dan, let me try and explain how abstract your level of logic is being right now. Let me show you by using your own logic in a different scenario.

Everybody, Dan is infact a gay horse. You may ask why? Well, I have faith Dan is a gay horse. Furthermore, I have proof. A gay horse is made up of atoms. Dan is made up of atoms. Faith combined with my abstract observations proves that Dan is infact a gay horse.

I also have faith that I can survive a massive nuclear explosion if the nuke exploded right next to me. Evidence? I survived a 3 foot fall earlier today without injury.

Do you get where i'm going with this Dan? Do you get how abstract your logic is? It's like saying 1=2=4. Simple due to the fact that 1,2, and 4 are numbers!!! Religion != Science. Religous Faith != Science Faith.

 

[jverne]

Dan, you are a complete idiot! What kind of stupid meaningless questions are those?!

Depending on the technological level we have to draw the boundaries. Science currently can't explain everything. But presuming god did it all is just stupid.

 

[[Matt]]

Dan you're arguing yourself into a corner with a useless philosophical argument. Theres a difference between accepting something based on reason that thousands of scientists have skeptically argued about for years than accepting something you simply have no evidence for and never will.

Daniel Dennets speech at the Atheist Alliance internatinal conference a couple of weeks back breaks any argument that accepting science is an act of faith and he makes the point far better than i can...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jN78A-Wa14 pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAUq1oVHWZE pt2

Recommended viewing for all those skeptically inclined...

 

[Saturos]

The universe was created by SOMETHING, in my OPINION.(note the all CAPS, underline and Bold? Geez, that must be the keyword everyone.) Everything from sub-atomic particles to the universe itself, couldn't have just appeared due to some BS like the Big Bang Theory, for example. Some say the laws of physics were written by God or a god,(depending on the religion)human scientists merely discovered them. The complexity of the universe is mind-boggling, humans haven't even discovered a fraction of what's out there, and they never will before killing themselves off with WMDs of some sort. Yes, I'm counting on human instinct to fail us all. ALL humans are pathetic. They fight like two-year olds constantly.(take this ridiculously stupid Thread for example) "ME WANT! SO I TAKE!" mentality, or "ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG!". We will never unlock the secrets of the universe, we will never develop portal or gravity guns or warp-speed technology. We all will rot on this dusty old rock until the End of Time.END OF STORY! Just my two cents. BTW: Stop whining. Both you evolutionists and creationists. I'm sick of this stupid BS. It's just the type of human behavior thats starts skirmishes and wars. This is just the pathetic, two year old behavior I speak of. Let's all just agree to disagree with one another's opinions and leave it at that, and leave the fighting for those who have a reason to, such as those who are dying of AIDS, famine, and thirst. (steps off soapbox)

 

[Stigmata]

The universe was created by SOMETHING, in my OPINION.(note the all CAPS, underline and Bold? Geez, that must be the keyword everyone.) Everything from sub-atomic particles to the universe itself, couldn't have just appeared due to some BS like the Big Bang Theory, for example. Some say the laws of physics were written by God or a god,(depending on the religion)human scientists merely discovered them. The complexity of the universe is mind-boggling, humans haven't even discovered a fraction of what's out there, and they never will before killing themselves off with WMDs of some sort. Yes, I'm counting on human instinct to fail us all. ALL humans are pathetic. They fight like two-year olds constantly.(take this ridiculously stupid Thread for example) "ME WANT! SO I TAKE!" mentality, or "ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG!". We will never unlock the secrets of the universe, we will never develop portal or gravity guns or warp-speed technology. We all will rot on this dusty old rock until the End of Time.END OF STORY! Just my two cents. BTW: Stop whining. Both you evolutionists and creationists. This is just the pathetic, two year old behavior I speak of. Let's all just agree to disagree with one another's opinions and leave it at that.

Actually, the Space Age took place in the 80's and 90's.

Also, no. It doesn't make any sense to just "agree to disagree" on something that affects every facet of modern society.

 

[Saturos]

Actually, the Space Age took place in the 80's and 90's.

Also, no. It doesn't make any sense to just "agree to disagree" on something that affects every facet of modern society.

I changed "Space Age" to "Warp Speed" realizing this logical mistake. Also, thank you for stating your opinion like a civilized human being.:thumbs: Could you update the quote you made to me plz? I've updated the original message, and I don't want people confusing it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The universe was created by SOMETHING, in my OPINION.

In your OPINION, what created SOMETHING?

Also: what evidence have you for SOMETHING? The (apparent) existence of the universe is evidence only of the (apparent) existence of the universe.

Stop whining. Both you evolutionists and creationists. I'm sick of this stupid BS. It's just the type of human behavior thats starts skirmishes and wars. This is just the pathetic, two year old behavior I speak of. Let's all just agree to disagree with one another's opinions and leave it at that, and leave the fighting for those who have a reason to, such as those who are dying of AIDS, famine, and thirst. (steps off soapbox)

Well, excuse us for considering it important to critically examine what has, for much of the last millenium, been a central question of western epistomology, ontology and ethics.

 

[Saturos]

In your OPINION, what created SOMETHING?

Also: what evidence have you for SOMETHING? The (apparent) existence of the universe is evidence only of the (apparent) existence of the universe.

Well, excuse us for considering it important to critically examine what has, for much of the last millenium, been a central question of western epistomology, ontology and ethics.

Perhaps people think too much. But consider this.Think about how delicate everything is. It took the precision of that of a watch maker, (but far,far greater) for the cosmos to fall into place, for the Earth to be just right in it's position of the Solar System, the Earth's axis and just the right balance of gases to support life(too little hydrogen, we will suffocate, too little methane, the atmosphere's greenhouse gases would be too much, thus scorching everything) I'm not one of blind faith either.(Take Hitler for example). Such precise calculations in just the right amount of everything in the universe. Lest there be catastrophic and cataclysmic failure beyond our imagination. This is evidence enough for me to believe in intelligent design.