Hatrack River Forum: I've been trying for some time to express this

This is topic I've been trying for some time to express this in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=051381

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

But I have now found a blog post that does it. This is why it is wrong to 'choose to believe'.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

. . . by someone who chooses to believe in the salvation of cryogenics instead. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Well, that was a really interesting textbook example of an ad hom. I'm glad my posts are able to give you something to vent your spleen on. Now, would you like to talk about some of the ideas expressed in the post I linked, or would you like to see which of us can skate closest to outright insult without being banned? I'm perfectly happy to play either of these two games, I just want to know up front which one it's going to be.

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :

Is that really an ad hom? I don't think it is. Since the blog post is all about judging how well people understand their scientific fields, and the principles behind science in general, by whether they have beliefs outside of their professional fields that the writer personally finds wacky, it seems fair to question the writer's own adherence to a scientific viewpoint. You could certainly deny rivka's claim, or you could argue that believing in cryogenic preservation of people is not a-scientific. But I'm not convinced that bringing it up at all is an ad hom. Certainly I don't think she's skating anywhere near behavior that violates the TOS. Your original post comes far closer, given that it's against the TOS to proselytize. (Isn't it?)

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

I hate dogpiles, and katharina needs no defending, since she's good at defending herself. However, (this is ancient history, I ought not bring it back from the dead) I remember a certain comment about how kat should hang herself with her wedding gown. Shizzle. I mean, I've given her heck myself in the past, but kicking her when she was down was...unnecessary. Motes and beams and stuff, bro.

But I still hate dogpiles. Even though I participate in them occasionally.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

A belief that cryonics can be made to work is not of itself unscientific any more than a belief that fusion can be made to work is. Both beliefs are founded on the historical evidence that humans are fairly good at overcoming mere engineering challenges. But that is somewhat beside the point; what makes it an ad hom is that it seeks to discredit the argument without actually engaging the argument. It's like saying that vegetarianism is evil because Hitler was a veggie, or that this post needn't be responded to because of Godwin. It just doesn't have anything to do with the subject.

Now, if rivka were to show that our friend the blogger arrived at his belief about cryonics in the way that he criticises others for arriving at their beliefs about gods, then she would at least have demonstrated that he is a hypocrite; which would still do nothing to discredit his reasoning. But she doesn't even do that! She just says, "Yeah, well, he believes in cryonics!" I could just as well go "Yes, and you're a Jew so who cares what you think?", and the argument would be precisely as good; in fact it would be the same argument, only couched in a form that will no doubt get me accused of anti-semitism.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

"...that this post needn't be responded to because of Godwin."

I particularly hate that one. What, we can't mention Hitler on the Internet?

However, on another note, I hold out the hope that, by the time I'm an old man, medical tech will have wiped out aging completely. Hence, no need to freeze me.

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :

Ben Bova seems to think so.

And I agree that the misapplication (and misquoting) of Godwin's Law can be frustrating.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

I would so love to be able to live into a time where I could meet aliens and travel to other galaxies. It'd be more than worth all the crap I'll probably have to put up with between now and then.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
"Yes, and you're a Jew so who cares what you think?", and the argument would be precisely as good; in fact it would be the same argument, only couched in a form that will no doubt get me accused of anti-semitism.

Actually, to be consistent, you'd have to make reference to my belief system.

He doesn't just believe that cryogenics is a good idea, or something that money, time, etc. should be spent on.

He speaks of it the way people speak of salvation. As the cure to death and all evil. He has simply found another god to believe in, one that works with the particular values he has chosen. And yes, one that he believes is consistent with his other god, Science.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

I must say I'm impressed with your mind-reading ability; I must have missed the part where he blogs about how the Prophet Cryo spoke to him in his dreams, as opposed to, say, he made some progress on freezing frogs and extrapolated to humans in twenty years. (As an aside, if someone in 1980 had predicted the Internet and been enthusiastic about it, you would likewise have dismissed him.) But in any case that is still not relevant to the points made in the post that I linked to, and hoped to see some discussion of.

I'm not going to respond to any further comments about cryogenics. You are welcome to have that discussion without me.

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :

Relax.

Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :

quote:
A genuinely unified universe, with stationary universal laws, is a highly counterintuitive notion to humans! It is only scientists who really believe it, though some religions may talk a good game about the "unity of all things".

As a theist I take this an ad hom attack. I definitely believe stationary universal laws- they are just inspired something above and beyond those laws.

And to say that scientists who really "believe" in something but religious folk can only pretend to think as clearly as scientists. Come on.

quote:
But when it comes to the actual meat of the religion, prophets and priests follow the ancient human practice of making everything up as they go along. And they make up one rule for women under twelve, another rule for men over thirteen; one rule for the Sabbath and another rule for weekdays; one rule for science and another rule for sorcery...

