It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

That would explain the ritualistic scarfice of frogs we do in biology class. :)

But, this is why I do like the school of skepticism. This philosphical school takes the same arguments you make and basically claim it is impossible to figure out the truth (since our senses could be flawed), so don't bother trying. It is supposed to cause inner peace, as you no longer have to worry on what is the "truth" (because it's stupid to figure it out).

It's not very popular with scientists, religious folk, and...well, almost everyone for that matter.

I am Greek Athodox, but also beleave in Budhism.

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books,".

Officially all Christians should believe this; it doesn't make you any more or less evil than anyone else. Just because I'm a Christian doesnt make me any better than anyone else. From the Christian perspective I sin the same as everyone else, there is nothing I can do to save myself which is why I need Jesus to die for me on the cross. And in God's eyes all sin is equal so you are no more evil than me. The only difference being I believe in Jesus so he takes the rightful punishment I should recieve, which he did so on the Cross. I'm sure some people will argue that not all Christians should believe the above but if the bible is the true word of God then what is above is directly from the Gospels. Its also why I get very frustrated when Christians are tolerate or loving of those they should seek to look after. So for example I think the Church over the years has stigmatised Gay people, but their Sin is no different to me swearing in the eyes of God and if they don't believe in God why should they follow his laws? Its also why if say you have a gay Christian, we should be very carefdunl in the manner anyone should correct him on any sexual sin he could perhaps be into, as Jesus was very perseptive when he was talking about look at the plank in your own eye before telling your brother about the splinter in his. Thats me 2 cents for now.

I am a Wiccan. This makes me "evil" in the eyes of certain "Followers of the Books," as well as a throwback for worshipping ancient Gods. It is not a conclusion I came to lightly. For years, I thought there was something wrong with me because I put a lot of effort into trying to follow the Christian faith, but kept coming up with too many questions.
I question too but mainly it is the Catholic tradition. I don't believ in saying the Hail Mary or things like the Prayer of Saint Francis. I believe that the only way to have your prayer answered is to ask God through his Son. As an anthropologist, I don't consider Wiccans as being a throwback. It is who you are. If you think that is a throwback, let us make Buddhism one too and Shinto since they are old religions. Everything has a history including religion. It doesn't make anything a throwback. I have an acquaintance who is Wiccan. I study Wiccan belief, purely in the academic sense though I get the probing questions. I don't consider my self better than you or anyone. That is blatant ethnocentrism if you think like that.

...But I want to harm myself or harm others, to punish myself or to punish others. I think this sort of "harming", punishment, is excluded from your definition (since it prevents 'greater harm'), but still...
"Do as ye will but ye shall harm no one"
When I began my personal study into the mantra, I took it to mean the practicing of spells against a person. My research uncovered that by casting a spell against someone is deemed sorcery. I could be wrong or it is one interpretation of it. The mantra, like anything is a matter of conduct when practicing belief.

Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?
Yes it is. I see that someone has been paying attention to what I said. I gave the same argument in a general religion thread. I gotta hand it to Geertz with his technical definition. At least it helps when I conduct my research.

This philosphical school takes the same arguments you make and basically claim it is impossible to figure out the truth (since our senses could be flawed), so don't bother trying. It is supposed to cause inner peace, as you no longer have to worry on what is the "truth" (because it's stupid to figure it out).
Inner peace through claiming it is impossible to figure out truth? Truth is relative my friend. Truth is how you see things.

Truth is relative my friend. Truth is how you see things.
Uh... Are you sure about that?

Quick point: Catholicism teaches that Satan is evil. It is also taught that he is immensely clever and devious. If (to our eyes), you were seduced by him, but believe yourself to be doing right, does that make you an evil person? No. Misguided, perhaps, but not evil.

That said, I know very little about Wicca, although I do find the Satanist Black Mass an insulting mockery, but that's another discussion...

Answer: Discordianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism) (religion disguised as satire disguised as religion), and the Law of Fives.Your example of the law of fives does indeed fit my 90% requirement. I suppose I should have specified that the phenomenon must be distinguishable from chance to have any use for the purpose I was interested in.

...
7. That Prime Mover is God.

Problem: We already found the Prime Mover...the Big Bang. But what causes that? Why, if you believe in string theory...strings. So that theory (of God existing since I move) goes pretty awry. And what if there is an inifinte chain of events, each thing moving something else, and it is a chain that will never end?There are some problems with this argument that bear thought. First, and probably most obvious, is like you say - what caused the First Cause? Just asking the question is nonsensical if you take for granted that things MUST follow from a cause. Even if you consider that only EFFECTS must have causes, why do we single out one particular "First Cause" as if it were different from any other, i.e., not an effect? Also, even if you were able to show that there was indeed particular "First Cause," you wouldn't be able to say it was (xxxx religion)'s God with any certainty except if you argue from a definition, which is clearly circular reasoning. If you consider the "First Cause" to be outside of time, then the premise that 'all effects must have a cause' is a strange sort of position to take - there'd be no distinguishable relation between the cause and effect. Of course, none of this shows whether a God does indeed exist or not; however, it does mean that holding such a belief is not necessary to acting rationally.

Another proof...from Descartes (the inventor of the "evil demon" argument, the predecssor of the infamous "Brain In Vat" experiment):

That above proof also uses philopshy, but Descartes felt that it was quite easy to see that God exist thanks to that proof, and to deny it would be like denying a triangle has 180 degrees.A couple of problems with such proofs is that they aren't really. They depend on suppositions that don't follow from human capability. For instance, consider the argument of Anselm, in which he says he can conceive of a God as a being greater than nothing can be imagined. This presupposes that God concept is capable of being conceived by humans, and also that Anselm did so. Is it possible to truly conceive infinity, and how do you know you have done so? This knowledge is core to the integrity of the argument, but it hasn't been proven a priori; thus, the argument is not really an argument, but an opinion. There are also other objections, such as Kant's rejection of existence as a property.

So...What is science?

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

...

In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?By your definition, yes. Many would not use that definition, however, thinking that there is no way to determine the sort of transcendant truth that religion tries to ascribe properties to. To me, a more useful definition is the one that ET Warrior posted (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2263831&postcount=26) above. Using this definition, scientific findings would not subject to belief as religious ones are. They are simply a model of what our senses tell us, whether that information is truthful or not.

Wow! You folks are like…brain surgeons! :lol: This topic is out of my knowledge league…but not by much mind you. :giggle1: That’s why I’ll stay out of this discussion from now on, because most likely I’ll get owned by one of youse, like I pretty much already have by Samuel Dravis :lol:, however I still believe that life originated via supernatural means from some type of higher being/s.

I’ll just say one thing though. Scepticism can be a good thing. I’m a bit sceptical in general myself, but it’s never a good thing to be too sceptical, because you’ll drive your brain nuts! :lol:

Question:

A definition of religion can be 'a set of beliefs based around an unprovable central belief or beliefs.' - If anyone objects to this, feel free to say so :)
I suppose that's one possible definition. If we are attempting to operationally define the term, I would prefer to use the definition found in Webster's. If you find some fault with it, I'm sure that we can discuss it:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I'm assuming that your intent is to paraphrase 4? 1 (a & b) won't work for obvious reasons. 2 also won't work because it specifies religion. It also specifies "personal" belief, whereas belief based on science is for everyone. 3 doesn't apply because science is skeptical by nature. 4 doesn't apply (here or in your paraphrased definition) because science does not utilize faith (although I'm sure someone will be along shortly to insist that it does, if the argument hasn't been raised already).


So...What is science?

Science - the belief that reason can help us to understand the nature of everything around us completely.

Again, if we are operationally defining the term, I would say that the following is more accurate (once again, taken from Webster's):

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

The key words that I would like to point out here are "as obtained and tested through scientific method"

In order for something to be considered valid in the eyes of science, it must be testable, reproducible, falsifiable, etc, etc (hence why science concerns itself with only natural explanations). Since God (YHWH, etc) is/are decidedly supernatural (i.e. not falsifiable), He/She/It/They falls outside the realm of scientific study. This is possibly tangential, however I suspect that this will come up later.


But can we?

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In this situation, the universe is created in one instant by a deity or deities who will henceforth be known as The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos. The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos creates something very similar to Earth, but instantly. And then The Omnipotent Triskaidekatheos leaves the universe to its own problems and solutions, never to return.

Now in this universe, on this not-quite-Earth, which we shall call Tellurius, there is a single island-colony of humans. There is one main difference between them and humans in our universe - these humans are all blind from birth. They have no concept of sight, as they have never had it, never perceived using it, they don't know of its existence.

They build their society on a similar model to ours, fighting their wars, learning their knowledge, and building their understanding of the universe. But. They can't see.

And so, how do they learn things only learnt by sight? They can't. Or, they learn in a more inefficient manner.

There are a lot of assumptions made in this last couple of statements that would appear to be based on fallacy. Since they can fight their wars and learn their knowledge and build their understanding of the universe, we can only assume that this imaginary species has evolved some other means of advancing themselves.

It also assumes that whatever these means may or may not be, they are patently "inferior" to sight (which may or not be true).


And somewhere along the line, a fundamental mistake is made. So fundamental that it is completely ignored as being impossible to be wrong.

So how do they know that their perception of the universe is flawed if they have no concept of what they are missing?

What is this fundamental mistake and what impact does it have on their species? Again, we're assuming an awful lot here. I'm thinking that science shows us that blind species are just as well adapted to their environments as sight-bearing species are to their's.

Their perception of their universe is predicated upon whatever ability they have to observe their universe. Without sight, it seems unlikely that they could develop tools, make much use of bipedal locomotion, etc. I'm sure someone with a degree in evolutionary biology could do a much better job of painting a picture of this hypothetical species, but I suspect that the point is moot.


Let me put it another way: We perceive the world through five senses, it is generally agreed. Others may or may not exist -that I'm not going to delve into here.

But is the world as we perceive it the world as it really is? What if our perceptions are coloured, or flawed, because of something we are incapable, and have no concept of exists as a further method of perception?

It's possible. But these methods of perceiving our world would fall outside the realm of science (which would seem to contradict the argument that science is a religion)

Until any observations could be made using these "other senses" that are capable of holding up to the scientific method, they would have to remain in the "non-science" category.


In the words of Kant, what if phenomenon and noumenon are not equal?

It may not be a constructive argument, necessarily, but it is an interesting one, I think, and so on to the point of this post: Isn't science, by the definition I put above, a religion?

Science is not a religion for the reasons posted above.

http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)


From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.



From "The Word of God" by Cat Faber

Uh... Are you sure about that?
Of course. Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true. This topic of religion is a good example. Truth isn't always what it appears. ;)

I suppose that's one possible definition. If we are attempting to operationally define the term, I would prefer to use the definition found in Webster's.
Websters is a good definition but in terms for use in study, I prefer the definition that Geertz came up with that Darth Insidious and I have stated before. You could say that it is a means to quantify it or something like that.

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
This one holds more along the lines of what I was thinking of and what Geertz was attempting. If I find it again I can post it again what Geertz said. He expands it to include symbolism as weel.

Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true.



http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-pseudo.gif) Making up your own definitions for existing words doesn't magically make them applicable, usually is frowned upon, and also does not lend merit to ones outlook on the matter at hand.

Of course. Truth is how I perceive things and it differs from what you say is true. This topic of religion is a good example. Truth isn't always what it appears. ;)I think you're going to find that relativism will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of in some cases.

If "truth" is what you perceive, than what is "true" will differ from person to person. Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

That the earth travels around the sun is a fact.
That God created the earth is 6 days is an opinion.

One of these things is observable, repeatable, testable, etc and should be considered "true" by any rational person. The other is a matter of faith, which means that the believer believes it in spite of little, no, or contradictory evidence.

As you can see, there is truth and then there is relativism. The trick is not to confuse the two.


Websters is a good definition but in terms for use in study, I prefer the definition that Geertz came up with that Darth Insidious and I have stated before. You could say that it is a means to quantify it or something like that.
Regardless, I think that one of the definitions offered by Webster's was pretty close to the definition offered by Darth Insidious. In both cases, the term "religion" cannot be applied to science for reasons that I have already posted. Webster's definition cannot apply because it invokes faith. DI's definition does not work because it can not be uniformly applied with regards to science.


This one holds more along the lines of what I was thinking of and what Geertz was attempting. If I find it again I can post it again what Geertz said. He expands it to include symbolism as weel.You can take the time to find it if you'd like, but I think I already showed that it cannot be used to equate science to religion (which was the gist of the post that I was responding to), so I'm not sure what that will accomplish.

Again, if we're operationally defining the terms, it might save everyone a lot of time to simply use a commonly held existing definition rather than try to cook up one of our own. Just my 2 cents.

I think you're going to find that relativism will get you into more trouble than it will get you out of in some cases.

If "truth" is what you perceive, than what is "true" will differ from person to person. Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

That the earth travels around the sun is a fact.
That God created the earth is 6 days is an opinion.

One of these things is observable, repeatable, testable, etc and should be considered "true" by any rational person. The other is a matter of faith, which means that the believer believes it in spite of little, no, or contradictory evidence.

As you can see, there is truth and then there is relativism. The trick is not to confuse the two.

And this is why I dislike science.

Science claims that it can find the truth. Well, then. Prove it.

Prove to me that the world revolves around the Sun.

Okay, you got some stats, observations and such. Prove to me that those stats, observations, senses, and everything is true.

You gave me a standard by which you evaluate if something is true or not to prove that this is true. Prove to me that standard is true.

You're telling me to shut up because it's "self-evident"? Well then, according to a preacher, the world is created within 6 days and that is "self-evident". Why should I trust you, when your words have equal validity to that preacher's words? It doesn't.

I of course believe that the world revolves around the Sun. Just like I believe I am typing here. But I'm willing to accept the possiblity that my beliefs are wrong. Can you? :)

Here is a more formal explaination of what I am arguing here. This is from the school of sketpicism once more, this time from the Founder of Skepticism, Sextus Empiricus:

1. If we prefer one knd of observation either we do so with judgment and proof or without judgment and proof.
2. If we prefer it without judgment and proof, then our preference is aribtrary and not to be trusted.
3. If we prefer it with judgment, then we do it either with proof or without proof
4. If without proof, then the judmgent is again arbitrary and not to be trusted.
5. If we do it proof, we can ask what standard is applied to the proof.
6. Either the standard is justified or is it isn't.
7. If it isn't jusitifed then it is arbitrary.
8. If it justified then we can ask what standard is applied to the justification. (etc., etc.)

Either the process goes on forever, and so the preference is not. Or it re-uses the same standard of proof, in which case it is circular. Or at some point, the "dogmatisit" refuses to offer further justification or proof, in which case she is unreasonable.

Circular arguments can be valid (if the peremises are true the conclusion must be true, since one of the premises is the conclusion), but they are never legitimately persuasive. The audience won't accept the premise. (That premise is what you were trying to persuade them to accept)

And this is why I dislike science.

Science claims that it can find the truth. Well, then. Prove it.

Prove to me that the world revolves around the Sun.

Okay, you got some stats, observations and such. Prove to me that those stats, observations, senses, and everything is true.

You gave me a standard by which you evaluate if something is true or not to prove that this is true. Prove to me that standard is true.

You're telling me to shut up because it's "self-evident"? Well then, according to a preacher, the world is created within 6 days and that is "self-evident". Why should I trust you, when your words have equal validity to that preacher's words? It doesn't.

I of course believe that the world revolves around the Sun. Just like I believe I am typing here. But I'm willing to accept the possiblity that my beliefs are wrong. Can you? :)

Here is a more formal explaination of what I am arguing here. This is from the school of sketpicism once more, this time from the Founder of Skepticism, Sextus Empiricus:I've already addressed this exact issue on page 1. I don't trust things I observe to be absolute truths. Science does not claim it can find absolute truths. The only thing science does is find models that seem to fit what we percieve, and nothing more. By accepting this I MUST believe that my ideas about how the world works are possibly incomplete. I would NEVER try to prove to you that my model is the absolute truth, because it can't be done. I can, however, show you that my model may work better than yours on some things, and I can prove it to you in that context.

I agree that your preacher's words have the same value of usefulness in determining "absolute" truth. However, one is far more useful in predicting how I will see things in the future. Science does work in that regard, so I trust it more than something I have no way of verifing the effectiveness of. It's part of the reason I asked about anyone finding something that is true (appears to be anyway) 90% that was predicted by some religion - it's because it would allow me to verify its claims and judge its usefulness as a model compared to others that are already working. Like I said, however, there is no such thing that I am aware of. Religion's claims are usually of the impossible to verify variety, perhaps because that very property is valuable to it.

I'm curious what more people think of the deterministic christianity view I posted earlier on page one. Since it appears that there are a few of you here, I would enjoy discussing the merits of its impact on the value of ethics. After all, this wasn't about God, per se... just the idea's impact on ethics. :p

I've already addressed this exact issue on page 1. I don't trust things I observe to be absolute truths. Science does not claim it can find absolute truths. The only thing science does is find models that seem to fit what we percieve, and nothing more. By accepting this I MUST believe that my ideas about how the world works are possibly incomplete. I would NEVER try to prove to you that my model is the absolute truth, because it can't be done. I can, however, show you that my model may work better than yours on some things, and I can prove it to you in that context.

