The universe is no fluke.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:43 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:You started out in this thread by asserting that "Religion is fundamentally anti-scientific, there's no point in arguing against this." This was an assertion provided without any argument or evidence.


the argument is the next post.

Iulus Cofield wrote:You went on to say, "Belief requires no testing, and is therefore anti-scientific, and since belief is the foundation of religion, religion is neccesarily anti-scientific." This was assertion with a logical (in the literal sense) argument, but it's still unfounded. I addressed your argument in my long post by saying that the Catholic Church does in fact has tested their beliefs. If you want to know more about the history of the Church's testing, read some history books about the period 300-500 AD. The big thing they did was, in fact, to test and codify their beliefs to distinguish correct belief (orthodoxy) from opinion (heresy).


as I pointed out in the next post, whether they did test or not is not the point, the point is that it requires no testing.

Iulus Cofield wrote:Your third post said, "Ah, but they still believe it even if no testing was done, and no evidence was found. Catholic church promotes an attitude of blind faith, of ignorance as bliss, that is plenty anti-scientific to me." This is another unfounded assertion. Me, and a couple other people, have been primarily posting to demonstrate that it is an incorrect one. Provide me with some kind of proof (perhaps some documents) that the Catholic Church does any of those things, and I will admit that you are right. The same goes for assertion that the Catholic Church promotes unscientific ideas.


Are you trying to say that the catholic church does not believe in god, or that there are test for god's existence and that the church performed it? If the catholic church indeed believe in god, and encourages others to believe in god, is that not promoting blind faith? Is it not in the bible that god punished human for eating from the tree of knowledge, and that before this they were the happy? Is it not promoting ignorance to preach the bible then?

Iulus Cofield wrote:Your point about one theologian does not make a church is a valid one. While I still can't remember his name or the name of the book, I do recall that the preface of the book was written by, perhaps you've heard of him, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and published by an official Catholic press. I don't think it's a stretch to say they stand behind this particular theologian.


That's interesting. It would be more helpful though if you can remember the name of the author, otherwise I can't say much about it.

dedwrekka
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby dedwrekka » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:42 am UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Sweet wrote:Religion does not have to be anti-scientific. Science is learning about the natural world through testing and observing phenomena. To be anti-scientific, a religion would have to be against testing the natural world. While there are many religions that are against this-and the Catholic Church may have had some incidences when this was the case-for the most part Catholicism wishes to test the natural world alongside science, albeit for a different reason. As for the unobservable phenomena that Catholics also believe in, it is unobservable and outside the realm of science, but does not go against science. Until we have any concrete proof that there is no God, religion is not fundamentally anti-scientific.

See, there is a point in arguing against anything. :P


Belief requires no testing, and is therefore anti-scientific, and since belief is the foundation of religion, religion is neccesarily anti-scientific.


Um, no. Untested belief is not anti-scientific, it's just not scientific. It's two very different concepts. However, saying that belief does not require testing is entirely subjective. The Catholic Church, Buddhism, and other religions allows for the testing of belief. I've even pointed out prominent Scientists who are religious and use religious terminology for the testing of the natural world, and two Catholic saints who promote both the "natural sciences" and the continued evolution of our understanding of the universe. Both of which lived before the birth of modern science, promoted Aristotle and Pythagoras's teachings, and made contributions to education and science.

As I said, caholic church's feigned support for science is a survival strategy to make itself appear reasonable. Claims of the existence of the mythical unobservable phenomena only became popular after the claims of mythical and observable phenomena (miracle) become too inconvienient. Indeed, you can not believe in the unobservable and be scientific at the same time, to be scientific is to believe only the observed.

What about cells, atoms, string theory? Each concept was brought forth before anyone had any chance to fully observe it in real life. In fact a good portion of the most prevalent scientific theories started as something unobservable and, through experimentation, calculation, and reasoning, an observable representation was later devised. The General Theory of Relativity was another good example of one such case.

The existence of the Vatican Observatory and Jesuit higher education institutions, and their gifts to the scientific community, disprove your theory that religion is anti-scientific.

PeterCai wrote:
Sweet wrote:Just because belief requires no testing does not mean that it is opposed to testing.


Ah, but they still believe it even if no testing was done, and no evidence was found.

Not necessarily. As a philosophical concept, the impact of an experience cannot be ignored even if proven false.

Catholic church promotes an attitude of blind faith, of ignorance as bliss, that is plenty anti-scientific to me.

What parallel church have you been seeing?

