Originality Rating for this thread: 3.7/5 (10 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (10 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.6/5 (10 votes cast) |
Labyrinth
Junior Spy
Post #58599
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 35
Total Words: 22,523
Average words per post: 643.51
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Sat 2009-01-24 01:37
|
 |
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Australia |
|
| Empirical Science and Revelatory Religion |
Post Rating: 3.1/4 (7 votes cast) |
|
|
"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?"
A while back I was introduced to an online journal of thought called The Edge and their most recent front-line material is about Science and Faith.
This is a long standing argument, for sure. Even here I imagine we've got both religious members and staunch atheists who get along well enough until the chips are down. As one of the latter, I'm inclined towards a divide between Science and Faith. I don't give a damn if you have Faith, just so long as it doesn't interfere with my Science.
Below are the comments on this straight from the website. I'd like your views as well.
By Jerry A. Coyne writer of the reference article which was up for discussion said in his work:
| Quote: |
| This [science v religion] disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence--the existence of religious scientists--is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. Now Darwin Year is upon us, and we can expect more books like those by Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works. |
Howard Gardener:
| Quote: |
| Of course, if you believe in the scientific method and the scientific enterprise, you will have little patience for belief in revelation (whatever that is). Still, all of us, even the most extreme rationalists, harbor contradictory beliefs in our minds and we somehow muddle through. For me, the important line in the sand is not between those who believe in religion/God and those who don't; it is between those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as they don't interfere with one's own belief system, and those who will not tolerate those whose belief system is fundamentally different. In other words, I'll settle for mutual tolerance, though I prefer mutual respect.. And now that we at last have a president who is both religious and truly tolerant, respectful, ecumenical, inclusionary - let's mute the religious wars for awhile and say a prayer (sic) of thanks.' |
Daniel Everett:
| Quote: |
Religion is philosophically incompatible with science. Open inquiry that allows the chips to fall where they may is incompatible with both the idea of 'god's revelation of truth' and religious hierarchies governing knowledge and its dissemination. I am an atheist. I believe that theology, which I hold an undergraduate degree in, is a waste of time.
However, none of this frees science from the obligation of dialog with religious people. Scientists belong to societies. No one practices science in a vacuum, culturally, financially or, even, religiously. It is important to maintain respectful dialog on what the proper relationship of science is to religion if for no other reason than the fact that the National Science Foundation is hugely subsidized by the taxes of religious people. This of course does not give taxpayers veto power over science, but it does mean that scientists neither can nor should regard religion as utterly irrelevant to their practice. A Jamesian pragmatist might claim that science is a societal activity that has an obligation to provide useful results to society, however broadly 'useful' is defined - the recognition of the obligation to the supporters of science is essential.
While science should not pretend that revelation has anything to offer us, it should not forget that it can manifest its own forms of 'revelation'. When scientists believe that they are marching towards Truth in some platonic sense, they are behaving religiously, not scientifically. The belief in Truth, as Rorty cautioned, can become the scientist's god and when it does it involves no less superstition than any other god. And many scientists share a belief in oracles, special people whose words are somehow more valuable and more likely to reflect Truth than that of other people's.
Science is a messy business conducted in messy places. Scientists are evolved hominids that have only used toilet paper for a brief period in their existence. Science owes its existence, health and results to the society that supports it. Scientists are not monks, after all, to be freed from worldly constraints for contemplation of their god, Truth. Their patrons include their opponents in modern societies. They must engage in dialog and not act as though only the true believers in science are worthy of dialog. No matter what jokes we tell over cocktails.
The upshot is although religion ought not to be causally implicated in the practice of science, any more than politics, religious people have a right to demand that scientists treat them with respect and that scientists are careful to construct their own 'canopy of epistemic humility', in the terms of historian of religion Mark Noll. |
Many others commented, and I'd suggest you go and read both the comments made and the original article. They are quite thought provoking.
My response to both is that I am inclined to agree with the opinions of Everett. While the processes of science and religion, like state and religion, need to be held separate, science remains affected by the nature of religion. This is reflected in both the way that funding for science is provided by benefactors and how the results of it are received. Coyne makes note of the differences in faith between somewhere such as the UK, which has statistically stronger ties to science than the US.
The drywall between something such as monothestic religion and Darwinian theories is backed up by, in my view, the presumption on behalf of humans that we are the natural end for evolution. That it has been one long path to us. I've never held to that because it's just the same as me presuming that I am so much better than my parents just because I'm one generation after them.
As suggested in Bill Bryson's A Short History Of Nearly Everything this is a common belief too, even among scientists. The parallels between this particular mode of thought and religious doctrine stating that God is there for the best interests in humanity is striking. We are no more the "Chosen people" and "End product" of evolution than we are the same of the tinkering of a God. We are but one step in the evolutionary ladder which stretches on until all of our descendent are dead and buried, and at last the human genome dries out and dies. That would be the end of the evolutionary process. In much the same way as I look disdainfully on the arrogance which has supposed that we are the "chosen people", I look upon the beliefs held by religions.
If we take Faith to be the belief in the existence of something we cannot prove, then I see no reason to have it. Because of my scientific nature, I cannot reconcile such a thing with my need for evidence and reasonable support. In this a primary difference between Science and Religion is found.
Science, when it theorises that it has something which may exist but there is no proof for yet, goes out and conducts experiments. The Hadron Collider is a prime example of this, built to find out if there is a theorised Higgs boson. I have yet to see the same level of scrutiny being put amongst religious circles to whether their God/s exist. They have Faith, ergo they do not need to examine it apparently.
Another point raised in a later comment was that many people hold to their beliefs as a matter of pride. They may well feel that, having held them as long as they have, it would be an admittance of utter stupidity and loss of faith to say "Well, after much thought, I've decided that I was wrong." This, I imagine, would be a particular problem amongst highly religious peers who may then seek to ostracise the person in question due to their sudden crisis of faith. It becomes a social defence mechanism along with a matter of pride in such circumstances.