It is more arguing against Achilles' position andn not yours.

That may be true that science offers a framework, which is why I believe in it. I treat it respectfully, and I obey it quite well. Still, I would like to remind people that there is always the possiblity science may be wrong. There is no proof science is wrong, but then again, there is no proof that science is right. I just accept it as true anyway, based on faith. :)

I agree that your preacher's words have the same value of usefulness in determining "absolute" truth. However, one is far more useful in predicting how I will see things in the future.

So that's where that 90% rule comes in. Well, then again, that preacher may end up speaking about the Rule of Five, and then try to come up with some way of arguing that it's not really "by random chance" that everything is related to 5, but it's all part of some divine plan by Eris or something to that effect.

I guess I can understand why I believe in Science then, due to that 90% rule.

I'm curious what more people think of the deterministic christianity view I posted earlier on page one. Since it appears that there are a few of you here, I would enjoy discussing the merits of its impact on the value of ethics.

If it is true, then ethics really does have no meaning. Some scientists are aruging that the human race is in fact deterministic, determined by natural events and such, and that we are contorlled by our subconsisus. During a disuccion in philosphy about this, people argue if this would justify evil...which leads to the question on what is evil if we are all contorlled to believe in certain things?

These very same scientists try to reaffirm free will by stating that we are able to veto our urges that the subconsisus tells us...but there is no proof of that, so I don't trust that.

Of course, if there is such thing as a Chrisitsan deterministic God, then we can just say that God made Human race for his own reasons, maybe only to exholt his pleasures and such...or maybe for something more sinister. It goes to show that there is some hidden answers that we have yet to discover.

That is what I mean by limiting his omiprescence, by avoiding to interfere with some section of space (which happens to be our section of space). But yeah, I can understand that.

But if there is no free will, there is the problem of why Hell is made. I wonder if Hell is made not to punish humans per se, but rather evil human "thoughts" that has convinced humans to do the bad deeds...which could sastify the free will clause. That, or people can just claim "God is evil".

This is a very challenging thing to understand, and I don't know that we can fully understand it, what with being imperfect and finite and all. :)

Just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice in the matter. I can give my kids the option of obeying or not obeying, and in any given situation I'm going to have a good idea which route they're going to take since I know them very well because of our family relationship. If they obey, I can exercise one of my actions accordingly, and if they disobey, I exercise other options. If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions. If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

Someone used an analogy one time of an orchestra. Say you're a viola player, and you mess up on a piece of music, maybe even intentionally. God has the ability to alter the entire piece of music to work around your mistake (and everyone else's) to still keep the music beautiful. Is it better to play it the way He designed? Sure, but that doesn't mean He's limited in what He can do or even anticipate in any given situation.

And this is why I dislike science.<snip>

Samuel Dravis' response to this message is probably similar enough to my own that I don't feel a need to repeat it.

I will only take a moment to point out that nowhere have I told you to "shut up". In fact this is the first time that I have addressed you in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth in the future. Thanks in advance.


That may be true that science offers a framework, which is why I believe in it. I treat it respectfully, and I obey it quite well. Still, I would like to remind people that there is always the possiblity science may be wrong. There is no proof science is wrong, but then again, there is no proof that science is right.

Before I respond, I'd like to point out that the first two sentences here appear to be a contradiction to the quote above. Could you please clarify your stance on science?

There is always a possibility that a scientific theory is wrong. That is why the scientific method seeks to show if a hypothesis is falsifiable. For instance, if someone were to offer an alternative theory that explains the movement of the sun and could prove it via the scientfic method, then we would have to reject our earlier model and accept the new one...until something better (which could be tested) comes along.

You can argue with some of the theories all you want (in fact it's encouraged), however you can't argue the process.

I just accept it as true anyway, based on faith. The scientific method does not require faith. This is why the label of "religion" does not apply.


If it is true, then ethics really does have no meaning. Some scientists are aruging that the human race is in fact deterministic, determined by natural events and such, and that we are contorlled by our subconsisus. During a disuccion in philosphy about this, people argue if this would justify evil...which leads to the question on what is evil if we are all contorlled to believe in certain things?

These very same scientists try to reaffirm free will by stating that we are able to veto our urges that the subconsisus tells us...but there is no proof of that, so I don't trust that.

You do know that "science" is a field of study, not an organization of people, correct? Also, are you aware that some scientists study some things and that other scientists study others?

Some scientist might be arguing for determinism, but the ones that are posing a counter-argument for free will are most likely different human beings.

Since we're on the subject, could you please post a link that details these studies further? It seems to me that this subject is more philosophy than science, so I would be very much interested in knowing more about what science has to offer the subject of free will.

Straying even closer to the topic, I think that it is possible to find moral absolutes, however one would most likely have to reject religion in order to find them. The main critisim of Kant's categorical imperative (a tool which can be used to judge morality/ethics) is that it conflicts with the deterministic model. If one were to scrap this model and all its implications, a remarkably similar (but non-dogmatic) ethical framework would still exist (apparently we don't need a story about stone tablets for "Thou shalt not kill" to make sense).

To summarize this point: religion is not the de facto source of ethics. Most arguments for ethical behavior can be "proven" outside of religion. This means that religion is not necessary for ethics or ethical behavior.

Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.
Exactly. We do make the assumption that there is a difference. More often we base this on "commom ascent" or a common opinion something like that. What I am trying to say is that take the law for example: most things that we have deemed illegal is because on a general consensus and abiding with our morality, they are wrong. How the laws are written are up for interpretation which is what gets us into trouble.

Again, if we're operationally defining the terms, it might save everyone a lot of time to simply use a commonly held existing definition rather than try to cook up one of our own.
Geertz's definition is widely accepted among anthropologists and is used as a basis to identify the religious aspects of a particular culture. This is difficult to do since many societies don't have the separation of church and state like the US or other places. The Aztec religon heavily intertwines with the socio-political side of things down to the fact that they could lose a battle if they displease their god. Anthropology is a social science and like many other things in this world, it is inexact. It is up to interpretation.

There is always a possibility that a scientific theory is wrong. That is why the scientific method seeks to show if a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Another way of saying that science disproves rather than proves. Thanks Achilles :D

If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions.
Nice point to emphasize and I totally agree. Our moral compass can point us in the right direction but it doesn't make us go there. In the end, we have to make the choice and hope that it comes out for the best.

I will only take a moment to point out that nowhere have I told you to "shut up". In fact this is the first time that I have addressed you in this thread. Please don't put words in my mouth in the future. Thanks in advance.

I was not putting words in your mouth, but rather making an argument of someone else defending science and what he would say.

Before I respond, I'd like to point out that the first two sentences here appear to be a contradiction to the quote above. Could you please clarify your stance on science?

Science claims that its method is correct. That by using the method, you are able to figure out stuff. You say it yourself:

You can argue with some of the theories all you want (in fact it's encouraged), however you can't argue the process.

No, I think you should argue with the process. If the process is flawed, then all theories that come out of it is flawed, and we should know that. If we can't trust our observations, then we should not trust what results from the observations, the theories of Science.

And this is why I dislike science. For all its vaunted discussion about being skepticial, and always trying to disprove, it never ever thought of trying to disprove or question the Scientific Method. By adhering to this Method, it has became just as dogmatic as lots of other religious groups out there, which is a major disappointment.

The scientific method does not require faith. This is why the label of "religion" does not apply.

Do you trust that the scientific method is correct? Do you trust that your observations are accurate? Do you believe in it? Yes? Then to me, it requires faith. It is, to me, a religion.

You do know that "science" is a field of study, not an organization of people, correct? Also, are you aware that some scientists study some things and that other scientists study others?

Of course, two groups of scientists can argue with each other, just like two different squabbling religious sects can argue with each other. So what? That doesn't mean anything.

Since we're on the subject, could you please post a link that details these studies further? It seems to me that this subject is more philosophy than science, so I would be very much interested in knowing more about what science has to offer the subject of free will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1325394000&en=7d7a58876163384d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Straying even closer to the topic, I think that it is possible to find moral absolutes, however one would most likely have to reject religion in order to find them. The main critisim of Kant's categorical imperative (a tool which can be used to judge morality/ethics) is that it conflicts with the deterministic model. If one were to scrap this model and all its implications, a remarkably similar (but non-dogmatic) ethical framework would still exist (apparently we don't need a story about stone tablets for "Thou shalt not kill" to make sense).

Uh. Mr. Kant's denotlogical beliefs are just as unproven and in some cases, just as unreasonable as the stone tablets of "Thou shalt not kill".

Here is Kant's law...

The way you determine if an act is permissible is: can this be a universal law? “Can everyone adopt the law: Everyone can lie, Everyone ought to lie?” Can society function? Kant thinks no, so it is not okay to lie at all. This is the self-defeating test.

Expect, uh...Society can function if everyone lies. How come? Well haven't you seen the Sith Academcy in K1, with the Sith plotting and betraying? I think lying and cheating and stealing can allow for a society to function...and even, in some cases, prosper. And, oh, yeah, in K2, "I always lie" is not a paradox as well.

It also begs the question of why Society must function? Why can't we live alone? Why do we need others?

Another part of Kant's beliefs:

Moral Standard 2: An action is right if and only if it treats a person as an end instead of only as a means.

And why must we treat humanity as an ends? Why can't we use the human race to do something greater? Why must we treat it as something...special? And you know that would be bad for society if people actually accept it? So much for an army, the drafting, the civil service, the tax collection, the experimenations, so much for, well everything.

Nope, to me, Kant's beliefs are irrational. Just as irrational as the holy books. At least the holy books give you a reason to obey, Kant gives me none.

To summarize this point: religion is not the de facto source of ethics. Most arguments for ethical behavior can be "proven" outside of religion. This means that religion is not necessary for ethics or ethical behavior.

And they can be "disproven" outside of religion as well. There are tons of ethical theories out there, each theory hating each other, and each theory having no logical basis or reason. Marqius de Sade said murder is okay because it helps out nature, and it provides compost materials. Obivously, nature is much more important than mankind, so why ban murder for what nature intended for man? This is just an example however.

The fact is, ethics, oustide of religion, becomes nothing more than a debate field where we just try to argue to each other what is right and what is wrong. I

I myself like Act Utilitrainism which says good acts are those that make people "happy". Of course, it begs the question of why must people be happy, but it also is so vague that anything can be justified for the sake of "making people happy". Murder, framing of innocent people, tyranny, censorship...you name it, it "makes people happy".

Which is why I like it. Because it allows for me to understand why everyone does whatever they want to do. It acts as a useful framework to allow me to know why people do what they want to do...

Another way to put this would be to say that truth is a matter of opinion. I'm assuming that it's obvious that there is a difference between what is opinion and what is fact.

Actually, facts can become a matter of opinon too. I hate Holocaust deniers, and think of them as idiots, but Holocaust deniers are claiming the Holocaust is not fact. You cannot prove to them that the Holocaust exist. So now what? How in the world can you persuade them? You can't. They will assume that you are holding an opinon that the Holocaust exist, and they are holding the fact that the Holocaust did not exist.

There is no difference therefore between facts and opinons, since different people can very well have different views over certain "facts". Since the "facts" are contested, and people begin splitting into two camps, each claiming that they are right, then I consider them to be holding different opinons.

If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

The difference however is the fact that you did not make your kids what they are today. God made the human, in all his glory and all his imprefectness. And since he made that man, he could very well know everything about that man. And he could change it, if he wanted to. God could have just thrown everything into a random Mankind generator, and decide not to mess with it. Or God could have tinkered with all aspects of mankind, making it how he meant to be.

In other words, only God knows if he gives us free will or the illusion of free will.

So that's where that 90% rule comes in. Well, then again, that preacher may end up speaking about the Rule of Five, and then try to come up with some way of arguing that it's not really "by random chance" that everything is related to 5, but it's all part of some divine plan by Eris or something to that effect.That preacher could try to say that, but unless he connected it to something verifiable there'd be no reason to believe him. He'd just be saying something about what he thinks, but giving no real reason to justify why he thinks it. His model lacks useful predictive power.

Of course, if there is such thing as a Chrisitsan deterministic God, then we can just say that God made Human race for his own reasons, maybe only to exholt his pleasures and such...or maybe for something more sinister. It goes to show that there is some hidden answers that we have yet to discover.I'd hesitate to describe that kind of God as evil or sinister. He just is, doing what he wants. Nothing particularly sinister about that since there isn't anyone else to care about.

This is a very challenging thing to understand, and I don't know that we can fully understand it, what with being imperfect and finite and all. :)

Just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice in the matter. I can give my kids the option of obeying or not obeying, and in any given situation I'm going to have a good idea which route they're going to take since I know them very well because of our family relationship. If they obey, I can exercise one of my actions accordingly, and if they disobey, I exercise other options. If I had perfect foresight, I'd urge them to make the correct choices, but I can't do it for them. They ultimately have to make their own decisions. If I know what mistakes they're going to make, however, I can alter my plans in advance accordingly to deal with that mistake.

Someone used an analogy one time of an orchestra. Say you're a viola player, and you mess up on a piece of music, maybe even intentionally. God has the ability to alter the entire piece of music to work around your mistake (and everyone else's) to still keep the music beautiful. Is it better to play it the way He designed? Sure, but that doesn't mean He's limited in what He can do or even anticipate in any given situation.You see, Jae, my problem with that is that it doesn't seem to be the same situation with God as in your examples. In the orchestra one, you asked if it was better to play it as God designed. What is the difference between what God designed and you played? IS there any difference? He knew what you would play before you were created, before humanity was created, before the universe was created. How is what you played not his ultimate design?

In your first example, you have a "good idea" of what your children will do. God doesn't. He knows exactly what they will do. Moreover, he chose that they would do it, and that you would punish them for making a "bad" decision.

I'll restate what I said on page one for reference:

1)God knows everything, what has been and what will be.
2)God created everything.

I assume these because they are common in mainstream Christianity. Now, if God creates anything (2), he automatically knows exactly what the creation of that thing entails (1). Due to the fact that humanity is a limited creation, humans cannot do things that are not in their nature. Necessarily, God created those limitations by creating limited beings (2).

From this, we can discover a few things: since God created us, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Since he knew this, and still created us in the way we are, with the limitations we have, he MUST have decided that this was what he wanted. Since he decided exactly what people would do at any point in their lives, I don't see how free will follows, nor how God can be considered having any affiliation with "good" or "evil."


BTW Jae, you didn't quote me. :p

No, I think you should argue with the process. If the process is flawed, then all theories that come out of it is flawed, and we should know that. If we can't trust our observations, then we should not trust what results from the observations, the theories of Science.

And this is why I dislike science. For all its vaunted discussion about being skepticial, and always trying to disprove, it never ever thought of trying to disprove or question the Scientific Method. By adhering to this Method, it has became just as dogmatic as lots of other religious groups out there, which is a major disappointment.I would be quite interested in any other method that approaches the accuracy of the scientific method for the purposes that the method is used for. Do you have one?

Nope, to me, Kant's beliefs are irrational. Just as irrational as the holy books. At least the holy books give you a reason to obey, Kant gives me none.How do they give you a reason to obey?

The fact is, ethics, oustide of religion, becomes nothing more than a debate field where we just try to argue to each other what is right and what is wrong.Depends on if you're trying to get transcendant truth or not. If you're just trying to find out whether something is good or bad within a framework, it can be done. Religion is a framework among a great many others and is not necessarily a useful one.

Which is why I like it. Because it allows for me to understand why everyone does whatever they want to do. It acts as a useful framework to allow me to know why people do what they want to do...You've already shown yourself that it doesn't do a thing for true understanding.

Actually, facts can become a matter of opinon too. I hate Holocaust deniers, and think of them as idiots, but Holocaust deniers are claiming the Holocaust is not fact. You cannot prove to them that the Holocaust exist. So now what? How in the world can you persuade them? You can't. They will assume that you are holding an opinon that the Holocaust exist, and they are holding the fact that the Holocaust did not exist.The difference being that many people's opinions are more likely to be true than just a few. For example, you could make them go to a concentration camp and see it for themselves. You could do quite a few things that, while they don't PROVE the Holocaust, they do make it quite a bit more likely than not. It's strange how you would be bothered about not being able to "prove" it when clearly it can't be done...

From this, we can discover a few things: since God created us, he knew exactly what he was getting into. Since he knew this, and still created us in the way we are, with the limitations we have, he MUST have decided that this was what he wanted. Since he decided exactly what people would do at any point in their lives, I don't see how free will follows, nor how God can be considered having any affiliation with "good" or "evil."

Easy. The Random Intelligent Creation Engine.

You are God and you create something that randomly chooses everything. Why? Because you're God, and you like randomness for some reason. You decide to make sure that it is TRULY random. You press the button and then it creates templates for billions and billions of Humans.

"The Random Intelligent Creation Engine", this true randomness, is in fact how free will is deterimined. We freely choose what we do because of the RICE, and how it randomly chooses for us what we do. God may not like what the RICE comes out with (just like one may not like rolling 1s all the times), but God places it in anyway, because he made RICE to randomly create certain people.

So God has no contorl over us, and allows for our free will, represented by total randomness inside of the RICE, to take over.


