Faith and Reason.

[Kaylia]

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.


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.

I was asking for a word. I understand what the foundation behind sciences are. I just don't understand which word beside "belief" I am supposed to use to describe this act in my initial statement.

the observable reality is the only one that matters, because it is the one in which we observe that we exist.

Can we just agree that we are saying the same thing since the beginning? Aside semantic, the implication are the exact same

Assuming the "we" mean people who are doing sciences, and not everyone.

[Blubbartron]

I told you the METHOD ISNT FUCKING UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON. and, further than that, IT DOESNT ALWAYS PRODUCE CORRECT RESULTS.

I'm curious, who and where has the scientific method been questioned in the scientific community itself? As far as I know, it's still form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment to test said hypothesis, if hypothesis holds, test again a whole bunch of times, else reform hypothesis, then repeat.

Also, to claim that the scientific method is somehow worthless because it doesn't *always* produce correct results (on the first try) is retarded. And I have a feeling you either intentionally left out the parenthetical note there to further your argument, or you're just that fucking dumb that you don't realize the entire point of the process is to learn through trial and error.

[Melchiah]

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?

It's better because it assumes it's own fallibility, and it further assumes accountability for that fallibility. Religion does neither of these. That's why it's better.

When science fucks up, the world knows it, science admits it, corrects as best it can, and moves on.

When religion fucks up, it claims it was right all along, declares itself infallible because it is inspired by an infallible divinity, and stagnates not only within itself, but the world as a whole.

That's why science is better.

[Kaylia]

That's why science is better.

Why one is better than the other? Both contribute to reach the lowest state of entropy the same way.

[edit]
In reference to Neo's post many page ago, not Denchi's.

[Neosutra]

Why one is better than the other? Both contribute to reach the lowest state of entropy the same way.

[edit]
In reference to Neo's post many page ago, not Denchi's.

Both? What are you referring too kaylia?

[Kaylia]

Why does it even matter which one is the "best" out of the two when we are all working toward the lowest state of enthropy the same.

[Linliel]

Why does it even matter which one is the "best" out of the two when we are all working toward the lowest state of enthropy the same.

Uh... what?

[Kaylia]

Uh... what?

I am here for the same reason you are here: to consume and propogate. To most efficiently contribute to the lowest state of entropy.

This

[Neosutra]

No seriously, what are you talking about?

Best between what? I didnt give an either or, I wasnt comparing anything. My statement on "reason for being" didnt have anything to do with what was best, nor did it compare 2 things.

So again, what are you talking about?

[Melchiah]

Because religion thrives on oppressing knowledge and free thought. This is abhorrent.

[kareface]

Why one is better than the other?

Results.

I just don't understand which word beside "belief" I am supposed to use to describe this act in my initial statement.

Axiom is actually a good word for it. But something that is self evident is not lacking evidence. As such, it's a point of logic, b = b. There is nothing self evident in, "god created the heavens and the earth".

Can we just agree that we are saying the same thing since the beginning? Aside semantic, the implication are the exact same

Assuming the "we" mean people who are doing sciences, and not everyone

Yes and no. You want to bind the foundation of science with belief. I've given examples as to why this is false, but you continue with this correlation.

In the end, do you agree with my initial statement? Or the only reason why you disagree is semantic?

It's not an act of belief to assume I exist. Nor is it to assume that reality is only what we are capable of perceiving. There is evidence to support those claims. To ponder existence, I must first exist. Even if reality differs from what we can perceive, we can only deal with the reality that we can test using our senses and the natural realm.

So, for A to be possible, A must be true. Compare that to the beliefs of theist. For us to exist, a god must of created us. That statement isn't self evident. Because there are ways we can come into existence with out the work of a god, and that outcome is much more likely given the dubious nature of religious claims.

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.

How does that differ from psychosis? How can you differentiate it from delusion? It's not psychotic to assume existence. Nor to assume reality. The assumptions aren't based on nothing. That's why the axioms aren't based on belief, but logic or truth.

How do you call the act of accepting the world as the only thing that can possibly exist then?

Because if you accept the supernatural, there is no limit to what claims can be made possible. There is no way to test the validity of the statements. If you can provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural, by all means. Because of the idiom of reality, we can draw a logical starting point. It doesn't matter what you want to call it. Just as long as it's understood that it's not something that requires faith to justify.

You defined "truth" as anything you see in the "reality"

Wrong again champ. I said:
"s such, the majority of planet has agreed that truth represents that which can describe reality or fact. Reality is that which we can interpret through our senses and technologies."
It's not "anything you can see". It is, "anything that accurately describes reality". My words.

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

Where does that line of logic lead us.

"we can't explain the origin of its reality"

I know, we are a cosmic fart from the magic water buffalo in the sky.

"we can't explain the origin of its reality"

We are the crumbs of the mystical doughnut of truth.

"we can't explain the origin of its reality"

We were all created by any other possible explanation.

The problem is, if we know this, then we know the answer to existence. We can just stop there. Why bother looking for the truth when it's already been provided to us. I'm tired of the god of the gaps argument. Theism previously explained the origin of the world, and the origin of man just like it claimed the origin of the universe. How well has that worked out? How can you believe that theism offers any real answers when it's been proven wrong time and time again.

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.

This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen you say thus far. You keep rehashing assumptions drawn by science about reality, but you have to draw the EXACT SAME assumptions to be talking with me. This discussion alone proves my point.

