The God Delusion

[samael]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Sam, what I am saying is this:

If you that the bible is the highest form of truth and nothing supersedes it, you are a fundamentalist.

If you say that Communism is the only effective and correct form of government, you are a fundamentalist.

If you say that you will only accept ideas and concepts proven by the scientific method, you are a fundamentalist.

Lig, you're using the word "fundamentalist" to mean two different things in the same post. There is no law against using one word to mean more than one thing, but its generally accepted that one should keep a local consistent meaning.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

You could rephrase that as "if you say that you don't care what the explanation is, so long as it's the one most backed-up by the facts -- and if you're prepared to drop that explanation the moment a better one comes along and admit that you were wrong up until that point -- you are a fundamentalist".

Of course, then it sounds stupid.

The proper rephrase would be:

"if you say that you don't care what the explanation is, so long as it's the one most backed-up by the facts -- and if you're prepared to drop that explanation the moment a better one comes along and admit that you were wrong up until that point -- and if you're unwilling to form a belief on something which you are unable to collect facts on you are a fundamentalist"

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by samael

Lig, you're using the word "fundamentalist" to mean two different things in the same post. There is no law against using one word to mean more than one thing, but its generally accepted that one should keep a local consistent meaning.

I think perhaps the term "fundamentalist" is too loaded for its use here. Clearly people have strongly associate the word with certain concepts that they don't want to be associated with.

[EvilLumpy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

The proper rephrase would be:

"if you say that you don't care what the explanation is, so long as it's the one most backed-up by the facts -- and if you're prepared to drop that explanation the moment a better one comes along and admit that you were wrong up until that point -- and if you're unwilling to form a belief on something which you are unable to collect facts on you are a fundamentalist"

Wait a minute... you're suggesting that one can be a fundamentalist by NOT blindly believing something? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

As far as I see it, a fundamentalist is someone who forms his/her opinions without facts and is unwilling to move on that fact irregardless of proof to the contrary.

Science is all about altering and coming to a more accurate picture, and calling someone a science fundamentalist while they don't follow the tennets of science is totally inaccurate and a complete misnomer. Maybe quasi-science fundamentalist would be more accurate, because it's certainly not science.

I think you should clearly define what a fundamentalist is before you move the goal posts again.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by EvilLumpy

Wait a minute... you're suggesting that one can be a fundamentalist by NOT blindly believing something? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

This is my point. This, regardless of actual definition, is what people believe fundamentalism to be.

What's also interesting is "blindly believing something" is to believe something without proof. Previously it was acceptable to come to a conclusion through deduction and reasoning. This is no longer the case because we can explain so much through science.

But science still doesn't have all the answers. And science isn't always about "what the universe is" rather it's "what the universe we observe is". Regardless of this some people are willing to only accept what can be proven scientifically and aren't willing to use their heads beyond this.

There is nothing wrong with this, but there is nothing right with it either. It's just a choice. A personal philosophy.

[Whiplash]

... what? No. Science is a tool that helps us find out how things really are. So it's less of a philosophical (what it 'could' be or what it 'means' to us) and more of an empirical observation.

Don't confuse and associate a fascination with the way things really work with the removal of the beauty we associate to natural phenomena.

[EvilLumpy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

This is my point. This, regardless of actual definition, is what people believe fundamentalism to be.

What's also interesting is "blindly believing something" is to believe something without proof. Previously it was acceptable to come to a conclusion through deduction and reasoning. This is no longer the case because we can explain so much through science.

But science still doesn't have all the answers. And science isn't always about "what the universe is" rather it's "what the universe we observe is". Regardless of this some people are willing to only accept what can be proven scientifically and aren't willing to use their heads beyond this.

There is nothing wrong with this, but there is nothing right with it either. It's just a choice. A personal philosophy.

Well, at least it's what you perceive fundamentalism to be and therefore attribute that to others.

Also in your second paragraph you are suggesting that science is not about deduction and reasoning at all. Thought experiments are quite popular in science, especially the physics field.