I think. I could be wrong. :)

I would be quite interested in any other method that approaches the accuracy of the scientific method for the purposes that the method is used for. Do you have one?

Well, to me, the burden of proof is not on me to come up with a Method, but rather on you to prove to me that the Method is correct.

How do they give you a reason to obey?

"Obey or go to Hell."

Depends on if you're trying to get transcendant truth or not. If you're just trying to find out whether something is good or bad within a framework, it can be done.

Again, if the framework is wrong, then all conclusions from the framework is flawed. If you trust the framework, maybe, but as one can see in the Abortion topic, it might be hard to figure out if Abortion is good or bad.

You've already shown yourself that it doesn't do a thing for true understanding.

True, but it allows me to determine why they believe what they are doing is right and thereby justify it. Allows me to come up with some sort of a belief as to why dictators would justify what they have done.

The difference being that many people's opinions are more likely to be true than just a few.

So, before the 1400's, would you accept the belief that the Earth is in fact standing still in the center of the universe? Most people believed that, even the scholars agreed it was the most reasonable. :)

Easy. The Random Intelligent Creation Engine.

You are God and you create something that randomly chooses everything. Why? Because you're God, and you like randomness for some reason. You decide to make sure that it is TRULY random. You press the button and then it creates templates for billions and billions of Humans.How does God not know what happens inside of this engine?

"The Random Intelligent Creation Engine", this true randomness, is in fact how free will is deterimined. We freely choose what we do because of the RICE, and how it randomly chooses for us what we do. God may not like what the RICE comes out with (just like one may not like rolling 1s all the times), but God places it in anyway, because he made RICE to randomly create certain people.How does this random selection provide free will anyway? Even if it's random you're still ONLY going to be able to do whatever was selected by that generator.

How does God not know what happens inside of this engine?

God doesn't want to know. It would upset the purpose of making the RICE in the first place. :xp:

How does this random selection provide free will anyway? Even if it's random you're still ONLY going to be able to do whatever was selected by that generator.

The fact is that God would not know really, and could not intervene in the situation, since it is outside of his contorl what the RICE choosen. To me, that random selection would provide the semblance of Free Will anyway, or at least something apporaching it. It's much less doctrinally dangerous than having a God that contorls everything. God is not in contorl, only the randomness, and there is no way to rig the randomness to make it what it is.

But if God didn't make the RICE, then it really doesn't matter what I said, did it?

God doesn't want to know. It would upset the purpose of making the RICE in the first place. :xp:Knowing everything is one of the attributes of God, remember? It's hard to figure how he could know everything yet clearly not know it - a logical contradiction.

The fact is that God would not know really, and could not intervene in the situation, since it is outside of his contorl what the RICE choosen. To me, that random selection would provide the semblance of Free Will anyway, or at least something apporaching it. It's much less doctrinally dangerous than having a God that contorls everything. God is not in contorl, only the randomness, and there is no way to rig the randomness to make it what it is.So we're talking about "semblances" of free will now. Why would he even bother with the moral laws he's supposed to have given to humanity? Why would God punish those that will make decisions based on the "semblance" of free will that this generator is supposed to give? A god that did this is certainly no God of justice, love or much else... which is probably just as bad as the chooser one.

But if God didn't make the RICE, then it really doesn't matter what I said, did it?Don't worry, you didn't say it. :D

Knowing everything is one of the attributes of God, remember? It's hard to figure how he could know everything yet clearly not know it - a logical contradiction.

To me, I think God has the power to do anything, even do stuff that is totally illogical. He, for example, can create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. He's all-powerful, he should be able to break his own rules, right?

But if God in fact cannot break certain rules, then my theory does go out the window, does it? :)

So we're talking about "semblances" of free will now. Why would he even bother with the moral laws he's supposed to have given to humanity? Why would God punish those that will make decisions based on the "semblance" of free will that this generator is supposed to give? A god that did this is certainly no God of justice, love or much else... which is probably just as bad as the chooser one.

Well, he made the moral laws, but it is the random generator that decides if the people would follow the laws or not. The random generator could create some random stats and then use those random stats to determine if one will obey the moral laws or not.

Example of RICE's Character Sheet:

Bobby
20 Charisma
5 Intelligence
20 Strength
1 Dexertiy

Now with all those stats, we can see that Bobby is very charismastic but also very dumb. He is also a strong brute. Once that is done, the Random Generator can then randomly choose the alignment of Bobby, based on the random stats that the RICE has done:

Bobby's alignment: Chaotic Good.

Bobby is chaotic because he has low intelligence but Good because he really do like helping people and is very friendly, due to his high charisma. Therefore, Bobby follow the laws, due to the randomness that allow for what we know as free will. I think.

...Just remember, you did say that the idea of God being a deterministic being is very pemmestic, so anything that might be able to refute it might work.

EDIT: Oh, Samuel, while we're on the topic of God, you might like this article (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484).

To me, I think God has the power to do anything, even do stuff that is totally illogical. He, for example, can create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. He's all-powerful, he should be able to break his own rules, right?

But if God in fact cannot break certain rules, then my theory does go out the window, does it? :)I'm not sure it's a rule he'd be breaking. It's what he is, a fundamental property of the God concept. Like the bit of Aquinas' about God being all good because it is his inherent nature to be good. Ergo God can't do evil, or put another way: God can't do anything against his will. I use logic and reason because it's basically the only thing I have. It has proven its usefulness countless times in the past for me, with results I can count on (well, in my experience anyway :p). I literally don't know of any other way to find truth in an argument, so I must use the best thing I've got on the God concept.

If you believe that reason can't explain anything about God, then fine. Of course, that would mean that you would also have to give up any ideas based on that supposition. "God is..." would be "God appears to be..." "God says..." --> "God might be saying..." With "God is benevolent..." you could never assume that "God never does anything not benevolent." "God is good" doesn't mean that God is not truly evil and he just likes toying with us.

However, if you're to suppose all of this that religion says about God is true and use it as a working model, then at least you should be able to show something useful you get out of it. Myself, I don't see any reason to believe it. I just don't see the effects of a God anywhere. I don't find that belief or non-belief changes much in the way of knowledge gained, or that belief provides a useful measure to predict things. Sure, God might exist. He also might not. I don't have any reason to think he does, no 90%, so you see... I just don't see the point of believing. In addition, the other problems like this deterministic God keep me from even wanting to believe in such a thing.

Well, he made the moral laws, but it is the random generator that decides if the people would follow the laws or not. The random generator could create some random stats and then use those random stats to determine if one will obey the moral laws or not.
...

Bobby is chaotic because he has low intelligence but Good because he really do like helping people and is very friendly, due to his high charisma. Therefore, Bobby follow the laws, due to the randomness that allow for what we know as free will. I think.Oh, no doubt Bobby does indeed follow the laws set down for morality. Does he have any choice? No...which makes it strange for God to punish Bobby when he makes a mistake. Did Bobby actually make that mistake? He's just being the only thing he can be: Bobby. Bobby has no control. Only God does. And God chose for the Random machine to make Bobby...

...Just remember, you did say that the idea of God being a deterministic being is very pemmestic, so anything that might be able to refute it might work.I certainly don't want it to be true! Still, with the starting conditions as they are, I don't see how to get another result. If the assumptions made were different, perhaps it wouldn't be true, but I don't think that most Christians would care to have their God limited...

EDIT: Oh, Samuel, while we're on the topic of God, you might like this article (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484).The) Onion is a valuable resource to all people on the internets. :D

I'm not sure it's a rule he'd be breaking. It's what he is, a fundamental property of the God concept. Like the bit of Aquinas' about God being all good because it is his inherent nature to be good. Ergo God can't do evil, or put another way: God can't do anything against his will.

My definition of God is a being that has total, unlimited contorl over everything and anything. He's all-powerful, and the creator of, well, everything. Since God creates everything, he has the power to do what he wants, and could theortically decides if we have free will or if we don't.

I don't find that belief or non-belief changes much in the way of knowledge gained, or that belief provides a useful measure to predict things. Sure, God might exist. He also might not. I don't have any reason to think he does, no 90%, so you see... I just don't see the point of believing.

I just follow Pascal's little gamble here. Basically, obey God because if you do not, your life has little meaning, and it's okay to decieve yourself in order to make you happy. And, if God does exist, then you get the added bonus of infinite pleasure and happiness. Of course, Pascal's gamble is probraly a stupid one, but still...

Oh, no doubt Bobby does indeed follow the laws set down for morality. Does he have any choice? No...which makes it strange for God to punish Bobby when he makes a mistake. Did Bobby actually make that mistake? He's just being the only thing he can be: Bobby. Bobby has no control. Only God does. And God chose for the Random machine to make Bobby...

Again, I said before that I believe God would not intervene in the Random machine, for some strange reason. I don't see tthe reason why God would limit his power, but since he is God, he can limit his power. Only the random machine is responsible, the total randomness of RICE. Prehaps, one could say that the randomness is basically the society of Earth and the genetic pool, which gives you certain predopsitions...and the randomness is the different events that shape you into what you are.

I certainly don't want it to be true! Still, with the starting conditions as they are, I don't see how to get another result. If the assumptions made were different, perhaps it wouldn't be true, but I don't think that most Christians would care to have their God limited...

Of course, I'm a fan of predestination because it makes God seems mighty and powerful...before people start arguing to me about where free will comes into play. I had an idea of the free will being the thoughts of mankind rather than mankind himself, and it is ideas that goes to Hell, not actual human beings. That didn't exactly fly.

So, while it is possible for predestination to occur, it is also equally possible that there is free will, or something that resembles free will. It's basically an excerise in thinking and belief.

My definition of God is a being that has total, unlimited contorl over everything and anything. He's all-powerful, and the creator of, well, everything. Since God creates everything, he has the power to do what he wants, and could theortically decides if we have free will or if we don't.It's not a question of whether he could decide such a thing; it's more of whether it's even possible with the idea of God itself. God MUST know everything, because if he didn't then he wouldn't be all knowing... If it's accepted that there is no way to determine what god wants or not through reason, then I don't see the point of bothering with it at all. If god exists, then he will do what he wants when he wants to, and since I have no hope of figuring out anything about him or his motivations, I have no reason to act on what people say are "God's wishes." If that choice is even possible.

I just follow Pascal's little gamble here. Basically, obey God because if you do not, your life has little meaning, and it's okay to decieve yourself in order to make you happy. And, if God does exist, then you get the added bonus of infinite pleasure and happiness. Of course, Pascal's gamble is probraly a stupid one, but still...Pascal's wager might be useful for some Gods. I'm not sure how well it would work fooling a god if it cared about your belief. Probably it wouldn't. I'd rather do as I will and trust that, if there is a God, it will forgive me my inescapable ignorance. If it didn't, I probably wouldn't want to associate with it anyway. The Bible says that this is what God wants anyway, as He hates the lukewarm souls the most (Rev 3:16). I use the Bible because we're talking about Christianity and we're assuming it to be true.

Again, I said before that I believe God would not intervene in the Random machine, for some strange reason. I don't see tthe reason why God would limit his power, but since he is God, he can limit his power. Only the random machine is responsible, the total randomness of RICE. Prehaps, one could say that the randomness is basically the society of Earth and the genetic pool, which gives you certain predopsitions...and the randomness is the different events that shape you into what you are.Like I say, I just don't get how God is actually limiting his power here. I imagine he could CHOOSE not to interfere (other than the physical laws & other such "constants") after he made the random machine, but he already interfered by creating the machine in the first place. Anything the machine does would necessarily be the result that God intended.

I don't see how he could choose to not know what goes on within the machine, as nothing, not even randomness, exists without his willing it to exist, and by willing it he must know what its existence entails. Like I said, I'm using logic on this because I've got nothing else. If you have something else that seems to work, then I'd be happy to hear it. Right now, however, it just seems like you're trying to justify God not being responsible by putting another step in the chain.

So, while it is possible for predestination to occur, it is also equally possible that there is free will, or something that resembles free will. It's basically an excerise in thinking and belief.Sounds very Calvinistic. I don't have a problem with people saying that the appearance of free will is compatible with the given properties of God. It's just the reality of free will that appears to be the non sequitur.

It's not a question of whether he could decide such a thing; it's more of whether it's even possible with the idea of God itself. God MUST know everything, because if he didn't then he wouldn't be all knowing...

Then we have different ideas of God then. I see God as being the Prime Mover, the greatest of all things. He is all-knowing...unless he wants to not be all-knowing. Again, I got no proof for this, but this is the idea by which I operate by.

Pascal's wager might be useful for some Gods. I'm not sure how well it would work fooling a god if it cared about your belief. Probably it wouldn't. I'd rather do as I will and trust that, if there is a God, it will forgive me my inescapable ignorance. If it didn't, I probably wouldn't want to associate with it anyway. The Bible says that this is what God wants anyway, as He hates the lukewarm souls the most (Rev 3:16). I use the Bible because we're talking about Christianity and we're assuming it to be true

Actually, I am not a Chrisitain, so I know nothing of the Bible's text and of that verse. Sorry.

You could be true, but I guess I'm pretty paranoid and fearful of Hell, hence why I probraly believe in God.

I don't see how he could choose to not know what goes on within the machine, as nothing, not even randomness, exists without his willing it to exist, and by willing it he must know what its existence entails. Like I said, I'm using logic on this because I've got nothing else. If you have something else that seems to work, then I'd be happy to hear it. Right now, however, it just seems like you're trying to justify God not being responsible by putting another step in the chain.

Isn't, well, basically, any sort of thing that tries to come up with the idea of "free will" and reconcile it with God's all-mighty status? They are trying to skip and avoid the question, because, to be quite fair, there is no real way to answer it. I'm just saying it is possible that somehow, God could find some way to create such a world that allows for free will, but personally, I do not know. It does not matter anyway...I don't have access to all the data of what I will do in the future...

I don't have a problem with people saying that the appearance of free will is compatible with the given properties of God. It's just the reality of free will that appears to be the non sequitur.

Finally, a solution! We have something looks like free will, that feels like free will, and it appears to be free will, so let just call it Free Will. :)

EDIT: I actually do prefer determinism, but it does infringes on free will, and it does take a long time to reconcile those two strange ideas, if it even is possible. Eh.

Exactly. We do make the assumption that there is a difference.It seems I phrased that poorly. Allow me to try again: You do acknowledge that there is a difference between fact and opinion, correct?


More often we base this on "commom ascent" or a common opinion something like that. Do you have a logical argument for why fact should not be considered separate from opinion?


What I am trying to say is that take the law for example: most things that we have deemed illegal is because on a general consensus and abiding with our morality, they are wrong. How the laws are written are up for interpretation which is what gets us into trouble. That's because law is relative. I'm sure everyone is capable of finding at least one law that would appear to defy logical analysis without context. I'm afraid that your example does not support your argument very well.


Geertz's definition is widely accepted among anthropologists and is used as a basis to identify the religious aspects of a particular culture. This is difficult to do since many societies don't have the separation of church and state like the US or other places. The Aztec religon heavily intertwines with the socio-political side of things down to the fact that they could lose a battle if they displease their god. Anthropology is a social science and like many other things in this world, it is inexact. It is up to interpretation.

Fine, we can do the same thing with Geertz's definition:

a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them

Science does not deal with beliefs or practices relative to sacred things, therefore science is not religion. Were there any other definitions that you'd like to use?


Another way of saying that science disproves rather than proves. Thanks Achilles :D
Your point? If I can disprove that the earth does not orbit any other body other than the sun, isn't that the same thing as proving that the earth orbits the sun? The method is different but the result is the same.

Most people with a basic understanding of emperical science accept that this is how science works. I didn't realize that I was breaking new ground.


Science claims that its method is correct. That by using the method, you are able to figure out stuff. You say it yourself:

<snip>

No, I think you should argue with the process. If the process is flawed, then all theories that come out of it is flawed, and we should know that. If we can't trust our observations, then we should not trust what results from the observations, the theories of Science.

Well I agree with that, however you don't appear to offer any specific arguments against the scientific method. Considering that the method was developed and refined over hundreds of years by some of the most brilliant minds in history and has been used to uncover some of the most spectacular facts about the observable universe, I think you'll be hard pressed to do so, but my argument is based on fallacy, so...;)


And this is why I dislike science. For all its vaunted discussion about being skepticial, and always trying to disprove, it never ever thought of trying to disprove or question the Scientific Method. By adhering to this Method, it has became just as dogmatic as lots of other religious groups out there, which is a major disappointment.
How does one disprove a process? By providing a better one? Wouldn't that be an example of the scientific method in practice? I submit that it is.

Are mathematicians dogmatic because they refuse to consider that 2+2 might equal some other number than 4? Before you waive the word "dogma" around like a sword, remember that dogma is an authoritative argument that is made without support.


Do you trust that the scientific method is correct?
Yes


Do you trust that your observations are accurate? Yes.


Do you believe in it? What is "it"?


Yes? Then to me, it requires faith. It is, to me, a religion.
Using your own definitions to support your own argument does not make your argument any more true. So, consider science a religion if you want, but that doesn't mean that it's the case and it doesn't mean that anyone else should accept your assertion.

PS: This would be a good example of dogmatic thinking.