PeterCai wrote:and how does that make promoting unscientific ideas any less anti-scientific?

also, one theologean does not make a whole church

But the Church's official policy is one of natural theology and natural sciences, making religious observations based on natural observations (the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, also the father of Thomistic philosophy), they've also given us genetic research, advances in geologic research, archeological research, and maintain one of the oldest and most expansive libraries of scientific and historical knowledge in the world. They saved some of the oldest copies of Aristotle, Plato and other ancient greek philosophers and teachers, and taught it to the people in the midevil period who would form the basis of our current understanding of Science. Many of whom served as clergy while making discoveries.

You seem to be of the opinion that Scientific testing is entirely laboratory based and observable, which is false on the basic principles of theoretical science. Philosophy and proposed theories of physics do not have testing and an observable instance but still have merit.
Philosophic methods have been applied to the existence and nature of a divine being many times by both proponents and opponents of it's existence. Again Augustine of Hippo (a Catholic Saint) did just that and came up with five conclusions of the existence of a divine being based on the philosophical concept of considering the negative, where you ascertain the properties of something by considering what it is not.

The current lack of an effective test does not invalidate the concept.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:54 am UTC

dedwrekka wrote:Um, no. Untested belief is not anti-scientific, it's just not scientific. It's two very different concepts. However, saying that belief does not require testing is entirely subjective. The Catholic Church, Buddhism, and other religions allows for the testing of belief. I've even pointed out prominent Scientists who are religious and use religious terminology for the testing of the natural world, and two Catholic saints who promote both the "natural sciences" and the continued evolution of our understanding of the universe. Both of which lived before the birth of modern science, promoted Aristotle and Pythagoras's teachings, and made contributions to education and science.


In a lot of situations, "you are either with us or against us" mentality is wrong, but I will argue that it is not the case here. Scientific method is so rigorous that, to support science on one hand and to believe in something mythical and unobservable on another is contradictory. Therefore, if one promotes unscientific ideas, then one necesarily work against the spread of scientific ideas (since the two can not coexist), and so is anti-scientific. Catholic church definitely promotes faith as a virtue, and since faith is by definition unscientific, catholic church is anti-scientific.


What about cells, atoms, string theory? Each concept was brought forth before anyone had any chance to fully observe it in real life. In fact a good portion of the most prevalent scientific theories started as something unobservable and, through experimentation, calculation, and reasoning, an observable representation was later devised. The General Theory of Relativity was another good example of one such case.


Those concepts were hypotheses before any of their predicions were tested, or before the phonomena was observed. Belief in these hypothesese without proper evidence is still unscientific. For example, the existence of alien is a hypothesis, and one that is very likely to be true, but until we actually make contact with one, the belief in their existence is unscientific.

Realativity has predictions that were tested and confirmed, before such were done, the scientific community did not embrace it.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Brooklynxman » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:06 am UTC

I sure hope you have never believed anything (example: atheism) without a large body of evidence supporting it. Because that would be unscientific. Even if you supported science, financed research, and publicly accepted new discoveries, you would still be unscientific.

I think one of the biggest problem's here is (warning tvtropes)
Spoiler:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChristianityIsCatholic


Misconceptions about decentralized christianity is leading to arguments.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:10 am UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:I sure hope you have never believed anything (example: atheism) without a large body of evidence supporting it. Because that would be unscientific. Even if you supported science, financed research, and publicly accepted new discoveries, you would still be unscientific.

Misconceptions about decentralized christianity is leading to arguments.


Atheism is the rejection of belief, not another belief. I have no evidence for god's existence, therefore I don't believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. Tell me where in this process do I need a large body of evidence.

I have no problem with the church financing research and accepting new discoveries. Criminal gang that does some charity works is still criminal, just because the church appears to be supporting science doesn't mean it's not anti-scientific, it is of their nature to be so.

I don't see the misconception here. Catholicism, however better than the rest of christianity in regard to science, is still unscientific, and as I argued, anti-scientific.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:23 am UTC

Kewangji wrote:Yeah, there isn't anyone doubting evolution on religious grounds. Nor were there people who objected the moon landing because they thought god would hate that. Galileo, being a friend of the pope, was not accused of heresy. Scientists were not afraid of the pope's encouragement to discourage the belief in the big bang in other scientists. There are never clashes between people of fatih and people of science, at all, since there exists examples of people being people of both. My young, scientific thoughts were never stifled by religious dogma, and that didn't happen to anyone else either.
How many religious organizations opposed the combustion engine, though? The transistor? The radio? The general theory of relativity?