In your third paragraph you're making the assumption that "what the universe we observe to be" is not "what the universe actually is". One could easily argue that science runs on the grounds that we're assuming the universe actually is what we observe it to be until we've learnt otherwise via the scientific method. By implication you're saying that science is totally static and doesn't grow and change, when in fact it entertains all other theories and runs under the best guesses we have at the time. Back to my previous examples many of the very difficult to understand laws of physics of this time can only be proven (ie. not be readily disproven and be supported by other proven principals) through thought experiments alone.

You are quite right though, I think, especially if you mean that there is no 'right' to anything because for that to be true you'd have to define what 'right' actually is and that's purely grounds for philosophical debate.

Please stop insisting science is something that it's not. It's like a spelling mistake that I can't help but attempt to fix.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by EvilLumpy

Also in your second paragraph you are suggesting that science is not about deduction and reasoning at all. Thought experiments are quite popular in science, especially the physics field.

I didn't suggest that at all. I suggested there is deduction and reasoning outside of science. But of course a science fundamentalist would not accept any such reasoning.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

... what? No. Science is a tool that helps us find out how things really are. So it's less of a philosophical (what it 'could' be or what it 'means' to us) and more of an empirical observation.

Don't confuse and associate a fascination with the way things really work with the removal of the beauty we associate to natural phenomena.

I'm not talking about science per se, rather about people who trust exclusively in science.

Gah, this is become much more than I intended it... explaining the explanations of explanations is not so much fun.

[Foggerty]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

... I forget who originally said this, and i'm paraphrasing, but something like 'Does understanding the science of a sunset make it any less beautiful?'.

You might want to read "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Dawkins, its about refuting the claims that understanding and breaking something down makes it less beautiful or awe inspiring. (He refers to it as scientific poetry.)

[Sp0nge]

every human being, from the religious to scientist, is faith-bound.

you believe in many things without proof.

in the last 30 years, even Stephen Hawkins has changed his theories more often than he has changed his own undies.

so what if the things you believe in "can" be proven?
...if you havent seen proof you believe them on faith...and faith alone.

[Know me.]

The bottom line is that we don't know what reality is and have no way of knowing.

[Sp0nge]

reality is what we choose to make it.

speaking of Hawkins, i recently read he believes in the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Hugh Everett.
(basically a multi-branching of reality)

[[Malks] Pixie]

I was going to post these in the random thoughts thread but thought they fitted better here...

Heaven is hotter than Hell
http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/a...avenhhell.html

Omnipotence Paradox
http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/a...pyparadox.html

And I've been really enjoying the discussion (just lurking) - big ups to Lightspeed for your arguments dude :-)

That's all I've got eh...

Pixie

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by samael

But how do you /know/ [the doctorate degree is] real?

Random Jackass: Hi I want a lecturing job in your university.

Vice-Chancellor: sure, what qualifications do you have?

Random Jackass: here is a photocopy of my original doctorate degree certificate in Rogernomics.

Vice-chancellor: all right that looks real. You are hired!

[pick up the phone, dial a number, speaks into the phone requesting someone to come in]

Random Jackass: great!

VC: on one condition. Ok on several conditions: you have to teach one undergraduate course and one postgraduate course each semester of your choosen field. Each year you will have to publish in at least one peer-reviewed journal. For now we will give you a three year contact. If we are satisfy with your performance, we will give you tenure, a job for life. Do you agree to that?

Random Jackass: er... ok.

VC: here is a bag of money to help you settle, Mr...?

Random Jackass: surname is Jackass, Random Jackass.

VC: all right Mr. Jackass, here is another bag of money just so you can spend on whatever you want.

Random Jackass: cheers mate!

[a burly man comes in the office]

VC: ah I arranged personal bodyguard for you. Mr. Jackass, this gentleman here will escort you to your office.

Random Jackass: so when can I start?

VC: right now in fact. Please don't forget your certificate!

Random Jackass: cheers, have a nice day.

VC: you too.

[dial some number, speaks to phone]

VC: Jenny, can you please help me find another personal assistant? a-ha. Why would I need another personal assistant beside you? Because you are fired. Well, not until you have found me your replacement.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

you believe in many things without proof.

in the last 30 years, even Stephen Hawkins has changed his theories more often than he has changed his own undies.

Are these two sentences supposed to be connected in some way?