Of course, two groups of scientists can argue with each other, just like two different squabbling religious sects can argue with each other. So what? That doesn't mean anything.

Well, you did say that one group of scientist was arguing both sides of the same issue. Doesn't make sense that this would happen.


Uh. Mr. Kant's denotlogical beliefs are just as unproven and in some cases, just as unreasonable as the stone tablets of "Thou shalt not kill".

Here is Kant's law...<snip>

Expect, uh...Society can function if everyone lies. How come? Well haven't you seen the Sith Academcy in K1, with the Sith plotting and betraying? I think lying and cheating and stealing can allow for a society to function...and even, in some cases, prosper. And, oh, yeah, in K2, "I always lie" is not a paradox as well.
Kant argues that individual have inherent worth and should be considered as end unto themselves. Therefore intentionally deceiving another breaks the categorical imperative except in cases where lying is necessary to save the life of yourself or another. Hope that helps to clarify.


It also begs the question of why Society must function? Why can't we live alone? Why do we need others?

Indeed. Were you hoping for a philosophical answer or anthropological one?



Another part of Kant's beliefs: <snip>

And why must we treat humanity as an ends?Err...value of individual human life? Are you proposing an argument against this?


Why can't we use the human race to do something greater? Why must we treat it as something...special? And you know that would be bad for society if people actually accept it? So much for an army, the drafting, the civil service, the tax collection, the experimenations, so much for, well everything.
Oh, I see. You're a fan of Plato's "Philosopher Kings".

So people that don't share your view should be coerced into working to better mankind? Who gets to decide what this means and how it is measured? Wouldn't it be better if there was an open forum of ideas and those that choose to participate could while those who didn't think this way did whatever it was that they did?


Nope, to me, Kant's beliefs are irrational. Just as irrational as the holy books.
Right and disparate interpretations of Utopia is perfectly rationale ;)


At least the holy books give you a reason to obey, Kant gives me none.
Depends on how you look at it. The argument could be raised that "doing what you're told" isn't true ethical behavior whereas acting ethically because you see value in it is. *shrugs*


And they can be "disproven" outside of religion as well. There are tons of ethical theories out there, each theory hating each other, and each theory having no logical basis or reason. Marqius de Sade said murder is okay because it helps out nature, and it provides compost materials. Obivously, nature is much more important than mankind, so why ban murder for what nature intended for man? This is just an example however.The point remains though. Religion is not the sole source of ethics.


The fact is, ethics, oustide of religion, becomes nothing more than a debate field where we just try to argue to each other what is right and what is wrong.
And help me understand how this is different from ethical debate within religion?


I myself like Act Utilitrainism which says good acts are those that make people "happy". Of course, it begs the question of why must people be happy, but it also is so vague that anything can be justified for the sake of "making people happy". Murder, framing of innocent people, tyranny, censorship...you name it, it "makes people happy".Was that sarcasm or are you arguing that one person should be able to murder another if it makes them happy? Utilitarianism is like communism; it looks good on paper but tends to fall apart when applied. At least with deontological ethics there's some sense of "do onto others...".


Actually, facts can become a matter of opinon too. I hate Holocaust deniers, and think of them as idiots, but Holocaust deniers are claiming the Holocaust is not fact. You cannot prove to them that the Holocaust exist. So now what? You cannot prove it or they won't accept proof because they are dogmatic. Since members of the Flat Earth Society refuse to accept evidence which shows that the earth is actually round, does that mean it is factually flat? Relativism does not equal truth.


How in the world can you persuade them? You can't.
Probably not. That's why it's called dogma.


There is no difference therefore between facts and opinons, since different people can very well have different views over certain "facts". Since the "facts" are contested, and people begin splitting into two camps, each claiming that they are right, then I consider them to be holding different opinons. Having an opinion about a fact does not put the opinion on equal footing with fact. Using your premise, the argument that the earth is round is just as true, factual, etc as the argument that it is flat.


The difference however is the fact that you did not make your kids what they are today. God made the human, in all his glory and all his imprefectness. And since he made that man, he could very well know everything about that man. And he could change it, if he wanted to. God could have just thrown everything into a random Mankind generator, and decide not to mess with it. Or God could have tinkered with all aspects of mankind, making it how he meant to be.

In other words, only God knows if he gives us free will or the illusion of free will. This is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that one of my sperm cells interacted with one of my ex-wife's egg cells to produce a son with his own unique human genome.

Whether or not this system was developed by the Christian God is a matter of opinion. The mechanism isn't in question, however the cause (if any) is still open to debate.

Then we have different ideas of God then. I see God as being the Prime Mover, the greatest of all things. He is all-knowing...unless he wants to not be all-knowing. Again, I got no proof for this, but this is the idea by which I operate by.I'm not sure what to say to this other than, well, why? Why do you believe something that you have no reason to? To me that's sort of like being afraid of a man-eating monster in the closet that can only be appeased by believing in it... Sure, there might be a monster, I don't know for certain, but I don't plan on being afraid of my closet because of that chance. I've never seen or heard of anyone or anything that reasonably shows the monster to be actually real, or that there are any bad effects if you don't believe.

Actually, I am not a Chrisitain, so I know nothing of the Bible's text and of that verse. Sorry.I'm curious what you subscribe to, then. Any particular teaching?

Isn't, well, basically, any sort of thing that tries to come up with the idea of "free will" and reconcile it with God's all-mighty status? They are trying to skip and avoid the question, because, to be quite fair, there is no real way to answer it. I'm just saying it is possible that somehow, God could find some way to create such a world that allows for free will, but personally, I do not know. It does not matter anyway...I don't have access to all the data of what I will do in the future...Remember we were talking about the status of ethics in relation to religion. Regardless of what you percieve your status to be, if God does in fact determine your course then there is no true free will and ethics mean nothing.

Finally, a solution! We have something looks like free will, that feels like free will, and it appears to be free will, so let just call it Free Will. :)Okay, but let's not make the mistake of thinking that it actually is "free." :)

EDIT: I actually do prefer determinism, but it does infringes on free will, and it does take a long time to reconcile those two strange ideas, if it even is possible. Eh.Yeah, it's rather difficult. Even so, I'd much rather be responsible for myself than be a mindless cog in a machine.

I just noticed I didn't respond to these earlier, so sorry about that. I wasn't ignoring them, I just got distracted by your random engine idea. :)


Well, to me, the burden of proof is not on me to come up with a Method, but rather on you to prove to me that the Method is correct.I think it's pretty clear that the method works fairly well. You can get firsthand experience yourself if you look at the computer in front of you, which was made with applications of information gained by the method. I'm not sure what else you want in the direction of proof. Unless you have something that works better, there's little use in proclaiming the scientific method flawed, because everyone already knows it. The only reason it's used is because there's nothing better to use.

"Obey or go to Hell."Err...this is a reason? Have they actually shown you to a reasonable degree that hell even exists to be afraid of?

Again, if the framework is wrong, then all conclusions from the framework is flawed. If you trust the framework, maybe, but as one can see in the Abortion topic, it might be hard to figure out if Abortion is good or bad.Right. Christians can prove abortion evil, because in their framework it is; I can say I am against it because I believe people to have inherent worth and I can't tell if it is human or not; others can argue that since there is no indication of what can be seen as human (i.e., cognition, etc) then there is no need to restrict it. A proof in one system will probably not work out as a proof in another. Fun, isn't it?

True, but it allows me to determine why they believe what they are doing is right and thereby justify it. Allows me to come up with some sort of a belief as to why dictators would justify what they have done.If you were to accept their positions on what some dictators have done, then I'm sure they were all saints. :p

I can see some things which I percieve as bad. If they happened to me I'd be angry or dead. I don't want either of those things, so I can empathize with people who have been oppressed by these dictators and be against them.

So, before the 1400's, would you accept the belief that the Earth is in fact standing still in the center of the universe? Most people believed that, even the scholars agreed it was the most reasonable. :)No doubt they did. I probably would have as well if I were brought up in such a system. However, presented with sufficient evidence I would hope I could change my mind, just as they did eventually. Are we better off because they did? The idea that the earth isn't at the center of the universe hasn't been proven wrong, it's simply been proven less useful than other models...

Achilles: My point on thanking you for staing your quote is that many people don't understand the point of science. It comes forth in their arguments.

Please note, Samuel Dravis and Achilles, that I do believe in science and trust in it. Just repeating it again, I guess.

Well I agree with that, however you don't appear to offer any specific arguments against the scientific method. Considering that the method was developed and refined over hundreds of years by some of the most brilliant minds in history and has been used to uncover some of the most spectacular facts about the observable universe, I think you'll be hard pressed to do so, but my argument is based on fallacy, so...

I know the scientific method's outline, correct me if I am wrong:

1. Observation: I see something.
2. Hypothesis: Come up with a reason why the observation is correct.
3. Experiment Design: Design an experiment to test the hypothesis, to see if it is correct or not.
4. Data Collection: Collect the data from the experiment and anaylze it to gain a greater understanding.
5. Conclusion. Does the Experiment support or do not support the hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is reliant on observations. You need to observe something before you can make a testable hypothesis. If the observations are flawed, so is everything that result from it. How do we know if our observations are flawed? We can't use the scientific method to figure out if the observations can be relied on...because that relies on observations.

Take the example of the evil demon or a brain in a vat. Such a possiblity of you being deceived by an evil demon can exist, and therefore, your senses and observations lie in doubt. I don't trust observations, since they have the possiblity of being falisfied by the evil demon or by a brain in a vat.

There is also the possiblity of different people seeing different observations. A sane man sees the world in a different light than an insane person. A sleeping man sees the world in a light that is contray to a waking man. A drunk person observes the world differently than a sober man. You can say that you trust the sane over the insane, the waking over the sleeping, the sober over the drunk...but then you need to prove to me why you have to rely on their observations...

And there is the thing. There is no way to prove that an observation can be trusted. If you present some evidence that the observation happened, then I can merely ask for proof of that evidence. And then proof that that proof of the evidence is accurate. And so on and so forth. Without such proof, I feel that it becomes quite artibrary to rely on those observations, and thereby, via science itself.


How does one disprove a process? By providing a better one? Wouldn't that be an example of the scientific method in practice? I submit that it is.

I can't produce a better one. But I don't need to. All I am doing is questioning if we should actually trust Science and its observations to begin with. In this case, I'm taking up the position of an atheist here, arguing that the burden of proof is not on me to prove that Science is wrong and provide something differnet, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that Science is right.

Are mathematicians dogmatic because they refuse to consider that 2+2 might equal some other number than 4? Before you waive the word "dogma" around like a sword, remember that dogma is an authoritative argument that is made without support.

Some parts of math are in fact made without support and they accept it quite well. For example, they posulate the existence of a point. There is no way to prove that a point exist, and they don't even bother. They say the point exist.

Math is a creation by the human race. 2+2=4 really represent...a grouping of a some objects that is represented by a Numerical symbol 2 and another grouping of some objects that is represented by a Numerical System 2, combined together, creates a third grouping of objects that is represented by the Numerical System 4. Since I see math as man-made, there is really no need to prove those definitions are correct or not, they are just aribtrary and are there to help us.

So, yes, it is dogmatic. But math is an invention by mankind, and mathmaticians create their own terminology, their own world, so that they are allowed for this dogma. But, scientists did not create their own world.


Using your own definitions to support your own argument does not make your argument any more true. So, consider science a religion if you want, but that doesn't mean that it's the case and it doesn't mean that anyone else should accept your assertion.

PS: This would be a good example of dogmatic thinking.

Then why are you reliant on trusting Science? Why do you attempt to believe that science is correct, trying to find definitions that support your belief as well, and attempting to redefine everything as being "scared"? Is Science a "scared" thing? Maybe.

Does it even matter of the terminology I throw at it? No. All that matters is that can Science be trusted...more importantly, can we trust the observations? If we cannot trust observations, we cannot trust Science.

Well, you did say that one group of scientist was arguing both sides of the same issue. Doesn't make sense that this would happen.

It was the scientist that did it...not me. :)


Kant argues that individual have inherent worth and should be considered as end unto themselves. Therefore intentionally deceiving another breaks the categorical imperative except in cases where lying is necessary to save the life of yourself or another. Hope that helps to clarify.

And what if I don't accept Kant's belief? I guess then the cateogorical imperative does not apply to me then.


Indeed. Were you hoping for a philosophical answer or anthropological one?

Neither. I was questioning for questioning's sake, to expose faults within a theory.

Err...value of individual human life? Are you proposing an argument against this?

No. I am merely poking holes through a theory to find faults within it. People can go and attack the theory through the faults.

So people that don't share your view should be coerced into working to better mankind? Who gets to decide what this means and how it is measured? Wouldn't it be better if there was an open forum of ideas and those that choose to participate could while those who didn't think this way did whatever it was that they did?

Again, I was poking holes through a THEORY. The fact remains that one could argue that way.

Each ethical theory has a fault, and has a hole. I was poking in those holes because of me being devil's advocate here.

And actually, if everyone believes in the same thing, then there will be no wars, no violence, no chaos. The world might actually be a better place, if less richer in culture.


Right and disparate interpretations of Utopia is perfectly rationale

To me, rational is coming up with a logical belief. But the problem is that we have base assumptions that cannot be justified logically. I hate those assumptions, but it seems that Kant is having them here. We all have them. Since these assumptions are illogical, they are irrational to even consider them.

Depends on how you look at it. The argument could be raised that "doing what you're told" isn't true ethical behavior whereas acting ethically because you see value in it is. *shrugs*

Well, the problem is that if I don't see value in what I am doing, I don't do it. Different value systems can lead to a lot of chaos. "Doing what you are told" at the least gives people, like me, a reason for doing stuff.

Ethics is the science of determining what is right and what is wrong. Sooner or later, it boils down to relying on an arbibraty thing to guide you, and "doing what you are told" seems to me, probraly okay.

The point remains though. Religion is not the sole source of ethics.

Of course not. But outside of religion, you can argue for anything, and I can argue anything back...by using our vaunted reason here. It's not the sole source of ethics, but the other sources are not to be honored as well...they can be just as arbitrary.

And help me understand how this is different from ethical debate within religion?

"God says this!"/"No, God says that!"/"No, God says this!"/"Fine, let go and spilt up, and when we die, God will show that I am right!"/"Okay!"

Debate ends peremeantly with a schism within a religion, with both sides calling each other heatens. Meanwhile, other people just argue endlessly and endlessly while the religious folk just end the argument and call each other bad names.

Was that sarcasm or are you arguing that one person should be able to murder another if it makes them happy? Utilitarianism is like communism; it looks good on paper but tends to fall apart when applied. At least with deontological ethics there's some sense of "do onto others...".

But deontological ethics make no sense. "Do this!" Why? "Well, because I say so!" That's not very convicing, I have holy books if I want to have that sort of discussion.

What I was doing is stating that with AU, you can use it to justify...well...anything. Which is why I prefer it over the other theories. It is open, and easy to use. Anyone can use it to justify whatever they want to do, and because of it, I can use it as an ethical framework by which other people can justify their actions, according to that framework.

Call it morally wrong, but can you prove it? That's the main question.

You cannot prove it or they won't accept proof because they are dogmatic. Since members of the Flat Earth Society refuse to accept evidence which shows that the earth is actually round, does that mean it is factually flat? Relativism does not equal truth.

Actually, Holocaust Deniers and Flat Earth Society do present 'proof'. Or at least, they call them proof, we just laugh at them. Or is it? What if we are the dogmatic idiots here?

But you haven't even proven to me that Science can be trusted. So, how come you can call it "truth", when we haven't verified if the observations that is the whole basis of Science can be trusted?

Having an opinion about a fact does not put the opinion on equal footing with fact. Using your premise, the argument that the earth is round is just as true, factual, etc as the argument that it is flat.

It then puts you on the defensive however. You have to prove to my opinon that the fact is true. And then you have to prove that that proof is true. And then you have to prove that proof of the proof is true...and so on and so forth. In the end, sooner or later, you will stop giving me proofs. And then I can say that we both share different opinons.

This is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that one of my sperm cells interacted with one of my ex-wife's egg cells to produce a son with his own unique human genome.

Whether or not this system was developed by the Christian God is a matter of opinion. The mechanism isn't in question, however the cause (if any) is still open to debate.

You fail to realize that we were waging in different arguments.

The argument above, about science, talks about merely if Science exist. The second argument, the one where I mentioned God, talks about the possiblity of free will in a universe with an all-powerful God, and we assume, for the purpose of the argument, that THERE is an all-powerful God. If you argue against the assumption we make, then you destroy the argument.

I'm not sure what to say to this other than, well, why? Why do you believe something that you have no reason to? To me that's sort of like being afraid of a man-eating monster in the closet that can only be appeased by believing in it... Sure, there might be a monster, I don't know for certain, but I don't plan on being afraid of my closet because of that chance. I've never seen or heard of anyone or anything that reasonably shows the monster to be actually real, or that there are any bad effects if you don't believe.

Because...well...I have no reason to believe in anything else to be quite honest. Skepticism rules the day once again.

Atheism sounds pretty neat, until you realize you accept an unproven belief that God does not exist (prehaps a logical belief, but still, unproven, and if you cannot prove it, it is unreasonable). You jump into a religion...only to realize you are into another religion. At least, to me. Religion is somewhat of a personal affair.