Religion incorporates certain values and beliefs; these values sometimes conflict with scientific inquiry--and because religion is often an institution with significant cultural and sociological leverage, the conflict becomes a matter of policy. But for every piece of religious opposition to science you can produce, I can produce twenty that religion was largely silent (or even supportive) of.

These are not two forces that have been struggling against each other since the dawn of humanity. Beyond a few notable conflicts, religion ranges from tolerant to supportive of scientific advancement.
PeterCai wrote:In a lot of situations, "you are either with us or against us" mentality is wrong, but I will argue that it is not the case here. Scientific method is so rigorous that, to support science on one hand and to believe in something mythical and unobservable on another is contradictory. Therefore, if one promotes unscientific ideas, then one necesarily work against the spread of scientific ideas (since the two can not coexist), and so is anti-scientific. Catholic church definitely promotes faith as a virtue, and since faith is by definition unscientific, catholic church is anti-scientific.
I'm not sure I'm ready to accept a definition of 'anti-scientific' that includes Ghost Hunters. I mean, I kind of liked that show.

Anyway, if this is all it takes to be anti-scientific (spreading ideas that are not based on scientific empiricism), then consider me on the anti-scientist side.

Arariel
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:32 am UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Arariel » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:32 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Kewangji wrote:Yeah, there isn't anyone doubting evolution on religious grounds. Nor were there people who objected the moon landing because they thought god would hate that. Galileo, being a friend of the pope, was not accused of heresy. Scientists were not afraid of the pope's encouragement to discourage the belief in the big bang in other scientists. There are never clashes between people of fatih and people of science, at all, since there exists examples of people being people of both. My young, scientific thoughts were never stifled by religious dogma, and that didn't happen to anyone else either.
How many religious organizations opposed the combustion engine, though? The transistor? The radio? The general theory of relativity?


The Amish? ;)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:36 am UTC

Arariel wrote:The Amish? ;)
Goddamn it.

Nobody expects the Amish inquisition.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:21 am UTC

KingXimana wrote:
Why are we here? Many cosmologists think that everything—not just life on Earth but the planets, the stars, the entire observable universe—is a roll of the dice writ large. Other universes within a grander multiverse have entirely different properties, not to mention completely different laws of physics, based on different rolls of those cosmic dice.

Pope Benedict XVI might beg to differ. The birth of our universe was not in any way random, he said December 6 during a sermon to thousands at the Vatican, according to Reuters. Benedict's speech was given on the day that the Epiphany—the coming of the Magi—is observed in the Western church.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," the Pope said, according to the wire service. Reuters reports that the Pope's sermon held that "God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the big bang" but does not quote Benedict explicitly mentioning the big bang theory. "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," Benedict said.

Maybe now cosmologists will stop contemplating the cosmos through the lens of their own theories—worrying about how the universe began, whether our universe is but one of many within a multiverse, and whether time and space may have existed in some kind of pre–big bang cosmic past life. Then again, probably not.


(source http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2011-01-07)

What the pope says makes me happy, it makes me think the Vatican could be catching up in years, but. . . that last paragraph is horrible.

Thoughts


Catching up in years? Every single one of these statements is just the same old creationist repetition: "Scientists say that everything is blind chance, but God is awesome and made everything on purpose just for us." I see nothing new here, particularly compared to the actual progress the Catholic church has made (with previous popes) in their position on science in the last century. Because kudos for accepting evolution and stuff.

It would be nice to see more of that, but currently I think the priorities should lie elsewhere - such as shutting up about condoms and stopping to keep a lid on cases of child molestation.
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Kewangji » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:17 am UTC

The Great Hippo: No, they do not clash all the time. Religions do not oppose invention, only questioning. Because they are not scientific in themselves, because faith is a virtue, and because they make claims about the observable world, they do clash.

I suppose it's better described as a struggle between faith and reason, or authority and questioning, rather than between religion and science?
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby EmptySet » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:49 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Anyway, if this is all it takes to be anti-scientific (spreading ideas that are not based on scientific empiricism), then consider me on the anti-scientist side.


Only if you can produce several papers documenting rigorous testing which has shown you to be on the anti-science side. Anything less would be anti-scientific.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby johnny_7713 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:41 am UTC

Kewangji wrote:The Great Hippo: No, they do not clash all the time. Religions do not oppose invention, only questioning. Because they are not scientific in themselves, because faith is a virtue, and because they make claims about the observable world, they do clash.