Reality, we have learned to our shock, is not a collection of separate magisteria, but a single unified process governed by mathematically simple low-level rules. Different buildings on a university campus do not belong to different universes, though it may sometimes seem that way. The universe is not divided into mind and matter, or life and nonlife; the atoms in our heads interact seamlessly with the atoms of the surrounding air.

I'd just like to say that rules of behavior separating between classes of people is perfectly reasonable and rational. Would you let a 10 year old drive a car down the freeway? (heck I'm 19 and my parents still don't want me to). Do you work every single day of the week- do you take time off for weekends? If you are doing that then aren't you differentiating between days for nothing but arbitrary reasons like social conventions?

To compare that to the idea that different geographical locations as being within different universes is absolutely absurd.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shawshank:

quote:
A genuinely unified universe, with stationary universal laws, is a highly counterintuitive notion to humans! It is only scientists who really believe it, though some religions may talk a good game about the "unity of all things".
As a theist I take this an ad hom attack. I definitely believe stationary universal laws- they are just inspired something above and beyond those laws.

So, for example, you believe that your god is powerless to intervene in sicknesses? Or alternatively, perhaps the 'stationary universal law' you believe in is 'whatever my god happens to decide'?

quote:
Do you work every single day of the week- do you take time off for weekends? If you are doing that then aren't you differentiating between days for nothing but arbitrary reasons like social conventions?

I am indeed differentiating between days based on arbitrary social conventions, because it's rather difficult to buck such a huge trend. But if I had my way, I'd accumulate two days off per five worked, and spend them wherever I like. (And yes, the 2/5 ratio is entirely arbitrary, but any other ratio is going to run into a truly vast resistance from employers (if you want more days off) or workers (if you want fewer). One thing at a time.)

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

Cool blog. Thanks for posting, KOM. I liked his other posts, too.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

King of Men,

quote:
Now, would you like to talk about some of the ideas expressed in the post I linked, or would you like to see which of us can skate closest to outright insult without being banned? I'm perfectly happy to play either of these two games...

I do wonder if that's true. Coming close to outright insult without doing so is certainly not a game you've practiced much, so I wonder how much you'd be happy to play it.

But anyway...

quote:
Now what are we to think of a scientist who seems competent inside the laboratory, but who, outside the laboratory, believes in a spirit world? We ask why, and the scientist says something along the lines of: "Well, no one really knows, and I admit that I don't have any evidence - it's a religious belief, it can't be disproven one way or another by observation." I cannot but conclude that this person literally doesn't know why you have to look at things.

This is competently said, but the flaw is illustrated right in the first few words. 'Seemingly' competent. Instead of insisting that a scientist who is also spiritual is incompetent, it seems to me the scientific way of assessing that opinion is to examine the scientist's work and determine whether it is scientifically sound or not.

But then again, I don't start from the assumption that religious people are fools like you do, KoM, so I'm hardly surprised this link resonates with you.

quote:
...and probability theory doesn't care what clothes you wear.

Heh. Then why mention it at all...or at least, why deliberately associate the spiritual scientist with a 900-number psychic with gaudy jewelry? Only to 'correlate in the brain', so to speak, the opinion on the psychic with the opinion on the spiritual scientist.

quote:
But put them in a context where it is socially conventional to make up wacky beliefs without looking, and they just as happily do that instead.

Well, this is just stupid. I mean, let's say I agree that the 'wacky beliefs' are just made up. The spiritual scientist (well, let's just call him 'idiot', as the link does) isn't the one making them up.

quote:
An ambition like that lacks the comfortable modesty of being able to confess that, outside your specialty, you're no better than anyone else.

'Comfortable modesty', indeed. The brave, daring fellow who has the guts, the knowledge, the training, and probably the good looks to embody the 'virtues' put forth in this article, he's not better than anyone else.

He's better at figuring things out than most other people. Who is the better person, KoM? Scrooge, after his affair with the three spirits; or, say, Richard Feynman? I can easily say which person is of more use to humanity as a whole, but I am far from ready to measure things as better or worse strictly based on their utility.

Lots of things are very useful to me, but not very nice at all.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
And yes, that does make me wonder if I can trust that scientist's opinions even in their own field - especially when it comes to any controversial issue, any open question, anything that isn't already nailed down by massive evidence and social convention.

That quote is for any who suggest that there is no ideology to atheism, and no proseltizing either. It seems to me that the essence of science lies ultimately in taking individual ideas and gauging them as correct or incorrect strictly on their own merits.

One of the virtues of science is that it is pretty straightforward, compared to other human endeavors, to determine 'what their own merits' really means: simply duplicate the experiment.