Anyway, I think I've prattled long enough. Do share your thoughts, and I would prefer that you read both article and comments. They are biased against religion in many ways, this is true (as am I, surprise surprise) but I look forward to the contribution of people who hold both to their beliefs and to science.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #58620
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-02-04 02:56
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Empirical Science and Revelatory Religion |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Labyrinth wrote: |
"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?"
|
First, clarify the terminology...
"Science" is the process of testing ideas to see if they are false.
Now rephrase the question.
Does the"the process of testing ideas to see if they are false" Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?"
The answer is, for obvious reasons, "Yes".
By definition, if you could somehow demonstrate that religion wasn't false, then it would cease to be a religion -- and would become a science. So, the question for me is not whether or not science is at odds with religion (because it is). The question is, why don't religious people understand why their religion is at odds with science "the process of testing ideas to see if they are false"?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58621
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-02-04 08:03
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| Re: Empirical Science and Revelatory Religion |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| Labyrinth wrote: |
"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?"
|
First, clarify the terminology...
"Science" is the process of testing ideas to see if they are false.
Now rephrase the question.
Does the"the process of testing ideas to see if they are false" Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?"
The answer is, for obvious reasons, "Yes".
By definition, if you could somehow demonstrate that religion wasn't false, then it would cease to be a religion -- and would become a science. So, the question for me is not whether or not science is at odds with religion (because it is). The question is, why don't religious people understand why their religion is at odds with science "the process of testing ideas to see if they are false"? |
In other words Religious premises are unfalsifiable, refer back to the arguments with the sonbitch Sorianorastafarian, and hence the logic of Empiricism.
Religion reveals lunatic bollocks hence their fear of Science's methodology to refute its idiocy.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #58622
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-02-04 19:30
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
| Labyrinth wrote: |
If we take Faith to be the belief in the existence of something we cannot prove, then I see no reason to have it. Because of my scientific nature, I cannot reconcile such a thing with my need for evidence and reasonable support. In this a primary difference between Science and Religion is found.
Science, when it theorises that it has something which may exist but there is no proof for yet, goes out and conducts experiments. The Hadron Collider is a prime example of this, built to find out if there is a theorised Higgs boson. I have yet to see the same level of scrutiny being put amongst religious circles to whether their God/s exist. They have Faith, ergo they do not need to examine it apparently. |
| Big Brother wrote: |
By definition, if you could somehow demonstrate that religion wasn't false, then it would cease to be a religion -- and would become a science. So, the question for me is not whether or not science is at odds with religion (because it is). The question is, why don't religious people understand why their religion is at odds with science "the process of testing ideas to see if they are false"? |
The tenets of religions which proscribe the means of human coexistence do not have the characteristics of faith to which we broadly pin religion. When people like Emile Durkheim actually bothered to apply scientific observation to elementary religious life among tribes and such, they found that religions undergo assault from within their own cosmology and rituals. Religious totems are a veneer over a studious line of inquiry on how humans are and how they should be. These and other insights from the late 19th-century socio/anthro community were not welcomed by Christendom at the time, but today I think their observations do overtime impugning the Dawkinses of the world instead, and their belief that religion serves us no purpose.
We're so accustomed to dividing the universe into two camps because of left-vs-right, capital vs labor, the two party system, and on and on, that we often fail to realize that sometimes other camps exist out there are not satisfied with the on/off switch we have been presented on this subject. In Religion-vs-Science, I'm in just such an alien camp. I am content to hate religious and scientific purism in equal measure because my area of interest, economics, is labeled as a "dismal science" by the religious and a "soft option" by scientists. So naturally from where I'm standing the two camps are manned by a fundamentally identical bunch of stuck-up asshats. Religion cannot justify its generally bizarre views, and science cannot justify itself well enough for me to embrace either one with more enthusiasm than I would an ugly mother-in-law. They are mutually unaware of their need for each other. Science alone explains the mechanics of the world, and religion alone gives purpose to this knowledge. Not that I'm particularly good at this, but I think a sane person should let go of his contempt in order to gain wisdom beyond the on/off switch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58623
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-02-04 21:08
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| token piece |
Post Rating: 3.1/4 (7 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Labyrinth wrote: |
If we take Faith to be the belief in the existence of something we cannot prove, then I see no reason to have it. Because of my scientific nature, I cannot reconcile such a thing with my need for evidence and reasonable support. In this a primary difference between Science and Religion is found.
Science, when it theorises that it has something which may exist but there is no proof for yet, goes out and conducts experiments. The Hadron Collider is a prime example of this, built to find out if there is a theorised Higgs boson. I have yet to see the same level of scrutiny being put amongst religious circles to whether their God/s exist. They have Faith, ergo they do not need to examine it apparently. |
| Big Brother wrote: |
By definition, if you could somehow demonstrate that religion wasn't false, then it would cease to be a religion -- and would become a science. So, the question for me is not whether or not science is at odds with religion (because it is). The question is, why don't religious people understand why their religion is at odds with science "the process of testing ideas to see if they are false"? |
The tenets of religions which proscribe the means of human coexistence do not have the characteristics of faith to which we broadly pin religion. When people like Emile Durkheim actually bothered to apply scientific observation to elementary religious life among tribes and such, they found that religions undergo assault from within their own cosmology and rituals. Religious totems are a veneer over a studious line of inquiry on how humans are and how they should be. These and other insights from the late 19th-century socio/anthro community were not welcomed by Christendom at the time, but today I think their observations do overtime impugning the Dawkinses of the world instead, and their belief that religion serves us no purpose.
We're so accustomed to dividing the universe into two camps because of left-vs-right, capital vs labor, the two party system, and on and on,
that we often fail to realize that sometimes other camps exist out there are not satisfied with the on/off switch we have been presented on this subject. *
In Religion-vs-Science, I'm in just such an alien camp.
I am content to hate religious and scientific purism % in equal measure because my area of interest, economics, is labeled as a "dismal science" by the religious and a "soft option" by scientists.