I suppose it's better described as a struggle between faith and reason, or authority and questioning, rather than between religion and science?


Religions do not of necessity oppose questioning (though there are definitely some that do), otherwise there would be no theologians and no debates on how certain holy texts should be interpreted.

Religion is not anti-scientific, it is (or should be) a-scientific, it deals (or should deal) in untestable hypotheses, and is therefore beyond the realm of science.

Also if supporting science on the one hand and believing in something mythical and unobservable on another is contradictory, then every system of ethics ever is anti-scientific, unless you can show me scientific evidence that e.g. murder is wrong or that such a thing as justice exists.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:30 am UTC

I appreciate PeterCai's points now that I understand them better, but I too think they are too extreme. By that criteria even science, which is a values system, is inherently unscientific. After all, science is based on some untestable, and frankly arbitrary, values. For example, that what we observe is real, that things should not be believed without indisputable proof, that knowledge is desirable and good, that a sufficient number of observers and repeated experiments are proof. I'm actually very pro-science and agree with these values, but they aren't testable in a scientific sense. So, if we accept your definition, we have to say that science is an arbitrary values system that is unscientific and can't coexist with science. Kind of a headscratcher, that one.

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Kewangji » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:57 am UTC

johnny_7713 wrote:Religions do not of necessity oppose questioning (though there are definitely some that do), otherwise there would be no theologians and no debates on how certain holy texts should be interpreted.
Theologians aren't the standard believers, though. They just ask the harmless questions, ones that do not question the authority of the churches (most of the time). Edit: do correct me if I'm wrong, but the regular believers, the ones we see in the benches at church or on the mats in the mosque, do not generally ask the theological questions, right?

I haven't ever heard of a religion that stays firmly beyond the realm of science, though if there were such, they would, indeed, not clash with science. (Might still clash with questioners). I think they are unscientific, and that a scientific religion would be impossible.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Xeio » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:11 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:So you see, the Catholic Church, as a whole, does not "believe in the unobservable".
When did they stop believing in god?

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:42 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:I appreciate PeterCai's points now that I understand them better, but I too think they are too extreme. By that criteria even science, which is a values system, is inherently unscientific. After all, science is based on some untestable, and frankly arbitrary, values. For example, that what we observe is real, that things should not be believed without indisputable proof, that knowledge is desirable and good, that a sufficient number of observers and repeated experiments are proof. I'm actually very pro-science and agree with these values, but they aren't testable in a scientific sense. So, if we accept your definition, we have to say that science is an arbitrary values system that is unscientific and can't coexist with science. Kind of a headscratcher, that one.


I don't think my definition of anti-scientific is radical, since it only depend on the definition of scientific, and I did not offer any definition for scientific. You however replaced the definition of scientific with one in which science itself is not unscientific, that's where you are wrong.

edit: opps
Last edited by PeterCai on Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:15 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Bright Shadows » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:I appreciate PeterCai's points now that I understand them better, but I too think they are too extreme. By that criteria even science, which is a values system, is inherently unscientific. After all, science is based on some untestable, and frankly arbitrary, values. For example, that what we observe is real, that things should not be believed without indisputable proof, that knowledge is desirable and good, that a sufficient number of observers and repeated experiments are proof. I'm actually very pro-science and agree with these values, but they aren't testable in a scientific sense. So, if we accept your definition, we have to say that science is an arbitrary values system that is unscientific and can't coexist with science. Kind of a headscratcher, that one.


I don't think my definition of anti-scientific is radical, since it only depend on the definition of scientific, and I did not offer any definition for scientific. You however replaced the definition of scientific with one in which science itself is not unscientific, that's where you are wrong.

You cannot logically create logic. No one can. It needs axioms, axioms which don't need to hold true even if they apparently do right here and now. Causation, particularly, is usually needed for logical and scientific systems, but we can't say for certain it always does or will apply.
Image

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:16 pm UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:You cannot logically create logic. No one can. It needs axioms, axioms which don't need to hold true even if they apparently do right here and now. Causation, particularly, is usually needed for logical and scientific systems, but we can't say for certain it always does or will apply.


Indeed, and that's part of the definition of science. So again, I don't see any inconsistency in my definition

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:55 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:Theologians aren't the standard believers, though. They just ask the harmless questions, ones that do not question the authority of the churches (most of the time). Edit: do correct me if I'm wrong, but the regular believers, the ones we see in the benches at church or on the mats in the mosque, do not generally ask the theological questions, right?

