Faith and Reason.

[kareface]

Neoconservative and Conservative are 2 different beasts. One is based on Strauss, one really strange person, whos disciples have been the bane of the US foreign policy for decades. Very different philosophy then a true conservative.

http://stomped.com/mini/52.jpg

[Melchiah]

Before I address your point, can you tell me in one statement what my "argument" is? Which premise I used, and which one you disagree with?

Your argument is that science operates on a set of beliefs, which was a response to Neosutra's statement that there is no faith in science. Am I right so far?

Now, what you are doing is playing the definition game, which is what Neo, myself, Kareface and everyone else has tried to tell you. It is a philosophical argument only, and it does nothing but introduce pointless posturing over definitions.

It has been agreed upon in this thread that the terms faith and belief are to mean religious faith and religious belief, which are defined as ideas accepted as absolute truth that require no evidence, no observation and no testing to validate their acceptance as immutable.

Now, with that being said, you have tried to argue that assumptions must be made for any position, and your reasoning for this is that we have to assume our reality is real.

Kaylia, I know you aren't stupid, and I mean this next part with all due respect, and I'm not trying to be an asshole but:

No fucking shit we have to assume that what we observe is real. That is a foregone conclusion that the entire world works on. This is what kareface means when he says you are arguing the Matrix. If what we observe as reality were suddenly rendered false, science would of course have to adjust to a new method.

To explore the other side, if we start out on the premise that our observed reality isn't real, what then? Observations are worthless at this point, we might as well be stuck in the Matrix.

What Neo meant when he said there was no faith in scientific deduction was that we don't take any explanation as fact without rigorous testing and peer review. Accepting observed reality as real is NOT accepting an explanation for reality. So yes, we are setting the axiom that reality is real, because we observe it. If you have to have that concession to be content, then fine. I admit I assume reality is real, because I observe it and I can predict certain things to follow observed explanations. Is that what you wanted?

So the entire point of Kaylia's argument was to make us say:

We believe reality is real.

Kaylia, do you not understand how silly and irrelevant that stance is to the discussion at large?

[Rammses]

To the atheists here:

Do you think our species will finally get past religion in the next 100 years? 200? 1000? Kill ourselves before we do?

I don't think organized religion will have any political or commericial influence in any part of the civilized world within 200 years.

[Max™]

Of the christian theists here, how many of you believe jesus will come back during your life time?

Also, for the non christian theists: If god created everything, what created go? If god "simply existed", then what keeps the universe and/or whatever is above this dimension frome existing outside of time as well? i.e. if the universe is a quantity X, and god is a greater quantity Y (has to be more powerful than the universe if he created the universe), and you state that X is too complex to have been chance or the product of some timeless physics we dont understand yet, then how do you justify an even greater quantity Y existing outside time?

I think my own logic has conflated empirical with a priori, as I do not think anything within a universe can be argued to be self evident without first decreeing that it is only self evident within the framework of reference that is a universe, but thank you for clarifying that Woozie.

Nonetheless, that which is experimentally confirmed does not automatically include all empirical evidence, as you can include simple first level observations in empirical, but not in the experimental results categories, I think.


Neo: perhaps the greater fabric outside of the Universe, I like the term Manifold, is aware in some way. Perhaps it is responsible for creating itself in some way which seems like a paradox from our perspective within a single Universe.

I only contend that whatever God is, it seems to introduce a tendency for complex structures to evolve, as I cannot find a reason elsewhere for that to be so, especially as it seems to have acted upon the general scale of the Universe itself (which goes back to my thinking that black holes are akin to seeds within the body of a fruit composed of spacetime) to cause it to produce more of itself.

I do not think it would be easy to understand something like that, as it does not seem to abide by basic rules of existence we take for granted, which in my mind are the simple geometric laws of distance and duration.

[Neosutra]

I think my own logic has conflated empirical with a priori, as I do not think anything within a universe can be argued to be self evident without first decreeing that it is only self evident within the framework of reference that is a universe, but thank you for clarifying that Woozie.

Nonetheless, that which is experimentally confirmed does not automatically include all empirical evidence, as you can include simple first level observations in empirical, but not in the experimental results categories, I think.


Neo: perhaps the greater fabric outside of the Universe, I like the term Manifold, is aware in some way. Perhaps it is responsible for creating itself in some way which seems like a paradox from our perspective within a single Universe.