As much as you would dearly love to shuffle religion off the human stage, so to speak, you-supposedly proponent of rationalism and science-shouldn't have to use tricks like this to do it.

Or else be exposed as having less wholesome, altruistic reasons for this academic elbowing.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
He's better at figuring things out than most other people. Who is the better person, KoM? Scrooge, after his affair with the three spirits; or, say, Richard Feynman? I can easily say which person is of more use to humanity as a whole, but I am far from ready to measure things as better or worse strictly based on their utility.

Feynman, who managed to be kind without any miraculous intervention by spirits. And who, I might note, didn't have an author out to Make A Point on his side, compelling him to be nice whether he wanted to or not.

Edit: Really, Feynman is a truly terrible example for you; by all accounts he was a genuinely nice guy. You might at least have picked someone with some racist credentials to his name, like Watson. But in any case, the issue of niceness is a distraction: We were talking about who was more likely to figure out the truth. Niceness has nothing to do with that.

quote:
Heh. Then why mention it at all...or at least, why deliberately associate the spiritual scientist with a 900-number psychic with gaudy jewelry? Only to 'correlate in the brain', so to speak, the opinion on the psychic with the opinion on the spiritual scientist.

Well? I have yet to see anyone demonstrate a difference. This is just you being dismissive of a certain kind of 'spiritual knowledge', while disparaging those who are dismissive of other kinds that you happen to subscribe to.

[ January 01, 2008, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]

Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :

*runs in after shiny red ball*

*sees scary people and hears raised voices*

*leaves ball and runs away*

Edit:

At this point, I have nothing to say regarding the article. I'll reflect on what I read. And I might comment. Until then, this post was just harmless fluff.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

KoM,

quote:
Feynman, who managed to be kind without any miraculous intervention by spirits. And who, I might note, didn't have an author out to Make A Point on his side, compelling him to be nice whether he wanted to or not.

Edit: Really, Feynman is a truly terrible example for you; by all accounts he was a genuinely nice guy. You might at least have picked someone with some racist credentials to his name, like Watson. But in any case, the issue of niceness is a distraction: We were talking about who was more likely to figure out the truth. Niceness has nothing to do with that.

Oh come now, KoM, I used Scrooge because he was easy and handy given the season. Your complaint that he's a fictional character is pretty silly, for it's not as though that degree of altruism in unheard of. Albert Schweitzer, then, how about him? Furthermore, I was not saying or even hinting that Feynman was a bad person, or even that he simply wasn't a nice person.

And finally, I made it perfectly clear I wasn't just talking about who would be better used to find things out, but rather responding to the theme of the link that the non-spiritual atheist is 'better' than the spiritual scientist (who is, according to the article, an idiot even if it does not come right out and say so).

quote:
Well? I have yet to see anyone demonstrate a difference. This is just you being dismissive of a certain kind of 'spiritual knowledge', while disparaging those who are dismissive of other kinds that you happen to subscribe to.

Yes, I know you consider all religious people equally stupid and inferior. My point is that the article is relying on a persuasive trick; the link suggests that because the gaudy psychic and the idiotic spiritual scientist share one thing in common-stupid religious thinking-that the one should be as scorned as the other.

But if you can't see a difference, you're as stupid as you think the religious people are. The moronic spiritual scientist, he's not trying to get people to pay him for his spiritual knowledge. That's a difference right there.

---------

I note without surprise that you have not replied to my 2:07am post in this thread.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

After reading that I had a completely different reaction.

I thought that it was sad, in a way, that he understood so much about science and so little about life.

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

From the linked blog:

quote:
In modern society there is a prevalent notion that spiritual matters can't be settled by logic or observation, and therefore you can have whatever religious beliefs you like. If a scientist falls for this, and decides to live their extralaboratorial life accordingly, then this, to me, says that they only understand the experimental principle as a social convention. They know when they are expected to do experiments and test the results for statistical significance. But put them in a context where it is socially conventional to make up wacky beliefs without looking, and they just as happily do that instead.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Related to religion, I suspect religion is a lot more a “social convention” than a “true faith”. See how the religion of a child is correlated to the religion of their parents.

When scientists live in society, they have to interact with it; they can’t live their life exclusively in the laboratory. Thus, aside the “truly understanding what scientific method stands for” issue, it’s also an integrity issue (IMO). Does the scientist accept the inevitable conclusions that come with their “laboratory conventions” to live by the same rules outside the laboratory, or do they value more social acceptance when walking on the street?

I think the sad thing is that many don’t even realize society’s pressure…

A.

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :

quote:
I think the sad thing is that many don’t even realize society’s pressure…

I think the funny, revealing thing is that you think that many do not realize social pressure. If only more religious people were as self-aware as you!

Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
But I have now found a blog post that does it. This is why it is wrong to 'choose to believe'.

I am only going to post one comment, because I do not want to get into this today.

My only issue comes from people, any people, trying to tell me my beliefs are wrong. Whether it's the Jahova's Witness or Mormon Missionaries that come to my door or KoM posting here, who are you to tell me I am wrong. I have this same problem with people in my own religion. I believe what I believe and that is based on my personal convictions. But above all, I believe YOU have a right to believe what you want to believe without me looking down on you. This does go against a literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says I should witness to the world. That is great for those who have been convicted to do so, but for me, I try to live my life as a witness and let people ask me about my beliefs.

I am not saying I am perfect, far from it, but I try to let others live their lives without me intruding.

Anyway, there are my two cents.

Happy New Year.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
who are you to tell me I am wrong

Who would someone have to be to tell you you're wrong about something?

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

Someone who's opinion matters to me. In areas of religion, not many do.

I respect your views Tom, although I strongly disagree with them on this subject. But I don't tell you what to believe or not believe in the comfort of your own home, or within the confines of your faith (or lack thereof).

People tell me I an wrong all the time. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't.....but regardless, unsolicited advice on any matter as personal as matters of faith are not usually welcomed. If I cared what they thought I would ask them. [Smile]

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

While I understand that we don't like being told we're wrong, it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that no one's beliefs should ever be corrected.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

. . . or at least, that's your belief, and I respect that.

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :

It's definitely my belief that serial killers, fascists, racists, and cannibals should have their beliefs changed. I hope it's yours, too--and if it isn't, that belief should be corrected. [Smile]

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
Someone who's opinion matters to me...
People tell me I an wrong all the time. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't...

This doesn't sound like actually taking other people's advice, but simply being willing to change your ideas if you want to. If you don't want to change your ideas at the moment, then no advice is good. If you feel like changing your ideas, then you can ask someone for advice. [Dont Know]

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:
I think the sad thing is that many don’t even realize society’s pressure…
I think the funny, revealing thing is that you think that many do not realize social pressure. If only more religious people were as self-aware as you!

My English parser is out of order for the moment … Not to mention that my sarcasm-o-meter and funny-bot are drunk…

That is, I really can’t see what you’re trying to say. Could you explain what is your point, or at least what’s your stand in relation to mine? Thanks.

A.

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :

I think that the article makes a good point---if a scientist applies the scientific method in their work but not in their everyday life, do they really understand the scientific method? Of course, they may simply lack the will to apply the scientific method in certain areas rather than lack understanding of it.

Also, how do they know that religious people don't think that there's sufficient evidence for their god? For instance, a new book called The Jesus Legend says that there's plenty of evidence to show that the Gospels are basically true:

quote:
In The Jesus Legend, Doctors Paul Rhodes Eddy, professor of biblical and theological studies at Bethel University, and Gregory A. Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, perform what amounts to an autopsy on the pet theories of the Enlightened higher-critics and Bultmanniacs who have wasted generations' worth of time trying to disprove the veracity of the gospels in their vainglorious attempt to remake Jesus in their own image.

Eddy and Boyd have immersed themselves in the revisionist material and deconstruct, argument by argument, gimcrack conspiracy theory by gimcrack conspiracy theory, all the legendary "explanations" intended to prove the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ a mere legend. From "Paul was constructing a mystery religion" to the gospels are coded midrash/pesher texts to (my personal favorite) Mark modeled his gospel on Homer's Odyssey---all are shown to be untenable in the light of current scholarship.

Eddy and Boyd go on to demonstrate how the supposed pagan influences on the fiercely monotheistic gospel writers are based more on wishful thinking and ignorance of first-century Judea, Samaria, and Galilee than on fact, and how many of these supposed influences were born centuries after the gospel writers lived and died, arguing for an influence going the other way. The authors also go into great detail about the nature of oral history and oral tradition, and how communities were quite conservative and guarded about mucking about with original source material.

As if that were not enough, Boyd and Eddy retire the tired wheeze about the ancients' being illiterate, overly credulous dunces (the archaeological evidence alone proves that to be wrong) and invigorate Bauckham's (and others') work on Paul’s and the gospels' reliance on eyewitness testimony (the kind of testimony still used in, say, twenty-first-century law courts).

Link.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

quote:
and that the gospel writers were neither attempting to deceive or were themselves deceived.

I'm curious as to how one could support that last part.

quote:
When all is said and done, Spongian liberals and Dawkinsian New Atheists alike will be left lambasting orthodox Christians for adverting to pointy-headed scholarship instead of relying on good old-fashioned fideism. First science, now archaeology, ethnography, orality/literacy studies, and history—where’s a good neo-Gnostic or materialist to go for ammunition now that Christians have become cutting edge?