No, regular believers do question their faith, and the authority of their church. Not all do, but I'd argue that believers can be separated by this criterion. There are those who regularly question their faith, but still believe, and there are those who do not question, and are not engaged in their religion. Essentially the second group is composed of nonbelievers who decide to believe once a week, or once a year when they come to church services. The primary driver behind the churches are the believers who engage in open examination of their theology (i.e. Bible Study) and challenge the authorities of their faith (which is why Catholocism has fringe groups and why Protestants migrate between churches and often found their own, new branches of Christianity).

Religions in large majority do not oppose, but rather support questioning (you could argue that this is the difference between religions and cults).

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Dauric » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:10 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Kewangji wrote:Theologians aren't the standard believers, though. They just ask the harmless questions, ones that do not question the authority of the churches (most of the time). Edit: do correct me if I'm wrong, but the regular believers, the ones we see in the benches at church or on the mats in the mosque, do not generally ask the theological questions, right?

No, regular believers do question their faith, and the authority of their church. Not all do, but I'd argue that believers can be separated by this criterion. There are those who regularly question their faith, but still believe, and there are those who do not question, and are not engaged in their religion. Essentially the second group is composed of nonbelievers who decide to believe once a week, or once a year when they come to church services. The primary driver behind the churches are the believers who engage in open examination of their theology (i.e. Bible Study) and challenge the authorities of their faith (which is why Catholocism has fringe groups and why Protestants migrate between churches and often found their own, new branches of Christianity).

Religions in large majority do not oppose, but rather support questioning (you could argue that this is the difference between religions and cults).


I think the above is quite true, but like most of the posts here misses the actual argument. There's plenty of scientists who are also Christian, they can reconcile Genesis with the Big Bang and Evolution in that they believe human understanding of creation is an evolving thing, where the version told to sheep-herders thousands of years ago was a "Cliffs' Notes" version, and as humanity progresses we're learning to read the entire text.

It's not about questioning, it's about methods of Data Acquisition. The arguments are typically between those who use one and only one source for their data ("The Bible" or equivalent source), and those who would rather use the scientific method to find different sources of data to compare against. It's one thing to question a religious text in a religious school where you're discussing interpretations, it's a "No Wrong Answer" kind of field. It's a different matter entirely to discuss concrete, repeatable, falsifiable data that contrasts with religious scripture.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Bright Shadows » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:52 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:You cannot logically create logic. No one can. It needs axioms, axioms which don't need to hold true even if they apparently do right here and now. Causation, particularly, is usually needed for logical and scientific systems, but we can't say for certain it always does or will apply.


Indeed, and that's part of the definition of science. So again, I don't see any inconsistency in my definition

You're gonna have to spell this definition out, because you appear to be contradicting yourself. Science is allowed to be nebulous, but not other stuff? Or something? Just go ahead and tell me, or I'll get more confused.
Image

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:12 pm UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:You're gonna have to spell this definition out, because you appear to be contradicting yourself. Science is allowed to be nebulous, but not other stuff? Or something? Just go ahead and tell me, or I'll get more confused.


PeterCai wrote: if one promotes unscientific ideas, then one necesarily work against the spread of scientific ideas (since the two can not coexist), and so is anti-scientific.


This is how I define anti-scientific : working against the spread of scientific ideas

Scientific: following the rule of scientific methods.

Scientific methods (from wikipedia):

A method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] It consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Dauric » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:23 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:This is how I define anti-scientific : working against the spread of scientific ideas

Scientific: following the rule of scientific methods.

Scientific methods (from wikipedia):

A method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] It consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.



There's a difference between "a-scientific" (not concerned with science) and "anti-science" (Rejection of science). Religion -should- be a-scientific, not anti-science.

The problem is that so much religion was used to explain physical phenomenon that as science discovers measurable data through repeatable experiments, religious organizations, once the political power brokers, find that their doctrines cover less and less a-scientific areas. Religious leaders who are behaving responsibly have acquiesced to the progress of testable inquiry and made allowances for it in their interpretation of their scriptures. Unfortunately as many if not more reactions to the apparent lessening of 'their domain' by going anti-science and perpetrating the spread of misinformation and superstition that often makes bad situations worse.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:if one promotes unscientific ideas, then one necesarily work against the spread of scientific ideas (since the two can not coexist), and so is anti-scientific.
I'm pretty sure scientific and unscientific ideas can coexist. For instance, "Peanut butter contains protein" is a scientific idea, while "Peanut butter is the most delicious food ever" is not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, and should Jiffy promote the second idea, it would not make them anti-scientific, as they are not directly competing with scientific ideas.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:30 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I'm pretty sure scientific and unscientific ideas can coexist. For instance, "Peanut butter contains protein" is a scientific idea, while "Peanut butter is the most delicious food ever" is not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, and should Jiffy promote the second idea, it would not make them anti-scientific, as they are not directly competing with scientific ideas.