I only contend that whatever God is, it seems to introduce a tendency for complex structures to evolve, as I cannot find a reason elsewhere for that to be so, especially as it seems to have acted upon the general scale of the Universe itself (which goes back to my thinking that black holes are akin to seeds within the body of a fruit composed of spacetime) to cause it to produce more of itself.

I do not think it would be easy to understand something like that, as it does not seem to abide by basic rules of existence we take for granted, which in my mind are the simple geometric laws of distance and duration.

2 main problems with this:

1. We dont know if there is some higher dimensional manifold, and certainly have no evidence that it is self aware, or anything to suggest that what so ever.

2. That definition wouldnt really quantify as a "god", but then again "god" is such a loosely defined term.

However, this also leads us to ask questions about how such dieties would react and influence parallel universe/realities that may exist if some of our more advanced theories turn out to be correct.

Did jesus die in 6 different realities of earth?

[Max™]

I assume a manifold exists because I do not know what is outside of the Universe.

I however have always had an uneasy awareness that finding oneself in a Universe, and aware of this state, seemed to be an unlikely event.

Putting these together, I am faced with two choices, there is one Universe which contains everything that is or will be, and I happen to be here, now. Strange.

or

There is an infinite number of universes, where everything that could be, is, somewhere. So I am here by default, as it is simply impossible for me to not be sitting here questioning my existence, somewhere in the manifold.

I don't think it is higher dimensional, I think it is non-dimensional, btw.

That whole string theory crap about hidden dimensions is purely mathematical masturbation of the worst kind, this Universe is 4 Dimensional, you don't need more to explain it, and you don't need any semblance of order outside of it.


As for it being self aware, this Universe does not seem to be um... uncultured.

It has properties which suggest that it is already somewhere along an um... evolutionary path, as one can easily think of Universes which are much simpler, and accordingly one can conceive of ones which are much more complex.

So you have to ask why we are at some arbitrary point in the midst of all of these possibilities, if not for some sort of selective pressure towards this state, at this time, in this location.

Religion arises naturally for we, crazy little monkeys that we are, because we are just smart enough to recognize that a Universe is a strange thing, yet not smart enough to understand why it is so strange, or even why we are aware of this strangeness.

[Neosutra]

You find it strange to believe bio-chemical life would form in a universe that chemically encourages it and that when that life inevitabely reaches cognitive self awareness that it would question itself?

I dont get where you are coming from with this manifold self awareness, nor the logical leap that one would need infinite universes to justify their own causel existance in this universe.

[Max™]

More like self referential structure within the manifold, just extending the recursive structure of this universe beyond it.

I find it strange that there is a Universe AT ALL, it seems unlikely to me for some reason, always has, and is in fact why I got interested in physics at such a young age.

If there is only one Universe, then the Copernican principle fails at it's boundary, for while we do not seem to be in a special place within the Universe, it itself is a special place, and that is unsatisfying.

So then you ask if there are more Universes, how many would there be?

I once tried to count as high as I could, and realized that it would never stop, after reading up on it, I learned about infinities, and hierarchies of infinities, and for some reason had an immediate impression that there is no reason for there to be 1, or more than 1 Universe if there is not an infinite number of them.

I was a strange kid, I guess.



I find it strange that the Universe should encourage stable forms of matter, which are complex enough to interact chemically, to produce feedback loops which make more of their kind and grow more complex over time.

There is no reason for that to happen.

[Kaylia]

Stop bringing up axioms and paradigms, it's pointless. For you to be talking with me at all requires countless assumed points about truth, reality, language. You've accepted them regardless of your personal feelings otherwise, because you are communicating with me on some level and to do so requires it. I've defined truth, reality, belief in great detail, the basis of the superfluous axioms you've presented. You know how I define them, it's the same as how you have to define them to be participating in this discourse. Stop pretending like rehashing this point is providing you with some intellectual high ground.

For you, to be talking about logical fallacies with me mean you've accepted, regardless of your personal feeling that an argument require logic tool.

You defined "truth" as anything you see in the "reality", then make what you call a reasonable argument that the only truth is what science observe. Good job champion, but what "truth" did you expect to find? I've been saying since the very beginning this is the only truth we need in sciences.


Theists believe there is something more than reality, and their beliefs is based on the fact that we can't explain the origin of its reality. You don't have agree with their beliefs, or attribute any importance to them, but saying it's flat out wrong can't be done most of the time.

[Melchiah]

I find it strange that the Universe should encourage stable forms of matter, which are complex enough to interact chemically, to produce feedback loops which make more of their kind and grow more complex over time.

There is no reason for that to happen.