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :

Blarg... I don't know why I'm jumping in to this....

I think Scientifically, all religious texts have some outright literal falsehoods. To jump to the conclusion however, that their can not possibly be a God, that works under methods no one understands completely, or a force that exists outside of our universe, would be foolish.

I think it boils down to one paradox, involving two scientific impossibilities. Either SOMETHING spontaneously appeared from NOTHING. Or SOMETHING has ALWAYS EXISTED independent of our conception of time (beginning, middle, end, hours, minutes, years, ect.)

That being said I think it is safe to say that complete understanding of our universe is absolutely beyond human comprehension. It is well within our mental capacity to question and observe our universe, and far beyond our grasp to understand it, which is terrible, but at least it keeps us occupied. ( Hell, its really hard just to keep up with the changing theories about the origins of the universe, it seems like get turned upside down every month or so.)

If anyone has a better understanding of the "paradox of origination" (cool phrase, I call it, It's mine!!) please enlighten me (but don't make fun), because it is as far as I get whenever I have this discussion.

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :

The trick is, the same problem exists with any gods, in response to your paradox of origination. All you do is remove it a step farther down the line.

--

You say jumping to the conclusion that there is no god, etc etc, is foolish.

To claim absolute certainty of that fact certainly is foolish.

However, when you lack evidence for something, it's in general usually less than wise to believe in it.

Take Russell's Teacup.

The claim, that is, that there is a teacup floating the the space between Earth and Mars.

Now, there is no positive evidence that there is NOT such a teacup. The area to search is very large, and the item searched for is incredibly small.

But, without specific evidence suggesting it exists, would you act as if it really existed, supposing its existence would affect your life in some way?

I doubt anyone would. The same logic is applied to any gods out there for which no evidence exists.

However, some people feel they have evidence. Therein lies one of the many major debates... but nevermind that.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
That being said I think it is safe to say that complete understanding of our universe is absolutely beyond human comprehension.

It's OK that we can't understand everything. Science has room for "not (yet?) known" but if you decide that because we don't know, God did it, then you're skipping a few steps. It's disappointing to me that so much of religion is expressed in terms of what science cannot explain.

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:

quote:
That being said I think it is safe to say that complete understanding of our universe is absolutely beyond human comprehension.
It's OK that we can't understand everything. Science has room for "not (yet?) known" but if you decide that because we don't know, God did it, then you're skipping a few steps. It's disappointing to me that so much of religion is expressed in terms of what science cannot explain.

I think that that not yet known part is going to stay that way. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that their are beings that comprehend as much more than us as we do than say, flies. We'll never know, you can say you do, but you don't. The best you can do is believe which is not the same as knowing. I believe in God, I guess it's the way I was raised. I like the belief system. I'm just honest enough to say that although I believe I have had a spiritual experience, and that I like to think that I have somewhat of a connection with God, there is no way to really know. I'll never be so arrogant as to insist that is or is not a God to someone else. Not only are you not likely going to convince them, but you really shouldn't be able to convince yourself either. That is, if your being intellectually honest.

It boils down to what you want to believe. Having faith is, to be honest accepting something regardless of evidence. As far as I can tell if you think you "know" that there is no God, your taking it on faith.

Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :

I'm curious as to why you assume that the factual truth of the matter is in principle unknowable.

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I'm curious as to why you assume that the factual truth of the matter is in principle unknowable.

I don't it know it to be unknowable, but if I had to play the odds, It's just where I'd put my money. However If I did make the prediction that it would never be found out, I probably wouldn't live long enough to feel salty about it if I were wrong [Evil Laugh]

. I think we will make strides, get closer, but the essential paradox is always going to be there. I think String theory, or M theory or something says its conceivable that our universe was probably spawned from another universe, and that that happens all the time, but If that is the case, where did the first universe come from? And as George Carlin so eloquently puts it, What the F do you call the thing all the universes are a part of? I guess some people have done something that says they have created another universe, and that it is mathematically provable, but not testable because all the product is like, in another universe [Wall Bash]

. I'm basing all of these statements about those theories on a pbs documentary I saw like two years ago, and i don't remember it so well. So take it with big bag of salt. If anyone else has a better understanding of them, and can explain them better, I really would like to read it, but I'm pretty sure it boils down to the same paradox every time.

Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :

To jump back to a small tangent:

Godwin's Law.

It is my understanding that the mere mention of Hitler does not invoke it, but rather that the likening of the poster of an opposing statement TO Hitler does.

The way I read it, its meant to combat the attacking of the credibility of the debater. Once a person begins attacking their opponent rather than the ideas, then they are showing that they have nothing relevant left to say on the subject.