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Uh ... well, my love for my family is a result of chemical reactions and natural selection. So it could be explained via chemistry or by looking at requirements of organisms for reproducing.
While I personally can't explain it as you'd like me to, don't take my inability to do so as some kind of 'proof' that it can't be. An educated guess would be that someone involved in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology would have a very good explanation of 'love'.

You misread me. I know the neurochemistry of love. But you can prove that what you feel is love is love? You can demonstrate that your brain chemistry could indicate love, but how you yourself are perceiving cannot (yet) be measured.

[Ab]

Noone's managed to define yellow yet.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by Ab

Noone's managed to define yellow yet.

Light with a wavelength of 570–590 nm?

[Ajax]

And I see dead goon nailed it way back on page 7

[Ab]

No, those are descriptions of something that is yellow -- not definitions of what yellow is. You're essentially saying "that thing looks yellow to me, therefore yellow is what that thing looks like".

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by Ab

Are these two sentences supposed to be connected in some way?

yes.

some on this thread talk about science like its some magical thing where people only believe in things that are proven....or can be proven.

stephen hawkin is regarded as a leading theoritical physicist. (ie scientist)

my point is that even one of the world's leading scientists is on record as believing in one thing, then the opposite.

some things like the big bang, whats on the "other side" of black holes, multiple realities etc, will NEVER be proven.
they cannot be proven any more than the existance of god can.
a scientist can jump from one theory to the other endlessly.

if you take a brief look at the leading edge of current science (quantum) you will find that there are many conflicting theories, just like there are many conflicting religions. many scientists align themselves to one theory or other based purely on their inner voice, ie faith.

science and religion are not much different.
both are just a primitive way of trying to make sense of the world around us.

ten thousand years from now we might not be discussing religion versus science, but science versus <insert more advanced way of making sense of the universe here>

(ps. we might still be around in 10 thousand years due to quantum immortality, which is possible with MWI, believed to be true by a large number of scientists)

[Sp0nge]

yellow is the feeling i got when looking somewhere below the middle of a rainbow this morning...
while eating a banana...
standing next to this asian chick....
listening to "mellow yellow" playing on the radio.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by Ab

No, those are descriptions of something that is yellow -- not definitions of what yellow is. You're essentially saying "that thing looks yellow to me, therefore yellow is what that thing looks like".

I don't see why an ostensive definition should be considered invalid in this case. I think you're presenting an argument that uses a sort of Loki's Wager fallacy as a means to quibble over local variance in perception.

[Lightspeed]

If you can explain what yellow is I think you could probably also explain the phenomenon that is consciousness.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

I was going to post these in the random thoughts thread but thought they fitted better here...

Heaven is hotter than Hell
http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/a...avenhhell.html

So - you can either burn in Hell or Boil in Heaven (Assuming the folk law that there are clouds in Heaven is correct (ergo - clouds of super heated steam))
/giggles

I always liked the Euthyphro Problem.

And the Lord spake unto the philosopher, 'I am the lord thy God, and I am the source of all that is good. Why does thy secular moral philosophy ignore me?'
And the philosopher spake unto the Lord, `To answer I must first ask you some questions. You command us to do what is good. But is it good because you command it, or do you command it because it is good?'
'Ur,' said the Lord. 'It is good because I command it?'
'The wrong answer, surely, your mightiness! If the good is only good because you say it is so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?'
'Of course!' replieth the Lord. 'I tested thee and thou hast made me pleased. What was the other choice again?'
'You choose what is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on you at all. So we don't need to study God to study the good.'
'Even so,' spake the Lord, 'You've got to admit I've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject...'

Source: Euthyphro by Plato (380 BCE)

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Ajax

I don't see why an ostensive definition should be considered invalid in this case.

Ahem.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by Ab

Ahem.

Pretty contentious stuff, as I'm sure you're aware.

[BathTub]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

yes.

some on this thread talk about science like its some magical thing where people only believe in things that are proven....or can be proven.

stephen hawkin is regarded as a leading theoritical physicist. (ie scientist)

my point is that even one of the world's leading scientists is on record as believing in one thing, then the opposite.

Isn't it great that scientists are able to change their minds.

some things like the big bang, whats on the "other side" of black holes, multiple realities etc, will NEVER be proven.
they cannot be proven any more than the existance of god can.
a scientist can jump from one theory to the other endlessly.

if you take a brief look at the leading edge of current science (quantum) you will find that there are many conflicting theories, just like there are many conflicting religions. many scientists align themselves to one theory or other based purely on their inner voice, ie faith.