Adherance to the ideas of protecting a secular and liberal democracy sounds a bit silly (I hate the idea of a tyranny by majority), and in the long run, the fear of the death of the human race really does frighten me so. Since the human race may be wiped out (most likely naturally and gradually), or likely, will be wiped out, everything we are doing is...in a sense useless. The Human race is going to end anyway, and all our vaunted empires, all our towers of reason, just...crumbles, and remain forgotten...forever.

Religion is invented to give people's lives meaning. Appeasing an invisible and wrathful monster is better than sitting my room, doing nothing and waiting until the day I die, and when...well...that's it. I can rearrange the furinture, read great novels, create great stuff, make the room the most utopian place yet...but is that the full extent of living? Is my purpose is to sit in that room, do whatever I want, and then die like cattle, my mind terminated? As Pascal says, the silence of the universe frightens him so. There is nothing out there, and there may very well be nothing. This may be the truth, but then again, I rather that my life have some sort of meaning, some sort of purpose, no matter how remote, no matter how vague.

As I said, Pascal's wager may be stupid. Other people can find things to devote themselves towards. But I cannot find such a goal except in religion. No matter what happens, I'm going to die. And so will the rest of humanity.

Err...this is a reason? Have they actually shown you to a reasonable degree that hell even exists to be afraid of?

No. But that may not be the main reason. See above.

Right. Christians can prove abortion evil, because in their framework it is; I can say I am against it because I believe people to have inherent worth and I can't tell if it is human or not; others can argue that since there is no indication of what can be seen as human (i.e., cognition, etc) then there is no need to restrict it. A proof in one system will probably not work out as a proof in another. Fun, isn't it?

I think there are some secular arguments over wheter abortion is correct or incorrect, altough they center around the "sacnity of life" argument. Even if you accept the framework of an ethical discussion, you can get people to argue with each other...


If you were to accept their positions on what some dictators have done, then I'm sure they were all saints.

I can see some things which I percieve as bad. If they happened to me I'd be angry or dead. I don't want either of those things, so I can empathize with people who have been oppressed by these dictators and be against them.

Eh. I empathize with the oppressed dictators. ;)

Not because I'm mean-spirited, but the dictators here are the ones that are in contorl and actually do what many people see as evil. So I want to know why they do the thing, why do they think what they are doing is right, instead of just condemening them and calling them bad names. I don't have to accept their positions at all (for the most part, I just remain on the sidelines), but I want to hear their positions, so that I learn what they are doing. The term "promote the general good" can be so vague to be used as a slogan for most little good or evil deed done that, at least on the surface, not selfish at all. And I want to see how they apply that slogan.

No doubt they did. I probably would have as well if I were brought up in such a system. However, presented with sufficient evidence I would hope I could change my mind, just as they did eventually. Are we better off because they did? The idea that the earth isn't at the center of the universe hasn't been proven wrong, it's simply been proven less useful than other models...

Still, the point was to illusrate that what was popular belief once is now not so shared any more. Popular belief is no such indication of truth, therefore. Prehaps, in the future, they may laugh at our beliefs (more likely the beliefs of those that believe in religion...they are the last of a dying breed, after all, rather than your beliefs...but maybe science may advance to a point where they can figure out complex stuff that we never thought about). And they may be true...or maybe false. We won't know.

I'm curious what you subscribe to, then. Any particular teaching?

Islam.

Remember we were talking about the status of ethics in relation to religion. Regardless of what you percieve your status to be, if God does in fact determine your course then there is no true free will and ethics mean nothing.

Ethics does mean something. They act as a way of how our "not-so-true will" manage to determie what is right and wrong, and therefore allow us to go on the track that will lead us to the direction that God wants us to go. Assuming that God does determine your course.

Okay, but let's not make the mistake of thinking that it actually is "free."

Understood.

Yeah, it's rather difficult. Even so, I'd much rather be responsible for myself than be a mindless cog in a machine.

Actually, the cog idea seems much better, presically due to not being responsible for your actions, especially if it turns out your actions lead you down a very bad path. It allows you to displace all the blame onto the Intelligent Designer or whomever that causes you to go down that path. :)

I think it's pretty clear that the method works fairly well. You can get firsthand experience yourself if you look at the computer in front of you, which was made with applications of information gained by the method. I'm not sure what else you want in the direction of proof. Unless you have something that works better, there's little use in proclaiming the scientific method flawed, because everyone already knows it. The only reason it's used is because there's nothing better to use.

This is what I am looking for=

To prove that There is a Computer In Front of Me:

1. I see a Computer in Front of Me.
2. I evaluate that there is a Computer in Front of Me because I see it using my eyes.
3. My eyes are perfect and not damaged in any way, shape or form.
4. My doctor says my eyes are perfect and not damaged in any way, shape, or form.
5. My doctor has a Ph.D. from a very good School, and therefore, I can trust that the Doctor is telling the truth.
6. The School is prestigous according to Prestigious Schools Maganize, so it must be prestigious.
7. It's right here in The Prestigious Schools Maganize. I see it in my own eyes. Oh wait...;)

Anyway, the main reason I ask for proofs is because I really don't want to accept arbitrariness, arbitrary saying that A is B because I say so. That just sounds something that comes from religion, and something that is pretty irrational. While Science works good, and I like it, it seems very flawed, and because of that, I'm afraid that if I rely on it too heavily, I may end up adopting its flawed conclusions without knowing if it is flawed or not.

It is also an admission that I am willing to take this risk that I may be wrong, and that I am scummbing myself to an arbitrary desicion based on arbitrary descions that just happen to right. You may be true that the preacher may not show any connection, but then again, one could argue that maybe it is just by plain luck that science is able to determine it.

I guess I really should come up with some better system if I want to be able to refute science. The reason I cannot do such a thing is because I would be committing the same "sins" that I see Science doing, that is, thinking itself as a way of figuring out the truth.

But in the end, I accept science and religion, and end up beliving in something abritrary anyway. It seems a bit depressing that it is impossible for people to logically come up with stuff without having to have any sort of unproven assumptions or belief. In argument, this is known as the "warrant", and I hate the "warrant", seeing it as the impediment to all logical discourse.

Please note, Samuel Dravis and Achilles, that I do believe in science and trust in it. Just repeating it again, I guess.Noted. :)

Because...well...I have no reason to believe in anything else to be quite honest. Skepticism rules the day once again.I see. So your choice of belief was indeed completely arbitrary. I can accept this.

Atheism sounds pretty neat, until you realize you accept an unproven belief that God does not exist (prehaps a logical belief, but still, unproven, and if you cannot prove it, it is unreasonable). You jump into a religion...only to realize you are into another religion. At least, to me. Religion is somewhat of a personal affair.That depends on what degree you take your atheism. There's the ones that you mention, the ones that actively believe that there are no gods, and then there's the ones that just don't believe because they have no reason to. In the second context, it's not really a belief in anything in particular, just using what we percieve and applying logic to that. If I don't percieve a god I don't have any reason to believe it. That doesn't mean I actively say such a god can't exist. Arguing against perception being at all reliable is interesting, but there's little else to do besides work with perception, so I see little point in denying it as the "true" reality we live in. Even if I don't see the world correctly, how is that going to matter to me? It's real to me. One might say that religion was created to explain our perceptions, so to use the result of an attempted explanation of perception would be irrational.

Adherance to the ideas of protecting a secular and liberal democracy sounds a bit silly (I hate the idea of a tyranny by majority), and in the long run, the fear of the death of the human race really does frighten me so. Since the human race may be wiped out (most likely naturally and gradually), or likely, will be wiped out, everything we are doing is...in a sense useless. The Human race is going to end anyway, and all our vaunted empires, all our towers of reason, just...crumbles, and remain forgotten...forever.Yes, I agree it will (probably) end. That's the way of things, ending. That doesn't stop what we do here and now from (apparently) affecting those around us. What we do doesn't mean anything objectively, perhaps. I don't know. However, it does mean something subjectively. It means everything subjectively. Did you really expect something else when you consider we are limited beings?

Religion is invented to give people's lives meaning. Appeasing an invisible and wrathful monster is better than sitting my room, doing nothing and waiting until the day I die, and when...well...that's it. I can rearrange the furinture, read great novels, create great stuff, make the room the most utopian place yet...but is that the full extent of living? Is my purpose is to sit in that room, do whatever I want, and then die like cattle, my mind terminated? As Pascal says, the silence of the universe frightens him so. There is nothing out there, and there may very well be nothing. This may be the truth, but then again, I rather that my life have some sort of meaning, some sort of purpose, no matter how remote, no matter how vague.So creating a purpose that is most likely false (given the endless possibilities and you pick only one) helps that problem in what way?

As I said, Pascal's wager may be stupid. Other people can find things to devote themselves towards. But I cannot find such a goal except in religion. No matter what happens, I'm going to die. And so will the rest of humanity.The rest of humanity can't die unless they're real, which you have no way of knowing. Even the idea that YOU will die is based on incomplete evidence, so you can't really be legitimately depressed about it until (if) it is too late. :)

I think there are some secular arguments over wheter abortion is correct or incorrect, altough they center around the "sacnity of life" argument. Even if you accept the framework of an ethical discussion, you can get people to argue with each other...Sure there are people that will argue. It's more interesting that way. My point was that only within a single framework can you guarantee the ability to make a specific conclusion. :)

Eh. I empathize with the oppressed dictators. ;)

Not because I'm mean-spirited, but the dictators here are the ones that are in contorl and actually do what many people see as evil. So I want to know why they do the thing, why do they think what they are doing is right, instead of just condemening them and calling them bad names. I don't have to accept their positions at all (for the most part, I just remain on the sidelines), but I want to hear their positions, so that I learn what they are doing. The term "promote the general good" can be so vague to be used as a slogan for most little good or evil deed done that, at least on the surface, not selfish at all. And I want to see how they apply that slogan.Hmm. It would seem to me that if you wanted to know why people do evil things, you could look at why YOU do things you consider evil/bad. How do you justify your actions? I think that this line of thought would prove more useful, truth-wise, than imagining what goes on in dictator's heads.

Still, the point was to illusrate that what was popular belief once is now not so shared any more. Popular belief is no such indication of truth, therefore. Prehaps, in the future, they may laugh at our beliefs (more likely the beliefs of those that believe in religion...they are the last of a dying breed, after all, rather than your beliefs...but maybe science may advance to a point where they can figure out complex stuff that we never thought about). And they may be true...or maybe false. We won't know.No, we won't. I thought this was an accepted fact for this discussion. As far as proving things true (to ourselves), that can only be done in logical constructs like maths and with statements like, "I exist."

Ethics does mean something. They act as a way of how our "not-so-true will" manage to determie what is right and wrong, and therefore allow us to go on the track that will lead us to the direction that God wants us to go. Assuming that God does determine your course.So they are just a way that God uses to "guide" people into doing what he wants, in much the same way as the effects in the material world can "guide" people into doing certain actions. Okay.

Actually, the cog idea seems much better, presically due to not being responsible for your actions, especially if it turns out your actions lead you down a very bad path. It allows you to displace all the blame onto the Intelligent Designer or whomever that causes you to go down that path. :)I'm not entirely convinced of that quite yet. I still think, even though I will be probably wrong, that I would like to make my own decisions. I want this because to do so would be to exercise the full extent of my capabilities. I want to be responsible, essentially, because if I'm not, then even if I exist, that existence means nothing.

This is what I am looking for=
...

Anyway, the main reason I ask for proofs is because I really don't want to accept arbitrariness, arbitrary saying that A is B because I say so. That just sounds something that comes from religion, and something that is pretty irrational. While Science works good, and I like it, it seems very flawed, and because of that, I'm afraid that if I rely on it too heavily, I may end up adopting its flawed conclusions without knowing if it is flawed or not.

It is also an admission that I am willing to take this risk that I may be wrong, and that I am scummbing myself to an arbitrary desicion based on arbitrary descions that just happen to right. You may be true that the preacher may not show any connection, but then again, one could argue that maybe it is just by plain luck that science is able to determine it.

I guess I really should come up with some better system if I want to be able to refute science. The reason I cannot do such a thing is because I would be committing the same "sins" that I see Science doing, that is, thinking itself as a way of figuring out the truth.

But in the end, I accept science and religion, and end up beliving in something abritrary anyway. It seems a bit depressing that it is impossible for people to logically come up with stuff without having to have any sort of unproven assumptions or belief. In argument, this is known as the "warrant", and I hate the "warrant", seeing it as the impediment to all logical discourse.I agree that the bit about having to accept some things without evidence is irritating. I don't like not knowing what things really are. Personally I like to know how things work; I read a lot in science magazines, about subjects that interest me on the internet, etc. However, this doesn't help in proving any of it "true" in an absolute sense. Even so, I enjoy this "learning" because, as far as I can tell, it does work.

People can't be more than they are, and I don't expect myself to be able to prove facts about the world. I can learn about my perception of the world, however. To me, what's the difference between the two? I don't know of any, so for me to suppose that there is a difference would make me guilty of going beyond what my evidence leads me to believe and into pure speculation.

I percieve - my lappy 486. Do I have reason to believe it is there? Well, I can see it, touch it, taste (ewww gross) it, hear it, smell the toxic plastics, etc. Do I have reason to suggest it's not really there? No, not really any concrete reason, just the fact that it's possible it may not be. I consider my computer to be real, because I have no data that suggests otherwise stronger than my perception of it. That's about all I can do. For me, that's good enough.

Please note, Samuel Dravis and Achilles, that I do believe in science and trust in it. Just repeating it again, I guess. I submit that one cannot embrace science with one hand and faith with the other. To accept one is to reject that which cannot observed while the other is accept the unobservable without question.

My 2 cents.


I know the scientific method's outline, correct me if I am wrong:<snip>

Pretty close. I think there are a few steps missing, most noticeably (imo) Prediction.

This link might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

More on that in a moment.


The Scientific Method is reliant on observations. You need to observe something before you can make a testable hypothesis. If the observations are flawed, so is everything that result from it. A.K.A: GIGO or Garbage In, Garbage Out.

To jump the gun a little, suppose I have an observation about a traffic light. I observe that the colors change at some interval, but for whatever reason, don't take note of the sequence of changes.

If I were to form a hypothesis that the sequence is red, yellow, green I can make a prediction that further testing will show that the sequence is red, yellow, green and not some other sequence.

Alas, when test my hypothesis against a control, I find that my prediction is wrong, but I learn that I simply had the sequence backwards. Further testing against a control can be used to make the prediction that every traffic light that I ever look at will follow this sequence.

If at some point in the future the sequence is changed (via some national traffic safety law) or if I visit another country that uses a different sequence, I can make adjustments to my theory to account for the observable changes.

The wonderful thing is that anyone with gift of sight that is not color blind can verify and benefit from scientific study. My results do not require that one believe them without evidence, in fact finding contradictory evidence will only strengthen our collective understanding of traffic lights.

Now we can wax philosophical about whether or not the traffic light really exists or if our observation is nothing more than The Matrix telling us the steak is juicy and delicious, but since part of this argument can't be measured , tested, or falsified scientists are most likely going to leave it alone.


How do we know if our observations are flawed? We can't use the scientific method to figure out if the observations can be relied on...because that relies on observations.See above.


Take the example of the evil demon or a brain in a vat. Such a possiblity of you being deceived by an evil demon can exist, and therefore, your senses and observations lie in doubt. I don't trust observations, since they have the possiblity of being falisfied by the evil demon or by a brain in a vat. Unless there was some evidence to show that all people were possessed by an evil demon, a rational person would have no reason to accept that I alone was possessed thusly, unless they wanted to take it as a matter of faith.

However, this begs the question: Why would someone be willing to accept that an evil demon was in possession of my brain without any evidence to support the claim? I suppose this could be simplified even further to ask: Why would any rational person accept that faith is preferable to reason?

I could tell you that a giant purple monkey lives on my patio and is invisible to everyone except me. What possible motivation would you have for accepting this as true? Would you accept that your observation that there is no monkey (nor any sign of a giant purple monkey such as bedding, dirty monkey smell, etc) is flawed in light of your potential belief in said monkey?


There is also the possiblity of different people seeing different observations. A sane man sees the world in a different light than an insane person. A sleeping man sees the world in a light that is contray to a waking man. A drunk person observes the world differently than a sober man. You can say that you trust the sane over the insane, the waking over the sleeping, the sober over the drunk...but then you need to prove to me why you have to rely on their observations...Hence why the scientific method dictates that results are repeatable. Using my earlier traffic light analogy, I would accept that the perceptions of a man who is color blind will be different than one who is not color blind. Further examination of the conditions of my experiment would show that this particular issue only arises when tested with people who are unable to differentiate color.

Should I then throw up my arms and lament that I shall never know the nature of this elusive traffic light because I cannot test it using people that are color blind? I suspect that I could probably get away with making a minor adjustment to my theory (to specify those that can see color) and then continue on my merry way.

If I restore sanity to the insane, provide sobriety to the drunk, or wake the sleeping, then their observations should be the same as my own. If they are not, then I should find the cause of this discrepancy and adjust my theory accordingly or abandon it if shown false.