I also think Godwin's Law is too narrow, or that the original idea behind it was lost and taken out of context. It isn't just Hitler that should invoke it, but any attack to the opponent meant to put them in a negative light (such as comparing them to something generally socially unacceptable, like calling them a pedophile or something).

As for the original post, I agree that the blog is obviously biased against religious people, but I'm trying to develop the ability to look past that and see the thoughts that inspired it in the first place. As I understand it, he's basically saying that people live double lives. They believe one thing and act on another. A Double-Standard if you will. Perhaps hypocrisy.

You could replace 'Scientist' with 'Fitness trainer' and 'Religion' with 'Chocolate Cake', and basically have the same point being made. It's an old concept being applied to a different medium in such a way as to cause controversy (which is working, I might add).

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by String:
As far as I can tell if you think you "know" that there is no God, your taking it on faith.

My taking it on faith ... what ?

Not that I know any such thing, but your phrase kind of ended before my parser could make any meaning of it... [Dont Know]

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

I have a question. Which of the atheists here are scientists? That is, folks who make their living using the scientific method?

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I have a question. Which of the atheists here are scientists? That is, folks who make their living using the scientific method?

I apply the scientific method daily at my work, but I’m not involved in any “direct” research, lab-like, the way the original post talks about. I also think that most of the theists too, apply the scientific method in their “practical” life, it would be quite curious (not impossible, though) to be praying to some deity to open each Excel file on their computer…

A.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
I also think that most of the theists too, apply the scientific method in their “practical” life, it would be quite curious (not impossible, though) to be praying to some deity to open each Excel file on their computer…

The scientific method is much more than using experience and trial and error.

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:
I also think that most of the theists too, apply the scientific method in their “practical” life, it would be quite curious (not impossible, though) to be praying to some deity to open each Excel file on their computer…
The scientific method is much more than using experience and trial and error.

I never said it wasn't.

Now, I ask the theist people here: Who DOESN'T use the scientific method AT ALL in their life?

A.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

I've never known anybody to use the scientific method when using Excel.

Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I've never known anybody to use the
scientific method when using Excel.

Ha, you've yet to meet Mr. Tammy.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I have a question. Which of the atheists here are scientists? That is, folks who make their living using the scientific method?

Not sure what you're getting at. If it helps, my field of work is in bioinformatics (or rather a corner of it, since the field is rather large).

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

I think that most people never use what could accurately be called the scientific method.

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think that most people never use what could accurately be called the scientific method.

Please define what are you calling "what could accurately be called the scientific method".

A.

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

I think it would be easier if we came at it from the other direction -- how do you think a normal person would use the scientific method when opening Excel files? Or in other parts of their lives?

It seems to me that most people are far more likely to find something that works and go with it than to rigorously figure things out.

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :

The scientific method is asking a question, figuring out a way to isolate the variable that might answer the question, then doing so and drawing conclusions from there. Work with that as I retreat back to the bleachers.

Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :

quote:
Originally posted by suminonA:

quote:
Originally posted by String:
As far as I can tell if you think you "know" that there is no God, your taking it on faith.
My taking it on faith ... what ?

Not that I know any such thing, but your phrase kind of ended before my parser could make any meaning of it...

A.

I don't know what you mean. What's a "parser"?

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

My understanding of the scientific method is you formulate a likely hypothesis, you design an experiment to test it, you collect your data, analyze it, then synthesize this into a theorem.

I think the vast majority of people are stuck in either gathering data or analyzing data. It is a rare person who is either hypothesizing (which involves applying prior theorems to new but appropriately analogous situations) or synthesis.

The issue in the initial link blog is the failure of people to apply theorems to different situations, right? They call this a failure of science education and then pull in by analogy that real scientists should not balk at applying the method to everything in their lives.

The trouble with that is that theorems only work if applied to appropriate phenomena. Say one demonstrates that refraction is a sound theorem. If one tries to explain all behavior of light as a function of refraction, one is going to wind up with explanations that resemble the old maps of the solar system where the Earth was in the middle.

Thus it is with spiritual matters. If one tries to say that faith, love, and self-actualization have to be explained by what we know of biochemistry, we have to go around in eccentric epicycles. It is not a subset of physical reality, but a separable universe of phenomena. One can use the scientific method in this universe, but it is epistemology and metaphysics as well as theology.

If one says that a real scientist can have no religion, I would counter that they can have no philosophy either.

P.S. I will meet King of Men this far: no believer should take particular comfort from the religious witness of a scientist solely because they are a scientist.

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :

If one says that a real scientist can have no religion, I would point out Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, my father, Francis Collins, etc... Actually, each of those did criticize aspects of their religion, but that didn't make them secular or unfaithful.