So naturally from where I'm standing the two camps are manned by a fundamentally identical bunch of stuck-up asshats**.
Religion cannot justify its generally bizarre views, and science cannot justify& itself well enough ***for me to embrace either one with more enthusiasm than I would an ugly mother-in-law.
They are mutually unaware of their need for each other.
Science alone explains the mechanics of the world, and religion alone gives purpose to this knowledge$$$$.
Not that I'm particularly good at this, but I think a sane person should let go of his contempt in order to gain wisdom beyond the on/off switch.@ |
*To presume a simple Manichean dichotomy implies black and white thinking and thus persons with very limited education.
** Confusing religious verbiage with scientific knowledge, are you serious on that statement?
*** Science as means to obtain knowledge, where did you get the concept of 'SELF-JUSTIFICATION' &, this must be one of those topic matter re-framers.
% Is there such a thing as Scientific Purism or you are making things up, you know it is derivative from the concept of Religious Puritanism/Fundamentalism, so it is a strawman argument Tristan.
$$$$ Meaning to the world? Which one is that one ?There are so many sects and cults I am already confused 
Good luck with your teleological bollocks Tristan, you should take your own counsel.@
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #58624
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-02-05 04:10
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Empirical Science and Revelatory Religion |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| carldiesturmer wrote: |
In other words Religious premises are unfalsifiable, |
Religious beliefs are more falsifiable than you might think. People wouldn't believe in religion if they didn't think their deity has some sort of effect on their lives.
If something has an effect on our reality, it...well... has an effect. And effects are measurable. If you can't measure an effect, than the odds are pretty good that there probably isn't one (Occam's Razor). In the absence of an "effect", the need for a "cause" is negated. All claims of religious effects are testable, unless purposefully constructed for the purpose of debate in order to weasel out of scientific scrutiny (i.e. The Dragon in my garage).
But people don't actually believe in these sort of artificially constructed beliefs. They believe in real gods who have real effects. And those beliefs can really be falsified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tristan wrote: |
The tenets of religions which proscribe the means of human coexistence do not have the characteristics of faith to which we broadly pin religion. When people like Emile Durkheim actually bothered to apply scientific observation to elementary religious life among tribes and such, they found that religions undergo assault from within their own cosmology and rituals. Religious totems are a veneer over a studious line of inquiry on how humans are and how they should be. These and other insights from the late 19th-century socio/anthro community were not welcomed by Christendom at the time, but today I think their observations do overtime impugning the Dawkinses of the world instead, and their belief that religion serves us no purpose.
|
Nobody (not even Dawkins) would ever say that religion serves no purpose. There certainly are uses for it....
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
And even more, many people (including Dawkins) have stated that there probably is some sort of evolutionary advantage to blind belief in authority figures, and perhaps there is even some sort of advantage gained from the circuitry in the brain which gives rise to "religious experiences".
What Dawkins and his ilk are saying is not that the noble lie is not "useful". They are merely saying that it is a lie. "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", and all that.
| Tristan wrote: |
We're so accustomed to dividing the universe into two camps because of left-vs-right, capital vs labor, the two party system, and on and on,...
|
Binary logic certainly is full of pitfalls.
| Tristan wrote: |
I am content to hate religious and scientific purism in equal measure because my area of interest, economics, is labeled as a "dismal science" by the religious and a "soft option" by scientists. So naturally from where I'm standing the two camps are manned by a fundamentally identical bunch of stuck-up asshats.
|
I think Carl Sagan put it best....
| From Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World", page 40 |
At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, 'To physics and metaphysics'. By 'metaphysics', people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience. Wood answered along these lines: the physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.
The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
|
The difference between these two groups of "ass-hats" is that one has a laboratory, and the other does not. And that is an importance difference.
The problem with "sciences" such as Economics and Meteorology is that they don't have a laboratory either. They can certainly test their ideas, but the systems they study are so large and are influenced by so many different variables that it is difficult to perform a proper scientific control in order to isolate a variable in order to test it. These sort of logistical problems make it difficult to debunk any particular hypotheses in these fields, which naturally leads to creation of several contradictory, inaccurate, and/or incomplete theories.
Perhaps, in time, these fields will be able to compensate for their experimental inadequacies by sheer brute force (multiple poor studies can eventually produce useful results). But the "experimenters" will undoubtedly be forced to endure many economic depressions and hurricanes along the way. But poorly controlled experiments are still better than no experiments at all.
But you must remember that this is the reason that predictions of these two "sciences" are so often wrong, while the predictions of other more-accurately-tested sciences (such as chemistry and physics) display a much higher degree of accuracy. Not all sciences can be tested to the same degree of accuracy, and therefore not all sciences are equal. I suppose you could say that some sciences really are more equal than others. ^>^
| Tristan wrote: |
Religion cannot justify its generally bizarre views, and science cannot justify itself well enough for me to embrace either one with more enthusiasm than I would an ugly mother-in-law. They are mutually unaware of their need for each other. Science alone explains the mechanics of the world, and religion alone gives purpose to this knowledge. Not that I'm particularly good at this, but I think a sane person should let go of his contempt in order to gain wisdom beyond the on/off switch. |
Don't judge all sciences based on the performance of science's weaker half-retarded siblings (ie. politics and economics). And don't assume that you need to resort to fantasy in order to derive some sort of "purpose" in your life. You don't live in a fantasy. You live in a reality. Base your "purpose" on that. A meaningful purpose beats a fictional one any day.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #58643
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-02-10 23:03
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
I'm a scientist by course of study, and I haven't failed to notice the attitude towards religion and creationism in my lectures. It happens to coincide pretty well with my own opinions with it. The lecturers don't become arrogant enough to completely rule out the possibility of a god or a creative force, but as these cannot be empirically proven, we stick to evolution and the experimentally-proven rules of physics, chemistry and biology as the basis for all of our research.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But you must remember that this is the reason that predictions of these two "sciences" are so often wrong, while the predictions of other more-accurately-tested sciences (such as chemistry and physics) display a much higher degree of accuracy. Not all sciences can be tested to the same degree of accuracy, and therefore not all sciences are equal. I suppose you could say that some sciences really are more equal than others. |
That's the reason for the divide between "hard" and "soft" science. I tend to enjoy the hard sciences more; the observation of a physical phenomenon which you have caused to happen is more satisfying than predictions based on loose mathematical models.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #58677
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-02-17 01:10
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| God vs Religion |
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?" |
Is religion revelatory?