Theoretical Physicists are building on, extrapolating onward from what is currently accepted and testable. They have a solid base of well understood physics to start from and work from there. More of it will become, and is becoming testable as science moves forward.

Please point out to all of us, the well accepted, repeatedly testable, paranormal base for the extended theoretical god.

science and religion are not much different.

Especially if you ignore the differences.

[BathTub]

Really the idea that a scientist can, and does change their mind, is a negative against science is ridiculous. That is quite possibly it's most powerful and main distinction over religion.

[Know me.]

Its important to distinguish there is a difference between science and scientists. Scientists are human and have their own opinions and interpret the data as they see it.

The great thing about science is the scientific experiment which anyone can perform to find out for themselves the answer. The only faith in science is the faith that what we are seeing is really what we are seeing (what I meant about reality) which is different to believing something without seeing anything at all or even believing something opposite to what we are seeing!

[Ab]

Richard Feynman, to a meeting of the US National Science Teachers Association in 1966.

What science is, I think, may be something like this: There was on this planet an evolution of life to a stage that there were evolved animals, which are intelligent. I don't mean just human beings, but animals which play and which can learn something from experience--like cats. But at this stage each animal would have to learn from its own experience. They gradually develop, until some animal could learn from experience more rapidly and could even learn from another’s experience by watching, or one could show the other, or he saw what the other one did. So there came a possibility that all might learn it, but the transmission was inefficient and they would die, and maybe the one who learned it died, too, before he could pass it on to others.

The question is: is it possible to learn more rapidly what somebody learned from some accident than the rate at which the thing is being forgotten, either because of bad memory or because of the death of the learner or inventors?

So there came a time, perhaps, when for some species the rate at which learning was increased, reached such a pitch that suddenly a completely new thing happened: things could be learned by one individual animal, passed on to another, and another fast enough that it was not lost to the race. Thus became possible an accumulation of knowledge of the race.

This has been called time-binding. I don't know who first called it this. At any rate, we have here (in this hall) some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other.

This phenomenon of having a memory for the race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world--but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. The race has ideas, but they are not necessarily profitable.

So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs.

Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the race's experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.

[Redneck]

Surely you're joking!

[Ab]

No, there's just pleasure in finding things out.

[Ajax]

What I love about Feynman is that some of his most brilliant work was sketched on napkins in a strip club.

[fixed_truth]

Reality is being defined by science as - our perception of the world is all that there is to the world, at least insofar as we can know the world. (eg to say I know there is a planet in our solar system that is undetectable by any human sense or instrument - is unsound).

"It is perhaps a logical convention that the one who positively asserts the existence of a given body is the one who has the burden of proof; but if he fails, it is not quite anything more than a legalistic logical move for us to deny that body's existence, instead of a suspension of judgment on the matter.

Does the burden of proof stand on the shoulders of the one who denies the sun's existence at midnight when it is invisible, or on the one who would assert it? I would say it is only a dogmatic logical legalism that can determine this question at all, based as it would be on simply conventional principles that have no bearing upon the nature of the sun itself, as it stands outside of any logical convention."

We can prove neither existence nor nonexistence; nor can we positively assert that all that exists are minds and their perceptions.

[Sp0nge]

hey, dont get me wrong, Im an atheist and I'd much rather have science than religion.

but some of you seem to have chosen science as your god, while at the same time saying religion is a waste of time.

religion is used by a few, to make money from the masses.
some other few use science in the same way...there's big money in having your science accepted.

science is not always exact. often it is disputable and manipulated.

just look 200 years ago. accepted science was different than it is now.
200 years from now it will be just as different again.

religion has also changed in that timeframe.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Originally Posted by Redneck

Surely you're joking!

Ab I think he is making a reference to this book.

I think people who ROUTINELY question the logical foundation of reality are not fit to to discuss reality. People who NEVER question the logical foundation of reality are also not fit to discuss reality either. Somewhere in between, those pragmatic and practical souls are fit to do so.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

Ab I think he is making a reference to this book.

Thanks, but I got it

[doppelgänger of someone]

pwned