I can't say I can agree with some of my Evangelical brothers about Harry Potter or evolution or who's going to Hell or how we can figure out that end times are coming in oh about 20 years (Isaac Newton predicted 2060), but that doesn't stop me from affirming my belief in the existence of God, nor challenge my assertion that Jesus is the real deal.

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

quote:

P.S. I will meet King of Men this far: no believer should take particular comfort from the religious witness of a scientist solely because they are a scientist.

Of course, I realized this also has the exact same effect with respect to scientists saying they are atheists. It's completely irrelevant to whether they are scientists.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:
It's completely irrelevant to whether they are scientists.

That's only if you believe that religious belief is compatible with a respect for science, which is specifically what KoM (and the original blogger) is saying is not true.

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

So you cannot worship God and Science? That's quite catchy.

I guess I'll try to read the blog again. I guess I was mainly trying to figure out if King of Men considers himself a scientist or merely has respect for it. I don't think science deserves any respect of itself. It is useful, but has no more inherent worth than gold.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

Would you say the same of religion, or does it as a rival epistemology somehow manage to have inherent worth?

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :

Science is worth enough for governments to invest large amounts of money into funding for scientific programs such as NASA, the NIH, etc. Seeing we're above the gold standard now, I think science is more worthwhile than gold, to be honest. And religion deals not in such material measurement. Gosh, the letters of Paul are awesome.

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :

Religion is bread. It is less valuable as currency, but more valuable in the absence of a market.

quote:
If, outside of their specialist field, some particular scientist is just as susceptible as anyone else to wacky ideas, then they probably never did understand why the scientific rules work. Maybe they can parrot back a bit of Popperian falsificationism; but they don't understand on a deep level, the algebraic level of probability theory, the causal level of cognition-as-machinery.

I doubt most scientists do consider cognition as machinery. I worked on building a cognitive science major for a while (since my university didn't have one.) I mean, when we had that article here on Hatrack about whether Welsh might be a island of East Indian speech, there were plenty of scientists who thought it was a great idea and thought my explanations for why it couldn't be the case closed-minded. I don't see scientists penetrating other sciences, let alone religion. Though in the end I can't really defend linguistics as a science. Perhaps it is the years of being shooed out of the club that makes me hostile.

I'll check on their post in which they claim emotions are okay but not faith.

P.S. I didn't see where those posts were going with that whole question. At one point they started talking about Mr. Spock though.

Well, I guess I can see where it's a problem for the exercise of science to be taken out of the "real world" and used only in a laboratory. But that's because laboratories allow things you don't get in the real world. I think religion also suffers from being compartmentalized. When I was younger, I wished Mormons had nuns so I could get away from the world and be holy.

Also, I've been known to use a shoelace tying analogy with respect to one of my big theological questions, though it didn't posit the absurd idea that tying a shoelace is dependent on sight. Oh, I see, it's everytime you look down to see if your laces are untied. You know, some folks just double tie them and don't worry about it.

[ January 05, 2008, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
It's completely irrelevant to whether they are scientists.
That's only if you believe that religious belief is compatible with a respect for science, which is specifically what KoM (and the original blogger) is saying is not true.

And there are quite a number of counter-examples to indicate that they are indeed compatible.

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by String:
I don't know what you mean. What's a "parser"?

Oh, silly me. It’s a Computer Science reference: Most of the computer programming languages are compiled, that is, the programmer writes the “code” using evolved structures (as opposed to writing in machine code, binary or assembler). The compilation process does the “translation” from “human level code” to “machine level code”, basically, so that the machine can execute it thereafter. Now, most of the compiled languages have another previous component, that is a parser, which analyses the “syntactic correctness” of the “human level code”. In other words, the compiler detects the missing semicolons, the misspelling of the “key words” in the language and doesn’t allow for compilation a “badly formatted” chain of commands.

This is where the analogy comes from: My being a foreigner to the English, introduces the need for a “parser”, in order to extract any meaning from a message written in English. The “compilation” phase would correspond to my understanding the message, and the “execution” part would be my response to the “commands” (that is the original message). [Big Grin]

You see, if I can’t parse a message, I’m unable to answer. So my observation was that you wrote a message that I couldn’t parse (maybe others can) and I was asking to explain what were you trying to say, or at least complete the message as my parser said: “incomplete phrase, premature full stop” [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by String:
As far as I can tell if you think you "know" that there is no God, your taking it on faith.

Therefore, I ask you: What about my taking it on faith ? (whoever was the "you" in your response)
Maybe you wanted to say that “Your taking it on faith is obvious” or “Your taking it on faith is uncalled-for” or something like that. Can you help?

A.

Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :

I think it might be "...you are taking it on faith."

Just a suggestion. [Smile]

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think it would be easier if we came at it from the other direction -- how do you think a normal person would use the scientific method when opening Excel files? Or in other parts of their lives?