I spent 13 years in Catholic schools. They just seemed to be a bunch of dummies trying to brainsoil me into restricting my thought processes into their preferred stupid rut.
So what if religion is just some people deluded into thinking they know more about God than anybody else? Different religions are just people brainsoiled into different delusions.
The atheists are religious reactionaries taking their frustrations with religion out on God. 
God may or may not give a shit. God is Omni-apathetic.
Of course if God is all knowing and created the universe by whatever means then He would have to be on the science side anyway. If religion is for people that can't handle science then obviously they don't have the brains to handle God.
So science vs religion is unarmed men at the battle of wits who can't figure out that God ain't backing them up.
psik
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #58678
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-02-17 02:56
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAK wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| But you must remember that this is the reason that predictions of these two "sciences" are so often wrong, while the predictions of other more-accurately-tested sciences (such as chemistry and physics) display a much higher degree of accuracy. Not all sciences can be tested to the same degree of accuracy, and therefore not all sciences are equal. I suppose you could say that some sciences really are more equal than others. |
That's the reason for the divide between "hard" and "soft" science. I tend to enjoy the hard sciences more; the observation of a physical phenomenon which you have caused to happen is more satisfying than predictions based on loose mathematical models. |
This is one of the reasons that it has become more difficult for me to debate politics recently. I've come to the realization that all of the Great Political Philosophies™ are far too flawed to sincerely participate in cheerleading for any single one of them.
=====================
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revelatory Nature of Religion?" |
Is religion revelatory?
|
All religions were initially "revealed" to some crackpot enlightened prophet. But over time, most of religions solidify their dogma and close the door to further revelation. But ALL religions start off with the halucinations humbug visions of the initial prophet(s).
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
I spent 13 years in Catholic schools. They just seemed to be a bunch of dummies trying to brainsoil me into restricting my thought processes into their preferred stupid rut.
|
I'd say thats a pretty accurate description of the church, and I don't even know what "brainsoil" means!
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
The atheists are religious reactionaries taking their frustrations with religion out on God.
|
And my disbelief in alchemy is just a reaction to my frustrations with transmuted gold. 
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
Last edited by Big Brother on Wed 2009-02-18 05:40; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #58687
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-02-18 01:20
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.5/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'd say thats a pretty accurate description of the church, and I don't even know what "brainsoil" means! |
Brainwashing assumes there is something in the brain to be removed in the first place.
But the Catholic Church talks about a "tabula rasa" which means "blank table". So the church assumes a childs mind is empty so they control what goes in.
Therefore I cal it BRAINSOILING.
| Quote: |
| And my disbelief in alchemy is just a reaction to my frustrations with transmuted gold. Mr. Green |
It is possible to make gold from platinum so obviously you will burn in the alchemists hell. 
| From http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/1541980689/inc/1 |
| the process of turning one element into another is called "transmutation" and it was the goal of alchemists for centuries. recently I read an article summarizing a process a metallurgist tested for transmuting another metal into gold, but he himself stated that the process was not likely to be used on a large scale, as the original metal that he used was platinum... and what alchemist in his right mind would transmute platinum into gold. |
psik
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Komrade Kommander Koch
Prole
Post #58735
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Total Words: 917
Average words per post: 152.83
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-03-13 14:30
|
|
| Politics: Realpolitik |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (6 votes cast) |
|
|
| Religion is simply a way for leaders to control their peoples' actions and give a purpose to being a person, following morals, and not committing sins. If you were to analyze all these virtues and sins, (and I alreadly have, but don't have time to type all that) you would see that all virtues promote laws in place or common good that people should do to have a working country, and the sins are waht would make a country anarchy, filled with disease, poverty, and crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #58738
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
   
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-03-13 19:59
|
|
| Politics: Yankee Doodle Dandy |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Komrade Kommander Koch wrote: |
| Religion is simply a way for leaders to control their peoples' actions and give a purpose to being a person, following morals, and not committing sins. If you were to analyze all these virtues and sins, (and I alreadly have, but don't have time to type all that) you would see that all virtues promote laws in place or common good that people should do to have a working country, and the sins are waht would make a country anarchy, filled with disease, poverty, and crime. |
So what you're saying is that the means of control religion typically uses to promote virtue and a good society, those means of control being:
-Mass torture
-Brainwashing
-Indoctrination of children
-Propaganda
-Mass murder
-Militarism
-Wars
-Authoritarianism in general
-Dictatorships/absolute monarchies
-Draconian laws
-Brutality as a means of punishment
-Slavery
-Brutal suppression of expression of thought, opinion, dissidence
-Subterfuge
-Sexism
-Poverty/wealth gaps
-Ignorance/lack of education
That those means of control give us a... virtuous, good society? Are you daft?
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #58742
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2009-03-14 01:46
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Komrade Kommander Koch wrote: |
| Religion is simply a way for leaders to control their peoples' actions and give a purpose to being a person, following morals, and not committing sins. If you were to analyze all these virtues and sins, (and I alreadly have, but don't have time to type all that) you would see that all virtues promote laws in place or common good that people should do to have a working country, and the sins are waht would make a country anarchy, filled with disease, poverty, and crime. |
Religion A tells people how to live their lives. Religion B tells people how to live their lives. Religion A's rules are not the same as Religion B's. Is it possible that one set of rules is better than another's? If so, how do you decide which is better? What criteria do you use? Do you rely on which religion happens to dominate the country in which you were born? Do you rely on the judgment of you ancient ancestors? Do you rely on anecdotal visions of virgins on a toasted cheese sandwich? Or do you base you decision on something else?