And there is the thing. There is no way to prove that an observation can be trusted. If you present some evidence that the observation happened, then I can merely ask for proof of that evidence. And then proof that that proof of the evidence is accurate. And so on and so forth. Without such proof, I feel that it becomes quite artibrary to rely on those observations, and thereby, via science itself. Again, repeatability. You can go anywhere in the universe that you want to and 2+2 is going to equal 4. Maybe you find a planet where they call "2" ice cream and "4" goldfish, but the fact remains that "ice cream" + "ice cream" = "goldfish".


I can't produce a better one. But I don't need to. Sure you do. Remember that the scientific method seeks to falsify. I can't walk up to the scientific community and proclaim that gravitational theory is all wet (without a) a model that better explains our understanding of gravity and/or b) some evidence that shows that the current theory is does not hold up under specific circumstances) and expect to be taken seriously.


All I am doing is questioning if we should actually trust Science and its observations to begin with.

SilentScope001 says: "Please note, Samuel Dravis and Achilles, that I do believe in science and trust in it."


In this case, I'm taking up the position of an atheist here, arguing that the burden of proof is not on me to prove that Science is wrong and provide something differnet, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that Science is right.
First, what does atheism have to do with anything?
Second, that's not the way it works.

Personally, I don't care if you adopt a personal philosophy that has "science is right" as a basic tenet. If you would like to discuss a specific theory as part of another thread (or PM) I'll be more than willing to do so, however I do not feel compelled to stage some mock defense for a process that is quite capable of speaking for itself.


Math is a creation by the human race. 2+2=4 really represent...a grouping of a some objects that is represented by a Numerical symbol 2 and another grouping of some objects that is represented by a Numerical System 2, combined together, creates a third grouping of objects that is represented by the Numerical System 4. Since I see math as man-made, there is really no need to prove those definitions are correct or not, they are just aribtrary and are there to help us. Math exists whether we are here to observe/discover it or not. Just as seconds would tick by without our being here to count them. Our methods for measuring and recording them are certainly man-made but they themselves existed before we were here and they will exist after we are gone.


So, yes, it is dogmatic. But math is an invention by mankind, and mathmaticians create their own terminology, their own world, so that they are allowed for this dogma. But, scientists did not create their own world. I'm not following you here.


Then why are you reliant on trusting Science? Why do you attempt to believe that science is correct, trying to find definitions that support your belief as well, and attempting to redefine everything as being "scared"? Is Science a "scared" thing? Maybe. I'm not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. I trust science because it is empirical. One has only to be rational to accept that the scientific process works.

If you can find fault with the definitions that I have provided, I will be more than happy to discuss them to the best of my ability. Since they are not "my" definitions though, I suggest that you not shoot the messenger.

BTW, science is not sacred. The scientific process is skeptical by nature which automatically gets it thrown out of the "sacred club".


It was the scientist that did it...not me. :) I suspect that the opposite is true. Unless this group of individuals suffer from MPD, I highly doubt that they are truly arguing both sides of the same debate. Perhaps if you go back to your original statement, you'll find that you accidentally misspoke.


And what if I don't accept Kant's belief? I guess then the cateogorical imperative does not apply to me then. Since moral relativism is itself relative, that would seem to indicate that there is a moral absolute. Of course some people act immorally all the time, so I don't suppose there is any moral order that any one person is forced to accept.

As I tell my employees all the time, "You can do whatever you want, but there are consequences for your actions".


Neither. I was questioning for questioning's sake, to expose faults within a theory. Indeed. Please let me know when you find it and we can pick up from there.


No. I am merely poking holes through a theory to find faults within it. People can go and attack the theory through the faults. Ok, and what fault do you feel that you've exposed. Perhaps it would aid matters a great deal if you quit dancing around an argued a specific point.


Again, I was poking holes through a THEORY. The fact remains that one could argue that way.

Each ethical theory has a fault, and has a hole. I was poking in those holes because of me being devil's advocate here.

And actually, if everyone believes in the same thing, then there will be no wars, no violence, no chaos. The world might actually be a better place, if less richer in culture. None of these responses are answers to my questions.


To me, rational is coming up with a logical belief. But the problem is that we have base assumptions that cannot be justified logically. I hate those assumptions, but it seems that Kant is having them here. We all have them. Since these assumptions are illogical, they are irrational to even consider them. What is the logical fault within Kant's categorical imperative? Is it that he assumes free will? If we follow the evidence to it's logical conclusion and reassess this factoring in that no God exists, does the logical fault still exist? I submit that it does not.


Well, the problem is that if I don't see value in what I am doing, I don't do it. Different value systems can lead to a lot of chaos. "Doing what you are told" at the least gives people, like me, a reason for doing stuff. Therefore value exists only insofar as you can see it? It would seem that you readily trust your observations after all. Then again maybe not, since you seem to be arguing that you find value in doing what you are told.


Ethics is the science of determining what is right and what is wrong. Sooner or later, it boils down to relying on an arbibraty thing to guide you, and "doing what you are told" seems to me, probraly okay. Well, since I'm a pretty skeptical guy, I tend not to trust authority for authority's sake. I can use the categorical imperative to determine that not killing, maiming, stealing, etc are all in my best interest, therefore I don't need a fictional character in a 2000 year old religious text to tell me that these things are wrong in order for me to believe it.


Of course not. But outside of religion, you can argue for anything, and I can argue anything back...by using our vaunted reason here. It's not the sole source of ethics, but the other sources are not to be honored as well...they can be just as arbitrary. You can argue for anything inside of religion as well. Are you telling me that beating your slaves within an inch of their lives is ethical? Or stoning your daughter to death if she is raped is ethical? This is the path that "doing what you are told" will guide you down (even though most Christians and some Muslims conveniently ignore these directives). The categorical imperative would seem to slam on the brakes pretty hard and fast by way of comparison, wouldn't you say?


"God says this!"/"No, God says that!"/"No, God says this!"/"Fine, let go and spilt up, and when we die, God will show that I am right!"/"Okay!" Shia and Sunnies have been fighting for about 1400 years because their instinct is to "find out after we're dead"? Catholics and Protestants having been fighting in Northern Ireland for about 40 years because they agreed to settle their debate in Heaven? Leaving "intrafaith" wars out of it, how about the myriad of wars, skirmishes, atrocities than have taken place between Christians and Muslims for thousands of years. No, sir, I don't think this is the way it goes at all. Both the Bible and the Koran are quite clear on the subject: Kill everyone that doesn't believe as you do if you want to stay in God's favor. Ethics anyone?


Debate ends peremeantly with a schism within a religion, with both sides calling each other heatens. Meanwhile, other people just argue endlessly and endlessly while the religious folk just end the argument and call each other bad names. See above.


But deontological ethics make no sense. "Do this!" Why? "Well, because I say so!" That's not very convicing, I have holy books if I want to have that sort of discussion. And apparently you find them very convincing, considering that you laid claim to this moral compass earlier.

"In ethics, deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: Deon meaning obligation or duty) is a theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others."

Please show me where this implies "Do this because I said so".


What I was doing is stating that with AU, you can use it to justify...well...anything. Which is why I prefer it over the other theories. It is open, and easy to use. Anyone can use it to justify whatever they want to do, and because of it, I can use it as an ethical framework by which other people can justify their actions, according to that framework.

Call it morally wrong, but can you prove it? That's the main question. Ah, so you weren't just "poking holes in a theory" earlier (as you claim). Now I really am going to have to have answers to those questions.

For proof, consider Rawl's veil of ignorance: There is a group of people that take pleasure is causing physical harm (up to an including death) of other human being that have done them no wrong. Understanding that you yourself could be a member of either group, would you agree or disagree that it is ethical to prevent the first group from acting on the second group.

Disagreeing will mean that you will be denied happiness if you are a member of the first group. Agreeing will mean that you are denied happiness if you are part of the second group.

How is that Utilitarianism treating you now? I'm telling you, the whole field of ethics get shortened to the length of a paragraph the moment the world decides to abandon faith, and specifically, religion.


Actually, Holocaust Deniers and Flat Earth Society do present 'proof'. Or at least, they call them proof, we just laugh at them. Or is it? What if we are the dogmatic idiots here? So their proof is equal to our proof? All proof is equal and all one has to do to achieve this status is call their argument "proof"? Doesn't sound very intellectually rigorous to me.

Is the evidence falsifiable? If yes, then the principles of the scientific method would make short work of any false "proof" (theirs or ours) pretty quickly.


It then puts you on the defensive however. You have to prove to my opinon that the fact is true. And then you have to prove that that proof is true. And then you have to prove that proof of the proof is true...and so on and so forth. In the end, sooner or later, you will stop giving me proofs. And then I can say that we both share different opinons. On the contrary, it does not. At the risk of repeating myself:

There are two argument:
Argument says that the earth is flat
Argument says that the earth is round

One of these arguments can be falsified using evidence which is controlled, reproducible, and observable. One of these arguments cannot. That's as far as it really need to go.

Therefore one of these arguments is a fact and the other is an opinion. Giving them equal consideration is foolish once this distinction is made.


You fail to realize that we were waging in different arguments.

The argument above, about science, talks about merely if Science exist. The second argument, the one where I mentioned God, talks about the possiblity of free will in a universe with an all-powerful God, and we assume, for the purpose of the argument, that THERE is an all-powerful God. If you argue against the assumption we make, then you destroy the argument.
Yes, the argument that God is all powerful breaks down the moment that you no longer assume that he exists in the first place. "Free will" is a fancy label that we place on something that we already have but opposes this made-up thing that we call "destiny". If there is no writer of destiny then all that exists is free will.

The rest of your post addresses Samuel Dravis, so I will excuse myself here.

I'm not following you here.If I may -

He means that maths is just a way of labeling things. The number "2" is a label for what we percieve to be 2 objects. Without our labels, the number of objects doesn't go away, it's just not labeled. It's sort of like "x+2=2." Does "x" mean anything in and of itself? No, it's just a label for the variable. Likewise, the addition sign is simply a label that we interpret as a certain logical function; it has no inherent meaning. Put simply:

Maths is a way to think about things, while reality is what they actually are. We just added a layer of abstraction. It is possible to fully know a limited concept of things (and thus be able to truly prove things within that concept), but it's uncertain whether that idea corresponds fully to reality.

Ah, sounds vaguely similar to my ice cream and goldfish example. Thanks!

I said I would stay out of this thread and wouldn’t post in it again, yet here I am. :lol: I have to say, this is a brilliant topic.

However, this begs the question: Why would someone be willing to accept that an evil demon was in possession of my brain without any evidence to support the claim? I suppose this could be simplified even further to ask: Why would any rational person accept that faith is preferable to reason?

Our observations could be flawed, they could be a lie. We can’t prove that our observations are or aren’t fake. If an evil demon was in possession of our brains, then how may I ask could you come up with any evidence to support the claim?

I’m willing to accept the possibility that an evil demon is in possession of our brains, because I’m willing to accept the possibility that are observations aren’t real. Call me paranoid if you want but it is a possibility. How can you prove that an evil demon isn’t in possession of our brains? How can you prove that our observations are real?

I myself believe that my observations are real, but I do think that it’s wrong to completely dismiss the possibility that observations, that life itself, is a lie, because we don’t know. The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence.

And what exactly can we do with the possibility that our obersvations could be wrong? We will never be able to prove that observations are to 100% right.

Just like Achilles said, it's similar to the concept of "The Matrix". Everything we see hear and feel could be an illusion, but we can never ever prove that.

Just look at what could be achieved through the scientific method (with observation) allready. It makes sense in the world we see/hear/feel.

The possibility that just everything is a big illusion can never be ruled out, but please, show me just the slightest evidence that our observations really are illusions.

I said I would stay out of this thread and wouldn’t post in it again, yet here I am. :lol: I have to say, this is a brilliant topic. No need to exclude yourself. Debate is an awesome forum for learning and so long as the punches remain above the belt, it's fairly safe too :D

If you're finding this interesting, I'd recommend http://evcforum.net/)
There's a lot of info there and the regular posters are so smart is makes my head spin. The post of the month section is a good place to start if you're unsure where to jump in.


Our observations could be flawed, they could be a lie. We can’t prove that our observations are or aren’t fake. If an evil demon was in possession of our brains, then how may I ask could you come up with any evidence to support the claim?
Scientists only bother with what is observable because it can be tested, repeated, and falsified. Furthermore, it can be used to make predictions and those predictions can also be tested, etc.

If I observe something and my observation is flawed, that it going to become apparent pretty quickly when I put my hypothesis through the wringer of the scientific method. Suppose that somehow my flawed hypothesis makes it through the method and comes out the other end as a plausible theory. Then surely it won't survive the peer-review process. That's why I feel comfortable with science; it's base tenet is skepticism therefore the process is built around the premise that you have to earn your way to the top of the scrap heap.

You cannot create any evidence to support the evil demon anymore than I can create evidence of the Christian God. At that point you can either continue to believe in the evil demon, as a matter of faith, or reject the idea based on insufficient evidence. Remember, science = belief based on evidence; faith = belief based on little, no, or contradictory evidence.


I’m willing to accept the possibility that an evil demon is in possession of our brains, because I’m willing to accept the possibility that are observations aren’t real. Call me paranoid if you want but it is a possibility. How can you prove that an evil demon isn’t in possession of our brains? How can you prove that our observations are real? You are free to do so, but then your decision seems arbitrary. Is the Evil Demon explanation just as valid as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How about the Christian God? The Muslim God? Zeus?

How can you have a ethical system that provides moral guidance if you're not willing to accept something as basic as observations? Nazi scientists performed hundreds of gruesome medical experiments on their Jewish captives during WWII. It is doubtful that they would have conducted these experiments on themselves or their family members, so surely there was something can convinced them that their subjects were different. Could it have been that test subjects did not show pain? I imagine that there was a great deal of evidence to the contrary. However the Nazi scientists choose to adhere themselves to their conviction the Jews can't feel pain despite the apparent evidence to the contrary (belief with little, no, or contradictory evidence is called what again?).


I myself believe that my observations are real, but I do think that it’s wrong to completely dismiss the possibility that observations, that life itself, is a lie, because we don’t know. The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence. This path can be a fun diversion from time to time (like when I pop in The Matrix and crank up the surround sound), but at the same time, I don't live life day-to-day afraid that everything that I see is a simulation and that my daughter is going to morph into an Agent in front of my eyes. I suppose that I could, based on the fact that I can't disprove that I'm plugged into The Matrix, but there are dozens if not hundreds of contesting "explanations" that are equally non-disprovable. Should I make an attempt to operate within them all (i.e. should I be a Christian, a Muslim, a Pagan, and an apostle of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) at the same time? Surely one might seem preferable to me (like being Christian in a Christian culture, or Muslim in a Muslim one), but does that make it any more real than the others.

Even if I accept on some irrational level that my observations can't be trusted, wouldn't it make sense instead to operate based on them? At least they are consistent. At least they can be tested. At some point you have to let go of the question "why do we call green 'green' instead of 'apple sauce'?" and just accept that it's 'green' because it's green. Or then again, maybe you don't. ;)

PS: the scientific field of psychology has been experimenting (using the scientific method) with the concept of perception (observation) for hundreds of years. It's been more than a decade since I studied the subject, so I don't know if I'm prepared to intelligently debate the topic. I mention it only to point out that there is an existing body of knowledge that already attempts to answer "how can we trust observations?" and encourage you to seek it out. I hope that helps.

I submit that one cannot embrace science with one hand and faith with the other. To accept one is to reject that which cannot observed while the other is accept the unobservable without question.
Then how do you explain my acceptance and belief in natural selection while still maintaining my faith as a Christian? What I have seen in science, I accept it as true but there are some things that go by faith because science has yet to disprove that it does exist.

Then how do you explain my acceptance and belief in natural selection while still maintaining my faith as a Christian? What I have seen in science, I accept it as true but there are some things that go by faith because science has yet to disprove that it does exist. You are either a man of science or you are not. In my opinion, religious people that claim to be science-minded are religious first and advocates of science second. I think bias prevents people from being able to be both at the same time.

If you are willing to accept the existence of the Christian God with little, no, or contradictory evidence, what does that say for your ability to be intellectually rigorous in the lab? Perhaps you offer some argument for "wearing two hats" but I don't believe that our true natures are that interchangable.

Apologists like Collins or Behe claim to be men of science, but when called to task about their positions, it becomes pretty evident where their priorities lie. This doesn't even take into consideration that their "scientific" hypothesis fall apart under scritiny.

What it comes down to is that science is a way of observing our world. Religion is also a way of observing our world. The two are, by their definitions, in opposition to one another. To claim that both are true would appear to put one in quite the conundrum.

My 2 cents.