Universe tends toward an increase in entropy, it doesn't chemically encourage biological reactions.

This assertion is based upon our definition of life however, which very well could be far off base in the larger scheme. We know life such as that present on Earth is ill-suited for existence on the other planets in our solar system, so our natural conclusion is that we are at least a 1/8 probability, but most likely much much lower.

[Kaylia]

It has been agreed upon in this thread that the terms faith and belief are to mean religious faith and religious belief, which are defined as ideas accepted as absolute truth that require no evidence, no observation and no testing to validate their acceptance as immutable.

How do you call the act of accepting the world as the only thing that can possibly exist then? I don't see any difference with the dictionary definition of belief, but if you want to call it something else, we can.

[B]No fucking shit we have to assume that what we observe is real. That is a foregone conclusion that the entire world works on. This is what kareface means when he says you are arguing the Matrix. If what we observe as reality were suddenly rendered false, science would of course have to adjust to a new method.

People didn't say "duh", they said it's wrong. I wouldnt have argued in the first place if they all agreed.

According to theist's belief, God is beyond this reality. No matter how far you push science, you wouldn't reach it. Look for "i" in the real number domain and you won't find it. It's the same assumption they make.

So yes, they are assuming the existance of a convenient reality (forgive me for the misuse of reality) outside this one.

To explore the other side, if we start out on the premise that our observed reality isn't real, what then? Observations are worthless at this point, we might as well be stuck in the Matrix.

That's why we set a cornerstone in science and build our understanding from there, no matter how relative it might be.


[edit]
In the end, do you agree with my initial statement? Or the only reason why you disagree is semantic? (kinda ironic if you ask me)

[Neosutra]

More like self referential structure within the manifold, just extending the recursive structure of this universe beyond it.

I find it strange that there is a Universe AT ALL, it seems unlikely to me for some reason, always has, and is in fact why I got interested in physics at such a young age.

If there is only one Universe, then the Copernican principle fails at it's boundary, for while we do not seem to be in a special place within the Universe, it itself is a special place, and that is unsatisfying.

So then you ask if there are more Universes, how many would there be?

I once tried to count as high as I could, and realized that it would never stop, after reading up on it, I learned about infinities, and hierarchies of infinities, and for some reason had an immediate impression that there is no reason for there to be 1, or more than 1 Universe if there is not an infinite number of them.

I was a strange kid, I guess.



I find it strange that the Universe should encourage stable forms of matter, which are complex enough to interact chemically, to produce feedback loops which make more of their kind and grow more complex over time.

There is no reason for that to happen.

Seems you follow the typical theist stigma of saying "we exist, thus there must be a purpose", except you've housed it in a bit more hand waving to attempt to place it in a bounds you can accept. Niether statement is backed by any evidence, and one can never say "things happened this way, thus there is a plan". Just because the physics/foundations of this universe laid out this way, doesnt mean this is some predestined way. Had things laid out differently, perhaps encouraging helium based life instead of carbon based, you may see 2 helium based life forms discussing wether there was a divine creator because the universe formed "just right to make them".

As stated before, life exists where the conditions to support it arise. You exist as a result of this universe, and if this universe formed another way, then perhaps another type of life would exist. Existance doesnt require pre-construction, divine creation, or cognitively aware manifolds. These are all cleverly designed memes to hide the true answer of "we dont know".

I dont claim to know the origins of this universe, or what dimensions are beyond it, and thus I find it irresponsible to place entities/structures there that are not warrented. If you find this system is to complex to have just developed this way, then your concept of a more advanced "manifold" is even more unlikely.

[Denchi]

I think Woozie makes a good clarification for this argument. A Priori vs A Posteriori. Kant goes even further with A Priori and breaks them up into A Priori Analytic and A Priori Synthetic. It's complicated, and I don't even fully understand it, but there are truths in this world that are, like Woozie said, A Priori, knowable without empirical evidence. There are elements of reason and the human mind that are not based on empirical evidence, and Kant, with his giant book, and many other people, hold to the truths gained through reason, and NOT through empirical evidence, as the most true in the universe.

Empirical evidence is hard to trust since observation is inherently subjective, and therefore can be hard to universalize. Just because I see something one way, doesn't mean that someone else sees it the same way. Sure there are things that people can generally agree upon, but only based on observation. We can see the Sun, but a blind person cannot. He would have to trust us to believe that a sun existed.

Science does change, and therefore cannot be infallible. If science was concrete, there there would be no need for scientific reform. But there is scientific reform, and it's constantly being improved and corrected, so how can it be that science is so solid? It's really not. It's great, and the scientific method is the heart of science, not the truths that are being disputed.