How do you determine what which rules of "right and wrong" are right or wrong? (hint)
And the most important point... Religion A's rules were written during the iron age. Religion B's rules were written during the bronze age. Has mankind learned anything at all since that time? If so, why not edit the books? And even if by sheer luck, you religion happened to posses a perfect set of societal guidelines, does that mean that Donkeys Can Talk, People Can Fly, And A Man Named Jesus Lives Up In The Sky. Why not drop the bullshit?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Komrade Kommander Koch
Prole
Post #58752
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Total Words: 917
Average words per post: 152.83
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-03-17 19:07
|
|
| Politics: Realpolitik |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
| Komrade Kommander Koch wrote: |
| Religion is simply a way for leaders to control their peoples' actions and give a purpose to being a person, following morals, and not committing sins. If you were to analyze all these virtues and sins, (and I alreadly have, but don't have time to type all that) you would see that all virtues promote laws in place or common good that people should do to have a working country, and the sins are waht would make a country anarchy, filled with disease, poverty, and crime. |
So what you're saying is that the means of control religion typically uses to promote virtue and a good society, those means of control being:
-Mass torture
-Brainwashing
-Indoctrination of children
-Propaganda
-Mass murder
-Militarism
-Wars
-Authoritarianism in general
-Dictatorships/absolute monarchies
-Draconian laws
-Brutality as a means of punishment
-Slavery
-Brutal suppression of expression of thought, opinion, dissidence
-Subterfuge
-Sexism
-Poverty/wealth gaps
-Ignorance/lack of education
That those means of control give us a... virtuous, good society? Are you daft? |
It's good for the government, not the people, but the average middle-class citizen with a quote good unquote life thinks religion is a worship to a divine being with unlimited power and the ability to say what is good and bad without question. These wonderful things obviously cause the problems that you listed, but I meant it's good for the most part for the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #58753
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2009-03-17 21:23
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
So what you're saying is that the means of control religion typically uses to promote virtue and a good society, those means of control being:
-Mass torture
-Brainwashing
-Indoctrination of children
-Propaganda
-Mass murder
-Militarism
-Wars
-Authoritarianism in general
-Dictatorships/absolute monarchies
-Draconian laws
-Brutality as a means of punishment
-Slavery
-Brutal suppression of expression of thought, opinion, dissidence
-Subterfuge
-Sexism
-Poverty/wealth gaps
-Ignorance/lack of education |
If you consider any of these acts wrong, you're acting dangerously unscientific about them.
Secular regimes are guilty of these acts to the letter. The main failure of religion here is that despite its proclamations to the contrary, it cannot, ever, isolate human beings from nature. Violence and control are norms of a natural existence; they did not appear when Christianity took root in Rome, and they will not recede during an effervescence of Hope and Change. In this context, I'd like to address BB's rhetorical questions:
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And the most important point... Religion A's rules were written during the iron age. Religion B's rules were written during the bronze age. Has mankind learned anything at all since that time? If so, why not edit the books? And even if by sheer luck, you religion happened to posses a perfect set of societal guidelines, does that mean that Donkeys Can Talk, People Can Fly, And A Man Named Jesus Lives Up In The Sky. Why not drop the bullshit? |
If anything, Iron Age religion expressed a very dour resignation to the inevitability of violence and control in life. The pseudo-religious bullshit of today (Environmentalism and Humanitarianism) likes to pretend that violence and control are wholly unnatural. To answer your question: Despite all the advancements in science, *no*, mankind has learned nothing in that time... or at least his nature has not changed in the slightest. If people lived thousands of years, then things would be quite different. But lessons are unlearned by every mortal's death, and history repeats itself.
"Rule of Law," the codes of cohesive society and people working together trying to avoid those nasty things on Meph's list, operates under a guiding moral imperative. Laws work towards a goal. Deduction, a scientific method, does not presume to envision these goals or create an imperative. Goals and imperatives are inductive. This makes Law a fundamentally "revelatory" thing, and not empirical. Observing the effects of these laws is still a science. But any recommendations arising from scientific observation of law and society is still going to be inductive, because you are necessarily submitting your empirical observations to your revelatory goals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58757
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-03-18 09:33
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| Tristan presumes Teleological goal/purpose like a fool |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
So what you're saying is that the means of control religion typically uses to promote virtue and a good society, those means of control being:
-Mass torture
-Brainwashing
-Indoctrination of children
-Propaganda
-Mass murder
-Militarism
-Wars
-Authoritarianism in general
-Dictatorships/absolute monarchies
-Draconian laws
-Brutality as a means of punishment
-Slavery
-Brutal suppression of expression of thought, opinion, dissidence
-Subterfuge
-Sexism
-Poverty/wealth gaps
-Ignorance/lack of education |
If you consider any of these acts wrong, you're acting dangerously unscientific about them.
Secular regimes are guilty of these acts to the letter. The main failure of religion here is that despite its proclamations to the contrary, it cannot, ever, isolate human beings from nature. Violence and control are norms of a natural existence; they did not appear when Christianity took root in Rome, and they will not recede during an effervescence of Hope and Change. In this context, I'd like to address BB's rhetorical questions:
| Big Brother wrote: |
| And the most important point... Religion A's rules were written during the iron age. Religion B's rules were written during the bronze age. Has mankind learned anything at all since that time? If so, why not edit the books? And even if by sheer luck, you religion happened to posses a perfect set of societal guidelines, does that mean that Donkeys Can Talk, People Can Fly, And A Man Named Jesus Lives Up In The Sky. Why not drop the bullshit? |
If anything, Iron Age religion expressed a very dour resignation to the inevitability of violence and control in life. The pseudo-religious bullshit of today (Environmentalism and Humanitarianism) likes to pretend that violence and control are wholly unnatural. To answer your question: Despite all the advancements in science, *no*, mankind has learned nothing in that time... or at least his nature has not changed in the slightest. If people lived thousands of years, then things would be quite different. But lessons are unlearned by every mortal's death, and history repeats itself.