Well, it is obvious to me that our misunderstanding comes from different and “incompatible” definitions for the “well known concept of scientific method” … You decline the invitation to present your definition, nonetheless, here’s mine:

The Scientific Method is based not simply on “trial and error”, or on “experiments”, but on the fact that those “experiments” and the resulting “data” are objectively analysable and better yet, they are duplicable.

(BTW, the lack of duplicability puts Religious experience outside the Scientific Method.)

Now, you could verify that I didn’t say that a normal person would use the scientific method when opening Excel files. I could have worded that better. My fault. Yours is thinking that I was talking using your definition of the term. [Wink]

The point was to show that in practical life, one is less inclined to use “religious experience” as opposed to “scientific experience”. And that’s why I named a purely technological tool, such as a software application. The science used in developing that tool, including the hardware it uses in order to function, is what prompted me the association with the scientific method. I would argue, nevertheless that while prayer wouldn’t help in software usage, the fact that we can learn to use such an application is because the process is objectively analysable and duplicable. You make a double-click on that icon and the file opens. It’s as simple as that, because if it wasn’t, we shouldn’t be using it in practical life. If that’s not the basic of “Scientific Method” then I’ll be waiting to see what are you actually taking about.

quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
It seems to me that most people are far more likely to find something that works and go with it than to rigorously figure things out.

Well, for me “rigorously figuring things out” is not equivalent with the Scientific Method, while BEING ABLE to do so if interested, is.
When you are talking about “finding something that works and going with it” is rather closer to everyday superstition, and can be a self-sustained process of “proof”, like the Horoscopes and Religion, and I doubt that people do that in their practical life more than using the duplicability of action and effect.

A.

Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :

Are the assumptions that atheists make about theists based on the belief that theists have no evidence whatsoever that a Creator exists? I'm thinking here of Megabyte's analogy about the teacup in space. Secondly, is it fair for the atheist to determine for the theist what does or doesn't count as evidence for a Creator? If not, shouldn't atheists just shut the hell up about what they know or don't know, especially if they indicate that they think it's high time for all the theists to just shut up?

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
Are the assumptions that atheists make about theists based on the belief that theists have no evidence whatsoever that a Creator exists?

No. They are based on the nature of that evidence.

Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :

So you don't agree with Megabyte's analogy, then?

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
So you don't agree with Megabyte's analogy, then?

To the extent that the analogy is apt, I agree with it. If you're beliefs are different in quality than that which describes the teapot, then no.

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :

Just I I'm clear on this from the bleachers: When you, MattP, say "they're based on the nature of that evidence," "they" are the assumptions, and the "evidence" is what theists have to prove that a Creator exists?

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean "atheists are assuming that theists are less- or unwilling to use science as evidence of their claims because the evidence they present is largely unscientific?"

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

Sounds like a fair summation, potential semantic niggling notwithstanding. Also, I don't claim to speak for all atheists, nor do I want to characterize all theists. I can only say what my own experiences indicate to me.

Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :

Funny you say that -about only being able to speak from your own experiences- because when theists point to what they consider incontrovertible evidence of a Creator, it is usually along the same lines.

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :

I'm only indicating the source of my personal opinion and emphasizing that I acknowledge the weakness of that opinion. In other words, "This is what I think, and it's based on limited personal experience, so don't take it as a universal."

Do religious messengers tend to intentionally minimize the impact of their message and acknowledge the weakness of their evidence like this? If not, I'm not sure what parallel you are trying to draw here.

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :

I have no problem excepting both science and religion as true. One deals with the physical world, and the other with the human condition.

I don't see them as mutually exclusive at all.

Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :

Pffff, who needs Scientific method when you're always right the first time? <.<

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :

The hardest thing for me was to accept that there are theists that put “religious knowledge” on the same level, or even higher, relative to “scientific knowledge”. See the often used comparison between the existence of a deity and a cup in one’s hand. (Not the one in orbit in space!)

As long as the two don’t enter in conflict, I don’t really care much. But when they enter in conflict, and the representatives of some Church decide that a person has to die because of their scientific ideas (see the Heliocentric model of the Solar System case), that detracts a lot from the value of “religious knowledge” for me.

A.

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :

The blog post seems to be fairly lacking in reason for what presumes to be a defense of reason. It makes several presumptions about the mindset of believers and scientists that are by no means given.

If religious dogma causes a scientist to reject theories such as Evolution or the General Theory of Relativity without offering a functional replacement, yes, that's a problem. But belief in something spiritual isn't inherently contradictory to what can be observed about the physical world any more than apparent contradictions between quantum mechanics and relativity cause the study of either to be useless. Frankly, assumptions otherwise amount to the kind of demands regarding personal beliefs for which many atheists castigate the religous.