Although the scientific method is disputed universally too. Just a random excerpt

"In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method."

I don't deny the importance and how interesting science is, but science is not infallible, and it's not objective. Many people have said how the beauty of science it how it evolves, but doesn't that irk you that if science is always evolving, then we are constantly living in a false world view that will eventually be corrected? And then corrected again? Even now there's dispute about gravity and how everything may be electromagnetism. Cause and Effect being true except for that one time where there was a big bang. etc etc.

[Melchiah]

How do you call the act of accepting the world as the only thing that can possibly exist then? I don't see any difference with the dictionary definition of belief, but if you want to call it something else, we can.

We accept the observable as true until proven otherwise because we have to in order to make any kind of progress. We reject any other reality because we cannot observe it, and thus we cannot make measurements and delineate it. We do not say 100% that other realities do not exist, we say that until proven otherwise, the observable reality is the only one that matters, because it is the one in which we observe that we exist.

People didn't say "duh", they said it's wrong. I wouldnt have argued in the first place if they all agreed.

According to theist's belief, God is beyond this reality. No matter how far you push science, you wouldn't reach it. Look for "i" in the real number domain and you won't find it. It's the same assumption they make.

So yes, they are assuming the existance of a convenient reality (forgive me for the misuse of reality) outside this one.

You hit the nail on the head with that word convenient. A long time ago, someone observed a thunderstorm, and arrived at the erroneous conclusion of Zeus. A likely thought process would be something like "this is loud and violent, and I get loud and violent when I become angry. Therefore this event is the display of anger of some being. Since the power of this event far exceeds any destruction I can cause, this must be the anger of a very powerful being." or some other such faulty reasoning. This was the genesis(pun most definitely intended) of the god delusion. Someone experienced something that displayed more power than the observer, and a faulty conclusion was reached. Once the myths started becoming social norms, and centers of power, their needed to be a safeguard to protect that position and the power over others that it bestowed. Thus, the most convenient method was to remove question from the picture. The Hebrews did this by executing blasphemers, as did the Catholics. Currently, the church's position of power is protected by proclaiming their god to be beyond comprehension, and thus not subject to proof.

That's why we set a cornerstone in science and build our understanding from there, no matter how relative it might be.

Yeah... but everyone agrees that you must do this. Like was said earlier, we have to base our understanding in the reality that we observe. Any other concept of reality is frankly irrelevant, until such point as it or it's effects are observable.

[Neosutra]

I think Woozie makes a good clarification for this argument. A Priori vs A Posteriori. Kant goes even further with A Priori and breaks them up into A Priori Analytic and A Priori Synthetic. It's complicated, and I don't even fully understand it, but there are truths in this world that are, like Woozie said, A Priori, knowable without empirical evidence. There are elements of reason and the human mind that are not based on empirical evidence, and Kant, with his giant book, and many other people, hold to the truths gained through reason, and NOT through empirical evidence, as the most true in the universe.

Empirical evidence is hard to trust since observation is inherently subjective, and therefore can be hard to universalize. Just because I see something one way, doesn't mean that someone else sees it the same way. Sure there are things that people can generally agree upon, but only based on observation. We can see the Sun, but a blind person cannot. He would have to trust us to believe that a sun existed.

Science does change, and therefore cannot be infallible. If science was concrete, there there would be no need for scientific reform. But there is scientific reform, and it's constantly being improved and corrected, so how can it be that science is so solid? It's really not. It's great, and the scientific method is the heart of science, not the truths that are being disputed.

Although the scientific method is disputed universally too. Just a random excerpt

"In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method."

I don't deny the importance and how interesting science is, but science is not infallible, and it's not objective. Many people have said how the beauty of science it how it evolves, but doesn't that irk you that if science is always evolving, then we are constantly living in a false world view that will eventually be corrected? And then corrected again? Even now there's dispute about gravity and how everything may be electromagnetism. Cause and Effect being true except for that one time where there was a big bang. etc etc.

You keep referring to science as if it is some existential entity like religion.

The scientific method; i.e. the application of standards to hypothesis to determine which of our theories are realistic and which need to be discarded.

"Science" then is infallable, as it allows itself to be wrong and self correcting. Any specific principle in science however is completely fallable and no one here would argue other wise. Thats why we subscribe to it, because it requires no faith, and if evidence proves any of the principles wrong, we wipe them away.