You are either a man of science or you are not. In my opinion, religious people that claim to be science-minded are religious first and advocates of science second. I think bias prevents people from being able to be both at the same time.
I can wear two hats because it's what I am. I can give you a reasonable explanation for it except that I am driven by a desire and love to learn. I know I have my bias as well as you and ever other person out there in existence today. Like anythign else, those bias are shaped by our culture and the world that we live in. Yes I believe in the infinite mercy of the Lord but I also believe that there is a logical explanation for some things. It's hard t describe the complexity of the human mind coupled with the belief systems and emotions that derive from it. I accept that I have a weak argument. I may have my set of beliefs but that doesn't deter me from seeking out others. Recently my family wondered if I was turning into a witch because I wa reading up on folklore and magic and the Wiccan ways. In the end the usual discussion of being Catholic, blah, blah goes in one ear and out the other because I don't see it that way but as research. I love things of mythic origins and I like to see the cultural eveolution that takes place with these mythic things. On the physical plane, to chronologically see the progression from Australopithecines to Homo habilus and Homo erectus, to Neandertals and to archais human beings and finally Homo sapiens sapiens (us) I find fascinating. I've also seen documented evolution sequences of other species and I find it hard to not believe that evolution occurs. It's how I am.

I submit that one cannot embrace science with one hand and faith with the other. To accept one is to reject that which cannot observed while the other is accept the unobservable without question.

But, of course, I embrace science in one hand and faith in another. How come?

Well, Science is all based on observations. Observations can be falsisfied, observations cannot be trusted, since you can doubt them. Many people argue, even you, that if you do not believe in the observations, you might as well accept them anyway.

So, I made an arbitrary choice, like The Arcitect, that observations can be trusted. Do I have any proof? No. Just like I have no proof that my holy book is right, but I abritraily trust it anyway. Therefore, it is possible to embrace science and faith, since both requires that you arbitraily trust something without any proof that you can trust it...wheter it is a holy book or observations. So, if I can artibraily accept one thing, I can surely choose another thing artibraly as well.

When science and faith clash, I have to make an arbitrary choice between two arbitrary things that are in fact plainly artibrary. I'll just arbitraly come up with a solution where both science and faith is right and artibraly be sastified with such a belief.

To jump the gun a little, suppose I have an observation about a traffic light. I observe that the colors change at some interval, but for whatever reason, don't take note of the sequence of changes.

If I were to form a hypothesis that the sequence is red, yellow, green I can make a prediction that further testing will show that the sequence is red, yellow, green and not some other sequence.

Alas, when test my hypothesis against a control, I find that my prediction is wrong, but I learn that I simply had the sequence backwards. Further testing against a control can be used to make the prediction that every traffic light that I ever look at will follow this sequence.

If at some point in the future the sequence is changed (via some national traffic safety law) or if I visit another country that uses a different sequence, I can make adjustments to my theory to account for the observable changes.

The wonderful thing is that anyone with gift of sight that is not color blind can verify and benefit from scientific study. My results do not require that one believe them without evidence, in fact finding contradictory evidence will only strengthen our collective understanding of traffic lights.

Now we can wax philosophical about whether or not the traffic light really exists or if our observation is nothing more than The Matrix telling us the steak is juicy and delicious, but since part of this argument can't be measured , tested, or falsified scientists are most likely going to leave it alone.

Again, the fact that you can indeed doubt your observations is indeed a bad idea. A thing that can indeed be doubted, and has the possiblity of being false shouldn't be embraced full heartly, because of the possiblity. You have no certainity that the traffic light is there. And, since Science cannot question the observations, it seems that I cannot verify that the traffic light is indeed there.

Unless there was some evidence to show that all people were possessed by an evil demon, a rational person would have no reason to accept that I alone was possessed thusly, unless they wanted to take it as a matter of faith.

However, this begs the question: Why would someone be willing to accept that an evil demon was in possession of my brain without any evidence to support the claim? I suppose this could be simplified even further to ask: Why would any rational person accept that faith is preferable to reason?

I could tell you that a giant purple monkey lives on my patio and is invisible to everyone except me. What possible motivation would you have for accepting this as true? Would you accept that your observation that there is no monkey (nor any sign of a giant purple monkey such as bedding, dirty monkey smell, etc) is flawed in light of your potential belief in said monkey?

Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.

Even if I accept on some irrational level that my observations can't be trusted, wouldn't it make sense instead to operate based on them? At least they are consistent. At least they can be tested. At some point you have to let go of the question "why do we call green 'green' instead of 'apple sauce'?" and just accept that it's 'green' because it's green. Or then again, maybe you don't.

This is exactly how most skeptics actually live out their lives. After believing that it is impossible to prove anything, they decide to live their lives based on apperances, while 'not' believing in them. If I was a skeptic, I would say that it appears that I am on a computer and that we are having a discussion, so it seems it would be obivous for me to reply...however, there is no proof whatsoever that the above is in fact true, and I believe it well.

Hence why the scientific method dictates that results are repeatable. Using my earlier traffic light analogy, I would accept that the perceptions of a man who is color blind will be different than one who is not color blind. Further examination of the conditions of my experiment would show that this particular issue only arises when tested with people who are unable to differentiate color.

Should I then throw up my arms and lament that I shall never know the nature of this elusive traffic light because I cannot test it using people that are color blind? I suspect that I could probably get away with making a minor adjustment to my theory (to specify those that can see color) and then continue on my merry way.

If I restore sanity to the insane, provide sobriety to the drunk, or wake the sleeping, then their observations should be the same as my own. If they are not, then I should find the cause of this discrepancy and adjust my theory accordingly or abandon it if shown false.

Is there any proof that just because a thing happens 100 times in one way that it would happen the 101st time that exact same way? Common sense may imply yes, but without any sosrt of proof, it would seem impossible to verify that. Again, it's aribitrary.

Again, repeatability. You can go anywhere in the universe that you want to and 2+2 is going to equal 4. Maybe you find a planet where they call "2" ice cream and "4" goldfish, but the fact remains that "ice cream" + "ice cream" = "goldfish".

I think Samuel Davis actually explained my point clearly. Math is abstract, and an artifical construct that is made. It is not really reality, per se.

Sure you do. Remember that the scientific method seeks to falsify. I can't walk up to the scientific community and proclaim that gravitational theory is all wet (without a) a model that better explains our understanding of gravity and/or b) some evidence that shows that the current theory is does not hold up under specific circumstances) and expect to be taken seriously.

Does it really matter if you are taken seriously or not...if you happen to be true? I'm sure Copernicus was laughed at for his ideas and wasn't taken seriously, at least at the begining.

But, in the end, Science is not skeptical about observations. They just accept it and go on their merry way. Therefore, it is not really skeptical, since it trust things arbitrally, without any proof.


SilentScope001 says: "Please note, Samuel Dravis and Achilles, that I do believe in science and trust in it."

I believe in science, but I do so arbitrally, without proof, because I know I cannot find it. However, you believe in it and think there is proof that science is right, when there may very well be none.

First, what does atheism have to do with anything?
Second, that's not the way it works.

Personally, I don't care if you adopt a personal philosophy that has "science is right" as a basic tenet. If you would like to discuss a specific theory as part of another thread (or PM) I'll be more than willing to do so, however I do not feel compelled to stage some mock defense for a process that is quite capable of speaking for itself.

From what I hear from atheists, and I cannot be wrong, some people argue that it is up to the followers of God to prove that God exist. If you cannot prove that God exist, then God cannot exist.

So, I decide to try this method. Instead of asking for someone to prove that God exist, I just ask to prove that Observations can be trusted. Without such a proof, so what?

No, I don't think such an argument would be pleasent for either of us. But I am pointing that by you stating, "It speaks for itself"...it means the same thing as "The Holy Book Speaks For Itself."

I'm not sure what this has to do with what we were discussing. I trust science because it is empirical. One has only to be rational to accept that the scientific process works.

If you can find fault with the definitions that I have provided, I will be more than happy to discuss them to the best of my ability. Since they are not "my" definitions though, I suggest that you not shoot the messenger.

BTW, science is not sacred. The scientific process is skeptical by nature which automatically gets it thrown out of the "sacred club".

How can one be skeptical unless he finds proof to prove that his proof is true? And I am being rational here in just asking for proof, because it would seem silly to just accept something based on no proof whatsoever.

(I end up beliving stuff arbtirally anyway, but I hate doing it...and I think the human race must find some way to abandon this following of arbitrary beliefs.)

I suspect that the opposite is true. Unless this group of individuals suffer from MPD, I highly doubt that they are truly arguing both sides of the same debate. Perhaps if you go back to your original statement, you'll find that you accidentally misspoke.

Sorry then. I may have gotten confused, but there is the article over there.

Since moral relativism is itself relative, that would seem to indicate that there is a moral absolute. Of course some people act immorally all the time, so I don't suppose there is any moral order that any one person is forced to accept.

As I tell my employees all the time, "You can do whatever you want, but there are consequences for your actions".

All ethical relativism argues is that everything is relative, and is based on beliefs, and that there is no objective truth (and ethical relativism is not an objective truth). That's it. In a society that condemns ethical relativism and burns those who believe in it, ethical realtivism states that they believe themselves to be right.

Ok, and what fault do you feel that you've exposed. Perhaps it would aid matters a great deal if you quit dancing around an argued a specific point.

I don't have to believe in catogerocial imprative. I don't see the point of why a human being should be valued. Why we should treat it with respect, and why we must treat it as an autonomus being.

If I don't believe in the warrant and beliefs of Kant, I don't follow him.

What is the logical fault within Kant's categorical imperative? Is it that he assumes free will? If we follow the evidence to it's logical conclusion and reassess this factoring in that no God exists, does the logical fault still exist? I submit that it does not.

He made the assumption that the human race matters. That it should be treated with respect and honor. Kant must prove it to me, otherwise I don't trust it.

Therefore value exists only insofar as you can see it? It would seem that you readily trust your observations after all. Then again maybe not, since you seem to be arguing that you find value in doing what you are told.

I arbtirally accept something. I prefer the Holy Book over Kant. The Holy Book tells me to obey it by stating that I am indeed weak and patheic, that in fact, I have no value, and that's about it. Kant talks about the respect of humanity, and how great it is...and if I don't accept Kant's arbitrary belief, then I see no need to follow Kant.

You can argue for anything inside of religion as well. Are you telling me that beating your slaves within an inch of their lives is ethical? Or stoning your daughter to death if she is raped is ethical? This is the path that "doing what you are told" will guide you down (even though most Christians and some Muslims conveniently ignore these directives). The categorical imperative would seem to slam on the brakes pretty hard and fast by way of comparison, wouldn't you say?

You imply that stoning your daughter to death is bad. Without any proof whatsoever.

Yes, I see stoning as wrong. But you have to prove to me that it is wrong, otherwise it is unconvicing. And don't even bother using that catogerical imperative, that's just a circular argument.

(And I think the stoning punishment is only for those that are adulters, who are consenting to having sex, and already married...and the man also get stoned as well. If you are raped, the woman gets off scot-free and the man get stoned regardless...Other people however interpt the laws differently, and I am not responsible for how they see the world. And to be quite fair, nobody is going to put such a punishment anyway, due to the fact that it will be hard to find the man who done the deed as well as just the fact that there is no way to even confirm such a thing happened. This was a punishment for the past, and now that we live in a different society, it is up to us to intrept new ways.

I think. I may need to talk to some scholars to see if this is doctrinally sound and what exactly you mean here.)

The cateorgical imperative says that I must basically respect the human race and that I must not infirge on the right of the autonomy Human. So, that means, using it and interpreting it: Taxes are wrong, you are harming a Human. Talking Bad to Someone is wrong since you are harming a Human's feeling. Oh, and so is execution and imprisoning people. You are harming that person's feeling!

I know these arguments are strawmen. But I can make the arguments anyway.



Shia and Sunnies have been fighting for about 1400 years because their instinct is to "find out after we're dead"? Catholics and Protestants having been fighting in Northern Ireland for about 40 years because they agreed to settle their debate in Heaven? Leaving "intrafaith" wars out of it, how about the myriad of wars, skirmishes, atrocities than have taken place between Christians and Muslims for thousands of years. No, sir, I don't think this is the way it goes at all. Both the Bible and the Koran are quite clear on the subject: Kill everyone that doesn't believe as you do if you want to stay in God's favor. Ethics anyone?

No, the Bible and Koran are quite clear on this subject: "Believe in your religion, and have THEM believe in their religion, and in Heaven, you will be proven right. HOWEVER, if one religion attack you, you have the right to attack and destroy them, because they are wrong."

Note the qualification "If one religion attack you". The reason that the schisms and the different sects fight each other is because they BELIEVE that the other side started first, and that they are fighting for self-defense. Similar to how two nations, USSR and USA both accuse the other side of starting the Cold War, seeing the othe rside as wanting to destroy their way of life.

Now, they can be seen less as religions, and more as indepedent states that squabble endlessly. But for the most part, if the two sides stop being paranoid, they can easily work and live together, quitely knowing that the other guy will go to Hell while he goes to Heaven.

And apparently you find them very convincing, considering that you laid claim to this moral compass earlier.

I chose them arbitrally. Because I chose to believe in something.

"In ethics, deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: Deon meaning obligation or duty) is a theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others."

Please show me where this implies "Do this because I said so".

"Your duty as a Human is to support Other Humans."/"Why?"/"Because that is your duty."/"But I don't want to do this duty!"/"But it's your duty!"/"Bah, who cares about duty?"

Ah, so you weren't just "poking holes in a theory" earlier (as you claim). Now I really am going to have to have answers to those questions.

For proof, consider Rawl's veil of ignorance: There is a group of people that take pleasure is causing physical harm (up to an including death) of other human being that have done them no wrong. Understanding that you yourself could be a member of either group, would you agree or disagree that it is ethical to prevent the first group from acting on the second group.

Disagreeing will mean that you will be denied happiness if you are a member of the first group. Agreeing will mean that you are denied happiness if you are part of the second group.

How is that Utilitarianism treating you now? I'm telling you, the whole field of ethics get shortened to the length of a paragraph the moment the world decides to abandon faith, and specifically, religion.

Who cares how much it treats me? I don't. If a person using AU go and kidnap me and do terrible experiments without my consent, I hate it, but I can understand why he did it. I'll scream and scream and scream, but deep down, I know why he does it. I don't call him wrong, because, to be fair, why should I care how I feel?

I merely want to know why people do the things they do. How they justify it. And this theory allows me to do it.

No, my friend, ethics will not boil down to one paragraph. If I do not believe in faith, I still can claim a single human being should not be worried about rather than the general public, about the greater good. Religion is gone, but so what? AU will still exist. And I trust AU more than Kant. At least AU lets you decide what is the right action to do, and let you gague it on an arbitrary scale. Kant does not, he gives you an artibrary rule and an arbitrary justification for that rule.

To me, AU preserves my right to reason, Kant does not.

So their proof is equal to our proof? All proof is equal and all one has to do to achieve this status is call their argument "proof"? Doesn't sound very intellectually rigorous to me.

Is the evidence falsifiable? If yes, then the principles of the scientific method would make short work of any false "proof" (theirs or ours) pretty quickly.

They can "falsify" our evidence as well. We dismiss it out of hand and "falsify" their evidence, but they'll just say that we didn't falsify it at all.

It doesn't sound intellectually rigrious to basically claim one proof is right without proving it. Basically, an argument between both sides will continue forever, just like abortion, so how can you tell who is right and who is wrong?

On the contrary, it does not. At the risk of repeating myself:

There are two argument:
Argument says that the earth is flat
Argument says that the earth is round

One of these arguments can be falsified using evidence which is controlled, reproducible, and observable. One of these arguments cannot. That's as far as it really need to go.

Therefore one of these arguments is a fact and the other is an opinion. Giving them equal consideration is foolish once this distinction is made.

Or neither is correct...the earth is a cube, or the earth is oval? Didn't think of that, no? And again, if you do not trust observations, then you cannot trust that theory can you?

That depends on what degree you take your atheism. There's the ones that you mention, the ones that actively believe that there are no gods, and then there's the ones that just don't believe because they have no reason to. In the second context, it's not really a belief in anything in particular, just using what we percieve and applying logic to that. If I don't percieve a god I don't have any reason to believe it. That doesn't mean I actively say such a god can't exist. Arguing against perception being at all reliable is interesting, but there's little else to do besides work with perception, so I see little point in denying it as the "true" reality we live in. Even if I don't see the world correctly, how is that going to matter to me? It's real to me. One might say that religion was created to explain our perceptions, so to use the result of an attempted explanation of perception would be irrational.

Then again, the absence of proof does not mean the proof of absence, which is somewhat key in skepticism.

Yes, I agree it will (probably) end. That's the way of things, ending. That doesn't stop what we do here and now from (apparently) affecting those around us. What we do doesn't mean anything objectively, perhaps. I don't know. However, it does mean something subjectively. It means everything subjectively. Did you really expect something else when you consider we are limited beings?

Er...yes. :)

With all the talk about the war on terrorism, the battle for freedom, the Clash of Civilization, the enviromentalist crusade against global warming, etc. you kinda think that there has to be some objective thing that makes us important. When I realized that it didn't mean anything, that really did hit me like a ton of bricks.

So creating a purpose that is most likely false (given the endless possibilities and you pick only one) helps that problem in what way?

Then you resolve the problem. You finally find something objective to latch yourself onto. There are endless possiblities, and endless other belief systems that I can join and subscribe myself to, so I randomly choosen one and then stick with that. Plus, I has the rare possiblity that I can be right, and that I could get beniefts from that belief. But I guess the main point of religion here is to add meaning to one's life. It's totally arbitrary.