If he believe sincerely that, objectively, peanut butter is the most delicious food ever, then that would be an unscientific idea. And yes, I do think that It can't coexist with scientific ideas without some sort of internal conflict. Otherwise, "it is my opinion that peanut butter is the most delicious food ever" is not unscientific since it does not claim objectivity.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:01 pm UTC

Your assertion that scientific and non-scientific ideas cannot coexist seems to be a non-scientific idea.

Would you say that you're anti-scientific for spreading this idea?

I disagree. I don't think that, say, Robert Goddard was anti-scientific for believing humans were destined for space travel, and propagating that idea. Non-scientific ideas not only coexist with scientific ideas, but also can help advance those same ideas.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:03 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Your assertion that scientific and non-scientific ideas cannot coexist seems to be a non-scientific idea.

Would you say that you're anti-scientific for spreading this idea?

I disagree. I don't think that, say, Robert Goddard was anti-scientific for believing humans were destined for space travel, and propagating that idea. Non-scientific ideas not only coexist with scientific ideas, but also can help advance those same ideas.


Notice I did not claim objectivity. This is my opinion, not my scientific breakthrough

fr00t
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:06 am UTC

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby fr00t » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:04 pm UTC

Science peels away one more layer from the great mystery; pope decrees: "Ok, well, god caused that".

I wish people would just leave all religious reference out of everything and anything scientific, we get it, you have a catch-all disclaimer that applies to everything: "Science can't really prove anything, and besides, whatever you could possibly do or say, it's because god wanted it that way."

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Brooklynxman » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:56 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:You're gonna have to spell this definition out, because you appear to be contradicting yourself. Science is allowed to be nebulous, but not other stuff? Or something? Just go ahead and tell me, or I'll get more confused.


PeterCai wrote: if one promotes unscientific ideas, then one necesarily work against the spread of scientific ideas (since the two can not coexist), and so is anti-scientific.


This is how I define anti-scientific : working against the spread of scientific ideas.


Which if the church funds, helps research, and accepts scientific ideas......Huzzah its not anti-scientific.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Kewangji
Has Been Touched
Posts: 2254
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:20 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Translation
Contact:

Re: The universe is no fluke.

Postby Kewangji » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:35 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:No, regular believers do question their faith, and the authority of their church. Not all do, but I'd argue that believers can be separated by this criterion. There are those who regularly question their faith, but still believe, and there are those who do not question, and are not engaged in their religion. Essentially the second group is composed of nonbelievers who decide to believe once a week, or once a year when they come to church services. The primary driver behind the churches are the believers who engage in open examination of their theology (i.e. Bible Study) and challenge the authorities of their faith (which is why Catholocism has fringe groups and why Protestants migrate between churches and often found their own, new branches of Christianity).

Religions in large majority do not oppose, but rather support questioning (you could argue that this is the difference between religions and cults).


I think the above is quite true, but like most of the posts here misses the actual argument. There's plenty of scientists who are also Christian, they can reconcile Genesis with the Big Bang and Evolution in that they believe human understanding of creation is an evolving thing, where the version told to sheep-herders thousands of years ago was a "Cliffs' Notes" version, and as humanity progresses we're learning to read the entire text.

It's not about questioning, it's about methods of Data Acquisition. The arguments are typically between those who use one and only one source for their data ("The Bible" or equivalent source), and those who would rather use the scientific method to find different sources of data to compare against. It's one thing to question a religious text in a religious school where you're discussing interpretations, it's a "No Wrong Answer" kind of field. It's a different matter entirely to discuss concrete, repeatable, falsifiable data that contrasts with religious scripture.

I agree. It's the difference between two kinds of people who lie for a living -- the propagandaminister and the novelist.
If you like my words sign up for my newsletter, Airport Tattoo Parlour: https://tinyletter.com/distantstations

The Great Hippo wrote:Nuclear bombs are like potato chips, you can't stop after just *one*


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 20 guests