"Rule of Law," the codes of cohesive society and people working together trying to avoid those nasty things on Meph's list, operates under a guiding moral imperative.
*Laws work towards a goal.
Deduction, a scientific method, does not presume to envision these goals or create an imperative.
Goals and imperatives are inductive.
This makes Law a fundamentally "revelatory" thing, and not empirical.**
Observing the effects of these laws is still a science.
But any recommendations arising from scientific observation of law and society is still going to be inductive, because you are necessarily submitting your empirical observations to your revelatory goals. |
* what goal is this specifically speaking if I may ask?
| Quote: |
| This makes Law a fundamentally "revelatory" thing, and not empirical.** |
Revelatory, are you using it instead of biblical prophecy or the Astrologer's daily horoscope?
Again you are confusing the argument with unrelated items? On Purpose or Deliberate Tristan?
You're assuming for example the 10 commandments were revelations, however I say they were arrived through trial and error and on oral history, to assign its origin to god, would be simply to attribute godly authority for enforceability, wanna be as gullible ignorant arab herdsman 5,000 years ago?
Perhaps you should revise Sorianofan's cretinous posts for a few more hints on sophistic tricks.Now I leave you to crystal ball scrying for new legal pronouncements.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #58758
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-03-18 15:22
|
|
| Politics: Pirate Party |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Komrade Kommander Koch wrote: |
| It's good for the government, not the people, but the average middle-class citizen with a quote good unquote life thinks religion is a worship to a divine being with unlimited power and the ability to say what is good and bad without question. These wonderful things obviously cause the problems that you listed, but I meant it's good for the most part for the government. |
Good for the government? Every government in history that promotes and perpetuates those things, and does not change towards a more liberal, democratic society, fails every single time. It might be... Ted Bundy-style fun to have power in that kind of a government, but it's ultimately self-defeating and just results in a popular revolution, a coup that ends up with you being lined up against a wall, or collapse from without. How can those psychopathic policies be good for a government if it ends up with those leaders out of a job while in prison or dead?
| Tristan wrote: |
If you consider any of these acts wrong, you're acting dangerously unscientific about them.
Secular regimes are guilty of these acts to the letter. The main failure of religion here is that despite its proclamations to the contrary, it cannot, ever, isolate human beings from nature. Violence and control are norms of a natural existence; they did not appear when Christianity took root in Rome, and they will not recede during an effervescence of Hope and Change. |
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there, I'm acting "dangerously unscientific"? What the fuck? How is religious insanity justified? I know you are religious and I know you are sympathetic to the Republican party, and granted, I know you might not admit it but you have clearly always been sympathetic to some forms of authoritarian/"fascist" policies, and granted, you have no problem with people being tortured to death, murdered, and displaced, but you've got to be kidding about this blind obedience to the party line. Your only rebuttal to the grim facts of what happens when religion and state mix is a charge that atheism does the same? And don't tell me you didn't mean atheist, you said "secular" when I was talking about religions, it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to do a bit of English comparative analysis.
Well, it sounds like you just avoided thinking about what your religion does, and instead, attacked... atheism! Because what religion does, specifically Abramaic ones, is okay, since evil communist atheists did the same in the past century!
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #58760
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2009-03-18 20:35
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
Yes, Meph, you're acting "dangerously unscientific" when you make a value judgment. You're making the quaint religious mistake of assuming the existence of right and wrong in the universe, and believing that our actions can have virtue or depravity, when in reality we're just chemicals. Chemicals cannot be good or bad. Science does not make value judgments, nor does it provide a framework for dealing in questions of right and wrong.
So if you think that mass torture is wrong, you'd have to bear me an inscribed stone tablet lending credence to that idea because there is nothing in the known universe that even suggests wrongness exists.
| Quote: |
| I know you are religious and I know you are sympathetic to the Republican party, and granted, I know you might not admit it but you have clearly always been sympathetic to some forms of authoritarian/"fascist" policies, and granted, you have no problem with people being tortured to death, murdered, and displaced, but you've got to be kidding about this blind obedience |
Despite what you err... "know" about my views  , this matter specifically involves you and your views (since you volunteered them, and I'm attempting to make some remarks on them).
Let's say that, in the face of a staggering lack of evidence, you choose to throw your lot in with the idea of right and wrong. You might as well accept the whole transcendental package— Jesus, Moloch, good, evil, Poseidon, Secular Humanism, Gaia, The Force, et al, because they are based on the same premises as right and wrong are.
On the other hand you could just approach everything in life with a certain debonair amusement, not caring one way or the other about mass torture... just so long as we're not facing the pointy end of course ^^ Because right, wrong, and all the profound consequences of those first causes don't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58761
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-03-19 05:11
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| tristan the arse confuses secularism with atheism |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
Yes, Meph, you're acting "dangerously unscientific" when you make a value judgment. You're making the quaint religious mistake of assuming the existence of right and wrong in the universe, and believing that our actions can have virtue or depravity, when in reality we're just chemicals. Chemicals cannot be good or bad. Science does not make value judgments, nor does it provide a framework for dealing in questions of right and wrong.
So if you think that mass torture is wrong, you'd have to bear me an inscribed stone tablet lending credence to that idea because there is nothing in the known universe that even suggests wrongness exists.
| Quote: |
| I know you are religious and I know you are sympathetic to the Republican party, and granted, I know you might not admit it but you have clearly always been sympathetic to some forms of authoritarian/"fascist" policies, and granted, you have no problem with people being tortured to death, murdered, and displaced, but you've got to be kidding about this blind obedience |
Despite what you err... "know" about my views , this matter specifically involves you and your views (since you volunteered them, and I'm attempting to make some remarks on them).