The rest of humanity can't die unless they're real, which you have no way of knowing. Even the idea that YOU will die is based on incomplete evidence, so you can't really be legitimately depressed about it until (if) it is too late. :)

Yep. Arbitrainess rears its ugly head once more, and as well as my artibrary fear that life has no meaning...(Why should life have meaning?, one can reply). Sooner or later, one has to adopt something arbitrary and stick with it, and I might as well choose this one, since I given up on my crusade to get rid of warrants, seeing how impossible it is.

Sure there are people that will argue. It's more interesting that way. My point was that only within a single framework can you guarantee the ability to make a specific conclusion.

I guess, maybe if taken to an infinite limit and if someone stops talking and stops objecting. But I have some low hopes that could happen.

I'm not entirely convinced of that quite yet. I still think, even though I will be probably wrong, that I would like to make my own decisions. I want this because to do so would be to exercise the full extent of my capabilities. I want to be responsible, essentially, because if I'm not, then even if I exist, that existence means nothing.

We may never know.

Hmm. It would seem to me that if you wanted to know why people do evil things, you could look at why YOU do things you consider evil/bad. How do you justify your actions? I think that this line of thought would prove more useful, truth-wise, than imagining what goes on in dictator's heads.

I don't know if I do good or evil things, to be quite fair. I have no way of knowing if my actions are good and bad. But since I am a fan of AU, I may subconisusly use it in deciding my actions, and hence, I am using my line of thought (that of AU) to justify how others are doing what they are doing.

Besides, happiness is such a general term that I think it would be better to use that as a way to figure out why others do the things they do.

No, we won't. I thought this was an accepted fact for this discussion. As far as proving things true (to ourselves), that can only be done in logical constructs like maths and with statements like, "I exist."

Ah. Still, with logic being comrpomised by what is known as warrants, with our base assumptions and desires that cannot be justified or proven, I feel that my own thinking may be unreliable.

I agree that the bit about having to accept some things without evidence is irritating. I don't like not knowing what things really are. Personally I like to know how things work; I read a lot in science magazines, about subjects that interest me on the internet, etc. However, this doesn't help in proving any of it "true" in an absolute sense. Even so, I enjoy this "learning" because, as far as I can tell, it does work.

People can't be more than they are, and I don't expect myself to be able to prove facts about the world. I can learn about my perception of the world, however. To me, what's the difference between the two? I don't know of any, so for me to suppose that there is a difference would make me guilty of going beyond what my evidence leads me to believe and into pure speculation.

True, but then again, abscene of evidence does not mean evidence of abscene.

I percieve - my lappy 486. Do I have reason to believe it is there? Well, I can see it, touch it, taste (ewww gross) it, hear it, smell the toxic plastics, etc. Do I have reason to suggest it's not really there? No, not really any concrete reason, just the fact that it's possible it may not be. I consider my computer to be real, because I have no data that suggests otherwise stronger than my perception of it. That's about all I can do. For me, that's good enough.

And of course, the main reason why I embrace science, since it seems to be true. But it might not be true. I'm sort of paranoid and worried of that. There is no preceptions that indicate otherwise, but then again, you can be worried about preceptions being contorlled and working together. So, skepticism still exists.

The possibility that just everything is a big illusion can never be ruled out, but please, show me just the slightest evidence that our observations really are illusions.

Abscene of evidence does not mean evidence of abscene.

Of course, having no evidence is unconvicing, but it is in doubt, and I do fear doubt.
===
*sigh* If only the human race would live forever, or if they become infinite beings, or something different from what they are, being fully emotional, or fully logical. Then this question would be resolved.

I, for example, probraly wouldn't follow God if I lived forever, because if I live forever, my actions in this world have meaning, and since I will stay in the world forever, I might as well make it the best world it is. And since I live forever, I don't have to fear God, since God cannot touch me unless I am dead.

This is just some random comment though.

I respectfully decline to continue this dialog with you, SilentScope001. I cannot tell if your contradictions and fallacies are an intentional attempt to "troll" or if you truly are not interested in having a rational discussion. Either way, I gain nothing by repeating myself further. Thank you for your time.

I can wear two hats because it's what I am. I can give you a reasonable explanation for it except that I am driven by a desire and love to learn. That is certainly commendable. The problem is that religion is dogmatic. This means that you can only explore so far before you are told to stop looking because He/She/It/They is the answer. Science on the other hand seeks to look under every stone. If you are somehow able to reconcile these two in your mind now, then kudos to you, however at some point you have to make a personal choice: Either your love of knowledge will have to supersede your faith or your commitment to faith will curb your ability to learn.

Yes I believe in the infinite mercy of the Lord but I also believe that there is a logical explanation for some things. If there is a logical explanation for some things, then why is it that there cannot be a logical explanation for all things? Anyone can tell you that science cannot answer every question that is out there, but this does not mean that it will not be able to some day. Little more than a 100 years ago, manned flight was science fiction. A few years later it was science fact. 50 years later: supersonic air travel. 15 years later: a manned flight to the moon.

Technology and scientific discovery grow exponentially, not linearly. As our ability to understand our universe increases, the "gaps" where "God can hide" are going to continue to diminish (i.e. "Science can't explain this so it must be the grace of God"). Our ethics, unhindered by ancillary arguments about God's intent for mankind, will solidify pretty quickly.


It's hard t describe the complexity of the human mind coupled with the belief systems and emotions that derive from it. I accept that I have a weak argument. The fact that you're willing to acknowledge this speaks highly of your ability to reason.


I may have my set of beliefs but that doesn't deter me from seeking out others. Recently my family wondered if I was turning into a witch because I wa reading up on folklore and magic and the Wiccan ways. In the end the usual discussion of being Catholic, blah, blah goes in one ear and out the other because I don't see it that way but as research. I love things of mythic origins and I like to see the cultural eveolution that takes place with these mythic things. It was a similar process for me. I began studying Greek mythology as a hobby when I was a kid. Greek led to Roman, which led to Egyptian, which led to Norse, which led to Japanese, Native American, etc. You study enough myths, you begin to see that there is a pattern. The explanation for that pattern that I found most plausible is that man, as a social creature, has certain needs that have been fulfilled by religion in the past.

But tradition for the sake of tradition is folly and modern man can find meaning, morals, and ethics without the need for dogma or faith. In my opinion is long time that we leave superstition (read: religion) behind, because it is only holding us back (all the positive aspects of religion can be found outside of it).


On the physical plane, to chronologically see the progression from Australopithecines to Homo habilus and Homo erectus, to Neandertals and to archais human beings and finally Homo sapiens sapiens (us) I find fascinating. I've also seen documented evolution sequences of other species and I find it hard to not believe that evolution occurs. It's how I am.Until another model comes along that explains our observations better, I would tend to agree.

I have been reading the thread with intrest but havent read everything within the thread, so won't give a 'full' (e.g. very long Silentscoopey ;) post untill the weekend when I have the time.

I do however hava quick note to add;


That is certainly commendable. The problem is that religion is dogmatic. This means that you can only explore so far before you are told to stop looking because He/She/It/They is the answer. Science on the other hand seeks to look under every stone. If you are somehow able to reconcile these two in your mind now, then kudos to you, however at some point you have to make a personal choice: Either your love of knowledge will have to supersede your faith or your commitment to faith will curb your ability to learn.

Thought 1;

Pah thats aload of balls. Science is as dogmatic as faith, Spontanuos (I cant spell and its 3am in the UK) Generation is a scientific impossibility, so at this point there is only one other answer, reasonable or not. I (and the Vicar at my Church would argue) that the minute a religion says; you should just believe it becomes a cult. I will always seek to answer any question asked of me, and have always been able to give an answer, sometimes I have to walk off research and come back, but I will always try to give an answer and if I can't find one just hold up my hands and say 'I don't know'. Also take away your biased oppinions for a second as that is what is causing you to say the above. If the Christian God is the true God then those 2 will never actually come into conflict as they would basically become the same thing. Just because you have encountered dogmatic Christians does not mean all are. No offence to some, but American Christians scare me, so Achilles if you are American don't judge Christianity as a religion on a few people you have met. Imagine if I judged science on the beliefs of Mengele, and other mid 20th Century 'Scientists' who argued for the superiority of some races over others. Would I have a balanced view of it?

Thought 2;

Some where talking about God as if he were an entertity to test for, now I don't know if he is or he isn't. But say I'm sat in a empty room, now the air is made up of around 70% nitrogen, which is a fact. But I don't have the apparatus to test for it, that doesn't mean it isnt there just because I cant see it or test it... what if the same is true of God?
From the Paranormal Psychology perspective, by testing for the paranormal view scientific methods do you automatically nullify your results because you are trying to test stuff that goes against normal scientific results? In other words Science is seeking to explain the unexplainable. Or change perspective; science is seeking to explain something for which there is infact no answer. For the record this perspective can explain that tarrot cards, star signs, those twig things people find water with are a load of crap, but it can't explain things like expierances after death. It should be a scientific impossibility if there is no life after death; yet it happens, (side note it is also intriguing to note it doesnt happen in all cases as some people expierance nothing). I myself expieranced a healing... I had appendicitus and was going to miss Christian Camp in the summer as I was due to go into hospital to have them taken out, but then the day before we prayed about it and that night I was healed... and went. Slightly off topic but I would challenge any scientist to explain that (my dad is a GP and medically what happened is impossible). Also as another note, say God does exsist, would in not be arrogance on the, part of science for a scientist to say to God proove you exsist or that the burden of proof should be on him to be a quantifiable entity, does it not take away from God to think you can quantify and test for him>


Finally Achilles I don't understand why you are becoming hostile to Silentscoope I think his argument is going down the Philisophical route and you are being very arrogant in your assumption that science is 'truth/knowledge'. I will use a quote I used earlier in the the thread (its on the first page, and think it would be good for you to read through all the scientific quotes there before posting against Christianity as I dont belive it has to be opposed to science or posting against philosophy).



“Science cannot answer the question that philosophers- or children - ask; why are we here, what is the point of being alive, how ought we to behave? Genetics has almost nothing to say about what makes us more than just machines driven by biology, about what makes us human. These questions may be interesting, but scientists are no more qualified to comment on them than is anyone else.” Steve Jones (Professor of Genetics at University College).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. I would slightly edit this Einstein quote to replace religion with philosophy. But the point still stands.

Finally I apologise for grammatical and spelling errors, I am dyslexic and it is now very late/early ;)

I have been reading the thread with intrest but havent read everything within the thread, so won't give a 'full' (e.g. very long Silentscoopey ;) post untill the weekend when I have the time.

I do however hava quick note to add;




Thought 1;

Pah thats aload of balls. Science is as dogmatic as faith,
I would tend to disagree. Scientists do not claim to have all of the answers to every questions. If something is unknown, the scientific community will say "we don't know right now" or "we're looking into it". That is not dogma.

If I had to take a guess, I would assume that most people that feel that science is dogmatic, say so because they want their arguments to have equal footing with scientific theory, but aren't willing to do the work. "I believe that God exists, but science refuses to accept God, therefore science is dogmatic".

It's not that science refuses to accept God, so much as it is that the concept of God (as we understand it) has nothing to do with science. Furthermore, more often than not, there is a proven scientific explanation that doesn't even need to invoke supernatural causes in the first place.

Spontanuos (I cant spell and its 3am in the UK) Generation is a scientific impossibility, so at this point there is only one other answer, reasonable or not. Really? You can quote a peer-reviewed scientific journal article that states that abiogenesis (or Spontaneous Generation) is scientifically impossible? "Not being able to show something right now" does not equal "can never be shown". 200 years ago DNA was literally unknown yet today we have completely mapped the human genome. The Urey-Miller experiment showed that some amino acids can be formed "from nothing". This is not the same thing as showing as proving spontaneous generation, but it sure seems like a first step at showing that it's at least a possibility.

I point this out merely to show that there is not "only one other answer". This, sir, is dogmatic thinking.


I (and the Vicar at my Church would argue) that the minute a religion says; you should just believe it becomes a cult. I will always seek to answer any question asked of me, and have always been able to give an answer, sometimes I have to walk off research and come back, but I will always try to give an answer and if I can't find one just hold up my hands and say 'I don't know'. Nothing wrong with that :)


Also take away your biased oppinions for a second as that is what is causing you to say the above. If the Christian God is the true God then those 2 will never actually come into conflict as they would basically become the same thing. Please explain your thought process (when you have time, I know you mentioned that don't right now).

Just because you have encountered dogmatic Christians does not mean all are. No offence to some, but American Christians scare me, so Achilles if you are American don't judge Christianity as a religion on a few people you have met. Imagine if I judged science on the beliefs of Mengele, and other mid 20th Century 'Scientists' who argued for the superiority of some races over others. Would I have a balanced view of it? Please don't mistake my comments for being based on personal experience (or at least personal experience alone). My arguments are leveled primarily at faith as a system itself. It's not that I don't like religious people, I don't like religion at all. I hope that helps to clarify.

Similarly, I don't seek to defend a specific scientist or proclaim that all scientists are (forgive the expression) saints. Just as I seek to question religion as a system, I also argue for the scientific process. Some "scientist" don't follow the scientific process put want their place at the table (the names of everyone working for the Discovery Institute spring to mind).



Thought 2;

Some where talking about God as if he were an entertity to test for, now I don't know if he is or he isn't. But say I'm sat in a empty room, now the air is made up of around 70% nitrogen, which is a fact. But I don't have the apparatus to test for it, that doesn't mean it isnt there just because I cant see it or test it... what if the same is true of God? I'll try to cut through a lot of backstory here and simply say that most people that believe in the God of Abraham (Christians, Jews, & Muslims) will eventually says "God cannot be measured because he trancends space, time, physics, logic, everything". This is unfortunate because science (by it's nature) can only concern itself with that which is natural. Anything supernatural is automatically not allowed in the club.

Well why is that? Because of the scientific method. The process breaks down as soon as you try to apply it to something supernatural. Put anything observable in there and it works like gangbusters, so it's not the process, it's what you try to feed it.

To use your example, you might not have an apparatus to measure right then and there, but if you did, could you? If you had 50 people with 50 apparatuses in the room with you, would they be able to get the same reading as you (within a reasonable margin of error)? Measuring nitrogen in a room isn't beyond measure, it just is in your scenario. It's like saying the bus can never come because the bus isn't at your stop right now.

From the Paranormal Psychology perspective, by testing for the paranormal view scientific methods do you automatically nullify your results because you are trying to test stuff that goes against normal scientific results?If you can observe it, you can test it with the scientific method. However if you can get this far, then you automatically exclude the source from being supernatural; at some point all the "whys and hows" will point to a natural explanation.

In other words Science is seeking to explain the unexplainable. Of course it does. That exactly what all science does.

Or change perspective; science is seeking to explain something for which there is infact no answer. *shrugs* why do we have to assume that there is no answer? Just because an answer isn't clear to us now does not preclude it from ever being known.

For the record this perspective can explain that tarrot cards, star signs, those twig things people find water with are a load of crap, but it can't explain things like expierances after death. It should be a scientific impossibility if there is no life after death; yet it happens, (side note it is also intriguing to note it doesnt happen in all cases as some people expierance nothing). If I could stick a probe into your brain and make you experience exactly what all of these "near-death survivors" describe, could we truly consider them evidence of an after life? Your argument assumes that the only possible explanation for "near-death experience" is an actual afterlife. Again, this is a prime example of dogmatic thinking (I'm still not hatin' though).

I myself expieranced a healing... I had appendicitus and was going to miss Christian Camp in the summer as I was due to go into hospital to have them taken out, but then the day before we prayed about it and that night I was healed... and went. Slightly off topic but I would challenge any scientist to explain that (my dad is a GP and medically what happened is impossible). I don't mean to strawman, but...clicky (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088)

Because medical science cannot explain all phenomeon that occur does not mean that experiences like yours are supernatural.

Also as another note, say God does exsist, would in not be arrogance on the, part of science for a scientist to say to God proove you exsist or that the burden of proof should be on him to be a quantifiable entity, does it not take away from God to think you can quantify and test for him Yes, in that scenario, I suppose it would be quite arrogant. It seems odd though that God could kill the whole debate right now with an appearance on CNN or BBC, but chooses not to. Unfortunately this tends to kick off a lengthy dialog about God hiding himself as part of the test, but revealing himself to some as snack cracker even though he's supposed to powerful to be percieved by us, etc, etc. And I'd really rather not have that dialog if that's ok.

Finally Achilles I don't understand why you are becoming hostile to Silentscoope I think his argument is going down the Philisophical route and you are being very arrogant in your assumption that science is 'truth/knowledge'. You are welcome to your opinion. As I stated earlier, I don't feel that any further discussion with SilentScope will bear fruit and talking about him is just rude. Hopefully you can understand and respect that.


I will use a quote I used earlier in the the thread (its on the first page, and think it would be good for you to read through all the scientific quotes there before posting against Christianity as I dont belive it has to be opposed to science or posting against philosophy).

<snip>

I would slightly edit this Einstein quote to replace religion with philosophy. But the point still stands.

"One of Eintein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then is is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant."

<snip>

"Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion."

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and thus that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

- Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (p.15)

My intent was not to counter your Appeal to Authority with one of my own, so much as to set the record straight.

Thanks for your remarks. I look forward to reading your response.