You just took the exact arguments against religion and replaced the word religion with "science" in every sentence, in an attempt to equate the two, yet you fail with even your basic interpration by assuming "science" is some composite of all of it's principles, when it is truly nothing more than a methodology.

[Denchi]

I think the reality we observe is subjective and varies from person to person. Empirical data isn't interpreted the same by everyone everywhere, and therefore we have disputes. Stop trying to oversimplify the world.

Edit: Well I don't see an argument. If you want the believe the "infallible scientific method" which produces fallible results, then go ahead. The scientific method isn't infallible, but if you're content in your ignorance then go ahead. You essentially believe in nothing.

[Neosutra]

I think the reality we observe is subjective and varies from person to person. Empirical data isn't interpreted the same by everyone everywhere, and therefore we have disputes. Stop trying to oversimplify the world.

And the standards we place on our tests on this evidence is specifically designed to remove this difference in reference frames and give us an independent view of each hypothesis.

Stop trying to dellude the arguments and stop trying to convince people science is anything more than a methodology.

Science != Religion. End of discussion.

Also, what part of applying standards to what we determine is factual is a fallable practice?

Edit: To answer your question: I have FAITH in nothing, I believe in quite a few things. I wouldnt expect you to understand the difference. My "beliefs" are otherwise referred to as reasonable assumptions based on experience and observation, and are based on the evidence at hand. For instance, in this argument I "believe" you have no idea what you are talking about, due to your posts regurgitating what has been refutted a dozen times already in this thread, and your inability to not undertand that "science" is a methodology, and not a composite of all principles proven via these tests.

[Denchi]

I think the mere fact that people don't agree on what the scientific method can cover, and how to interpret certain data, leaves you no better than anyone else on this planet. The scientific community is full of people that disagree with each other and full of peer review and correction. Does that mean that the truths gained by science are always true? No. So you all disagree with each other, and it's constantly being corrected, how is this any superior to a faith-based world view?

You're right, one is a methodology based on empirical evidence, the other is an objective reality based on reason and faith. They're different, fine, but why is one better than the other? It's been concluded that faith and science are different, but most of what I'm hearing in this argument is that science is "VASTLY SUPERIOR TO RELIGON LAWL BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT." Which is uh.... ignorant...to say the least. I just don't see how you find yourself better off when you're faced with the same problems and difficulties as everyone else, and somehow "science" is the answer to everything.

You have faith that the observable universe is true. And that the preservation of life is "good" only because you don't know what happens when you die, because you can't observe it. There are plenty of parts of the universe that we can't observe, and probably never will be able to. Does that mean that they don't exist? Just because we can't observe God, does that mean he doesn't exist? We didn't know Pluto existed for a long time, so did it not exist until the very moment we discovered it? (Here in Flagstaff, I might add).

[Neosutra]

I think the mere fact that people don't agree on what the scientific method can cover, and how to interpret certain data, leaves you no better than anyone else on this planet. The scientific community is full of people that disagree with each other and full of peer review and correction. Does that mean that the truths gained by science are always true? No. So you all disagree with each other, and it's constantly being corrected, how is this any superior to a faith-based world view?

You're right, one is a methodology based on empirical evidence, the other is an objective reality based on reason and faith. They're different, fine, but why is one better than the other? It's been concluded that faith and science are different, but most of what I'm hearing in this argument is that science is "VASTLY SUPERIOR TO RELIGON LAWL BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT." Which is uh.... ignorant...to say the least. I just don't see how you find yourself better off when you're faced with the same problems and difficulties as everyone else, and somehow "science" is the answer to everything.

Holy butt fucking ape monkeys, read the thread and at least our responses to your post before you post the same crap again.

Science DOES NOT equal all the principles/theories that have come from the use of the scientific method.

Science = ONLY a methedology for applying standards to our hypothesis.

You cant say "oh well some of the hypothesis that are put forth are later discredited, thus the method is incorrect". The fact that they ARE discredited shows that the method is infact working.

Before you post again, go back and read the thread, write it down if you have too, read it back to yourself, ask "do I understand the words that Ive just read", then reform your argument to something less intellectually offensive.

[Denchi]

I read it, but you're only focusing on the part of my question that makes you sound angry and win the internet. I told you the METHOD ISNT FUCKING UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON. and, further than that, IT DOESNT ALWAYS PRODUCE CORRECT RESULTS.

So, again, why are you better off than everyone else? Or is it just your ability to belittle people and argue false premises? Or is it your awesome belief in a questionable method that produces sketchy results?