Let's say that, in the face of a staggering lack of evidence, you choose to throw your lot in with the idea of right and wrong. You might as well accept the whole transcendental package— Jesus, Moloch, good, evil, Poseidon, Secular Humanism, Gaia, The Force, et al, because they are based on the same premises as right and wrong are.
On the other hand you could just approach everything in life with a certain debonair amusement, not caring one way or the other about mass torture... just so long as we're not facing the pointy end of course ^^ Because right, wrong, and all the profound consequences of those first causes don't exist. |
I see you are torturing the schizophrenic again Tristan, one question why do you 'confuse' Atheism and by that old hackenyed communist chestnut and the Secularism as the doctrine of the modern state where Religion and Government are separate?
By not answering this question I will assume that you are being a dishonest fuckwit who doesn't understand the basic dictionary difference of terms and intends to troll the post and evades a valid question of fact.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #58763
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2009-03-21 15:48
|
|
| Politics: Pirate Party |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Yes, Meph, you're acting "dangerously unscientific" when you make a value judgment. You're making the quaint religious mistake of assuming the existence of right and wrong in the universe, and believing that our actions can have virtue or depravity, when in reality we're just chemicals. Chemicals cannot be good or bad. Science does not make value judgments, nor does it provide a framework for dealing in questions of right and wrong. |
I can say the exact same of you if I wanted to pretend to be mechanically logical. You have made statements in support of policies of murder and death in order to further a greater goal, which equates to a positive end. Additionally, I consider it incredibly naive to believe you cannot apply positive and negative consequences and values to actions, inaction, coercion, etc. The legal system of the US, and indeed the Western world, is based upon remedying negative behavior or inaction through prosecution of its occurance. It might be fine and dandy to delude yourself into an extremely nihilistic moment there is no "right or wrong", positive or negative, but obviously in the real world, that kind of thinking would ultimately be self-defeating. Society cannot function without law, and if there was no defined sense of what is wrong as opposed to what is not wrong, society would not function at all. There's certainly no mystical force to the universe that makes actions right or wrong, such as "homosexuality is wrong", but certainly in the real world throwing acid into someone's face is wrong... unless you live in Iran and live under draconian legal systems. Even then, you know what I mean.
I would disgress against your statement we are merely chemicals. We are very complex particles of matter, harnessing energy, and we are self-aware beings. I can't really think of many inanimate objects that can write sonnets, travel outside their planet, eradicate diseases, invent Jerry Springer........ (  ), and count Stephen Hawking in their ranks. We are more than the sum of our parts; you can't seriously be stupid enough to be youthfully nihilistic enough to believe what you're saying, and I don't believe it even if you insisted you are serious.
We also are no longer talking about cold, hard science. We are obviously not talking about science since we are talking about *DING DING DING*  PHILOSOPHY.
| Tristan wrote: |
| So if you think that mass torture is wrong, you'd have to bear me an inscribed stone tablet lending credence to that idea because there is nothing in the known universe that even suggests wrongness exists. |
Since I already argued against that kind of self-deluded nihilism above, I'll use another argument. You are, here, operating under the assumption that mass torture is tolerable. Can you explain to me how mass torture is tolerable, and not wrong from the pragmatic definition of "right and wrong" as being measured in destruction, construction, in positive reaction, negative reaction? Can you justify it? If not, you have no reason to continue being intellectually deficient.
| Tristan wrote: |
Despite what you err... "know" about my views , this matter specifically involves you and your views (since you volunteered them, and I'm attempting to make some remarks on them).
Let's say that, in the face of a staggering lack of evidence, you choose to throw your lot in with the idea of right and wrong. You might as well accept the whole transcendental package— Jesus, Moloch, good, evil, Poseidon, Secular Humanism, Gaia, The Force, et al, because they are based on the same premises as right and wrong are.
On the other hand you could just approach everything in life with a certain debonair amusement, not caring one way or the other about mass torture... just so long as we're not facing the pointy end of course ^^ Because right, wrong, and all the profound consequences of those first causes don't exist. |
You're operating under false assumptions and false premises. You seem to be so confused about conceptual understanding you cannot distinguish the pragmatic values of "right and wrong" from mystical hocus-pocus. The confusion is yours, and yours alone.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #58767
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2009-03-22 21:43
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
I think that Tristan has made some very good points, similarly to religion right and wrong do not have testable consequences, you cannot measure them, you cannot study them in a laboratory they do not exist in space and time. If there were no human beings right and wrong would not exist, they are not scientifically meaningful concepts.
They are artificial constructs of the human mind. I think it is o.k. to posses these constructs as long as it is recognized that they are indeed constructs. I don't really see the problem with this. In the same vein I would not criticize a person that felt they had to believe in god to have a meaningful life
However Tristan's position on Science is just wrong-headed, if science cannot justify itself then it simply isn't science, it really is as simple as that.
I would differentiate between unnecessary constructs and necessary constructs. It is necessary to believe in some sort of social good to live and be a productive member in a society, it is not necessary or productive to believe that a magical Jew crucified 2000 years ago is going to save the faithful.
religion has truly outlived its usefulness right and wrong is not "true" in the scientific sense of the word, religion is also false, but one of these is a precondition for society and the other is becoming increasingly counterproductive and outdated. Perhaps someday right and wrong will become obsolete as well, who knows...
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #58769
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2009-03-23 07:04
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Azazel wrote: |
I think that Tristan has made some very good points, similarly to religion right and wrong do not have testable consequences, you cannot measure them, you cannot study them in a laboratory they do not exist in space and time. If there were no human beings right and wrong would not exist, they are not scientifically meaningful concepts.
They are artificial constructs of the human mind. I think it is o.k. to posses these constructs as long as it is recognized that they are indeed constructs. I don't really see the problem with this. In the same vein I would not criticize a person that felt they had to believe in god to have a meaningful life
However Tristan's position on Science is just wrong-headed, if science cannot justify itself then it simply isn't science, it really is as simple as that.
I would differentiate between unnecessary constructs and necessary constructs. It is necessary to believe in some sort of social good to live and be a productive member in a society, it is not necessary or productive to believe that a magical Jew crucified 2000 years ago is going to save the faithful. |
Thank you azazel.
By "justify itself," I am not talking about providing evidence for findings. What I mean is that science does not provide us with an inherent reason to pursue it in the first place. We dream up the reasons. A professed love of truth, a desire find answers, or improve peoples' lives. Frankly, it's the same spectrum of reasons people use in adopting faiths. This is why I don't think much of atheists; too often, they are unwilling—as you put it—to recognize their values as artificial constructs. The human yearning for faith generally prevails.
I am equally dismissive of constructs that profess to be "pragmatic," in Meph's words ("necessary" in yours), as I am of constructs that profess to be absolute or mystical. Pragmatism is purely in the eye of the beholder; one man's expedience is usually another's hardship. This truth has a real-world manifestation: gather a hundred men together in a society, and you will get a hundred different visions of what is most pragmatic. I say these things not to demean pragmatism, but to admit that I shelf it with mysticism.
| Azazel wrote: |
| religion has truly outlived its usefulness right and wrong is not "true" in the scientific sense of the word, religion is also false, but one of these is a precondition for society and the other is becoming increasingly counterproductive and outdated. Perhaps someday right and wrong will become obsolete as well, who knows... |
"Right and wrong" have definitely suffered a falling out in favor of more diverse and arbitrary premises. I wish this was not the case; I wish there were gods, even... but evolutionary biology argues itself better than morality. And in biology, mass torture is nothing more or less than an effective method of persuasion. There is no value attached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #58770
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2009-03-26 06:07
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 3.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
Thank you azazel.
By "justify itself," I am not talking about providing evidence for findings. What I mean is that science does not provide us with an inherent reason to pursue it in the first place. We dream up the reasons. A professed love of truth, a desire find answers, or improve peoples' lives. Frankly, it's the same spectrum of reasons people use in adopting faiths. This is why I don't think much of atheists; too often, they are unwilling—as you put it—to recognize their values as artificial constructs. The human yearning for faith generally prevails.
I am equally dismissive of constructs that profess to be "pragmatic," in Meph's words ("necessary" in yours), as I am of constructs that profess to be absolute or mystical. Pragmatism is purely in the eye of the beholder; one man's expedience is usually anther's hardship. This truth has a real-world manifestation: gather a hundred men together in a society, and you will get a hundred different visions of what is most pragmatic. I say these things not to demean pragmatism, but to admit that I shelf it with mysticism.
|
you are correct that science is not necessarily a "good" thing in and of itself the pursuit of knowledge however often an end rather than a means. The reason Atheism is not a defendable ideological position is because it attempts to answer a meaningless question "is there a god", of course no one can say for certain, but all decision making is inherently probabilistic. so the infinitesimal chance isn't really worth going to church every Sunday over.
I haven't thought about it much but I think you might be able to argue that right is just something that makes you feel positive emotions like happiness while wrong is just something that makes you feel negative emotions such as anger or sadness. So the right thing to do is what makes the most people happy.
of course there are so many variables that it really just depends on individual viewpoints, I mean how many people are happy, for how long, what kind of happiness exactly it is. I don't know just something to think about.
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carldiesturmer
Filthy Animal
Post #58778
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2009-03-27 08:06
|
|
| Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist |
Country: United States |
|
| GM: When a Capitalist dinosaur dies |
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (3 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
| Azazel wrote: |
I think that Tristan has made some very good points, similarly to religion right and wrong do not have testable consequences, you cannot measure them, you cannot study them in a laboratory they do not exist in space and time. If there were no human beings right and wrong would not exist, they are not scientifically meaningful concepts.
They are artificial constructs of the human mind. I think it is o.k. to posses these constructs as long as it is recognized that they are indeed constructs. I don't really see the problem with this. In the same vein I would not criticize a person that felt they had to believe in god to have a meaningful life
However Tristan's position on Science is just wrong-headed, if science cannot justify itself then it simply isn't science, it really is as simple as that.
I would differentiate between unnecessary constructs and necessary constructs. It is necessary to believe in some sort of social good to live and be a productive member in a society, it is not necessary or productive to believe that a magical Jew crucified 2000 years ago is going to save the faithful. |
Thank you azazel.
By "justify itself," I am not talking about providing evidence for findings. What I mean is that science does not provide us with an inherent reason to pursue it in the first place. We dream up the reasons. A professed love of truth, a desire find answers, or improve peoples' lives. Frankly, it's the same spectrum of reasons people use in adopting faiths. This is why I don't think much of atheists; too often, they are unwilling—as you put it—to recognize their values as artificial constructs. The human yearning for faith generally prevails.
I am equally dismissive of constructs that profess to be "pragmatic," in Meph's words ("necessary" in yours), as I am of constructs that profess to be absolute or mystical. Pragmatism is purely in the eye of the beholder; one man's expedience is usually another's hardship. This truth has a real-world manifestation: gather a hundred men together in a society, and you will get a hundred different visions of what is most pragmatic. I say these things not to demean pragmatism, but to admit that I shelf it with mysticism.
| Azazel wrote: |
| religion has truly outlived its usefulness right and wrong is not "true" in the scientific sense of the word, religion is also false, but one of these is a precondition for society and the other is becoming increasingly counterproductive and outdated. Perhaps someday right and wrong will become obsolete as well, who knows... |
"Right and wrong" have definitely suffered a falling out in favor of more diverse and arbitrary premises. I wish this was not the case; I wish there were gods, even... but evolutionary biology argues itself better than morality. And in biology, mass torture is nothing more or less than an effective method of persuasion. There is no value attached. |
It appears you don't know the meaning of the word called 'Ethics' but then that's the purpose of protecting your insipid refuge for idiocy called Theism.
_________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