Why does it even matter which one is the "best"

Why science is better the religion: Results

Religions model of nature:
Origin of man: Completely inaccurate
Origin of the earth: Completely inaccurate
Origin of the solar system: Completely inaccurate
Time line of earths existence: Completely inaccurate
Ability to predict accurate outcomes of events: Completely inaccurate
Origins of the Universe: Unknown, but given the accuracy of the medium, likely untrue.
Conclusion: Something is more likely to be wrong with the foundation if this paradigm, because nothing it produces seems to provide any truth.

Sciences model of nature:
Origin of man: The most accurate understanding we have
Origin of the earth: The most accurate understanding we have
Origin of the solar system: The most accurate understanding we have
Time line of earths existence: The most accurate understanding we have
Ability to predict accurate outcomes of events: The most accurate understanding we have
Origins of the Universe: Unknown, but not regarded as unknowable.
Conclusion: Any assumptions drawn as the framework must have some degree of truth, as the results wouldn't be so consistently accurate otherwise.

Every truth religion has offered us in the past had to be disproved under great scrutiny from the dogmatic. The willingness to believe the truths of theism is what hindered our enlightenment. So here's my question. If Religion in anyway inhibits science, why should it be given the light of day? What accurate information was forged from faith? What great truth has religion provided? What better understanding of physical universe has god relayed to us? If he is truly supernatural, how is it possible he's conveyed anything to you at all?

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

[Denchi]

Religions model of nature:
Origin of man: Wait, religion, or Christianity? And what makes you think all Christians take the bible to be literal, or religious people in general?
Origin of the earth: Same
Origin of the solar system: If you like to misinterpret parables, then that's your problem
Time line of earths existence: Hi I generalize everything
Ability to predict accurate outcomes of events: pretty colors
Origins of the Universe: You don't know, but you might know, later, someday, based off of scientific axioms that are unprovable
Conclusion: Kinda missing the point

Sciences model of nature:
Origin of man: Interesting, but doesn't tell me how I ought to live
Origin of the earth: Interesting, but doesn't tell me how to treat my fellow man
Origin of the solar system: Interesting, but not useful in attributing value to anything in this solar system
Time line of earths existence: Interesting, but also debated, there have been studies where carbon dating and other methods have failed horrifically. But generally accepted, which still doesn't tell me anything about the way I ought to live
Ability to predict accurate outcomes of events: really?
Origins of the Universe: Even if we do find out someday, it certainly won't answer the "why"
Conclusion: You're right, science does a pretty good job of describing things. Kind of not what we're talking about here. If you want to argue against Christianity in particular, then please make it clear instead of making blanket statements

This chart is fun

Edit: Also, the scientific method is self correcting. k. So as a "Scientist" why should we treat each other with respect? Why should we share things? or should we? Why is the preservation of life the most important thing? Should we all be pacifists? Should we all be scientists? Can I be an artist? Can I draw pictures of gross things? Is that ok?

If you pretend science can answer those things, independent of moral differences or claims, then you're just wrong. There's no objectivity in answering those questions. If you think morals are relative, and science is the only thing that's solid, then you're kidding yourself. So to say "I believe in science" is an empty statement. Science doesn't address those things, you do.

[Linliel]

This chart is fun

*facepalm* You seem to have missed the part where we're talking about nature, not value systems!

And secularists/atheists can have perfectly fine value systems, and can easily assign value to things without having to have religion. It's just that religion packages a value system up in to an easy to digest manner, along with a lot of other stuff. Non-religious people just need to think about theirs a little more, which is arguably a better way to develop and feel justified in practising a particular value system anyway.

I'm atheist but I still think it's a good idea to treat others like I'd like to be treated (taken from a long tradition of ethical philosophy, but nicely wrapped up in Christianity in Jesus' saying), along with a whole bunch of other moral imperatives (I won't work for companies that leech off the misery of others, such as gambling or tobacco industry, for example).

[Denchi]

Ah yes "The Golden Rule" which sounds nice, until you meet a masochist.

If you get to study and make up your own moral sets, then everyone else should be able to as well.

If it's so easy, then why aren't we all Kantians? Or Utilitarianists?

Edit again: And you're right, science is better than religion at describing the observable universe. That's just my opinion, anyways. But my point was that although interesting, it certainly would never lead me to "believe in science" because as I said, that's an empty statement.

[Kaylia]

Axiom is actually a good word for it. But something that is self evident is not lacking evidence. As such, it's a point of logic, b = b. There is nothing self evident in, "god created the heavens and the earth".

Axiom is the mathematical term to represent an absolute truth. I don't mind using it here, but you were saying earlier we can't talk about absolute truth.

It's not an act of belief to assume I exist. Nor is it to assume that reality is only what we are capable of perceiving. There is evidence to support those claims. To ponder existence, I must first exist. Even if reality differs from what we can perceive, we can only deal with the reality that we can test using our senses and the natural realm.

Again, a philosophical argument is not an "evidence" in the scientific sense.

Criteria of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Primary truths
There are three "primary truths" inherently accepted in the investigation of knowledge and truth. They are the first fact (the fact of our existence), the first principle (the principle of non-contradiction) and the first condition (the ability of the mind to know truth). They cannot be validated with positive proof, as they are an inherent in every analysis. As a demonstration of their a priori nature, a person objecting to these essential truths cannot set a standard of proof without implicitly accepting the premises

Woud you disagree with this epistemology statement?

So, for A to be possible, A must be true. Compare that to the beliefs of theist. For us to exist, a god must of created us. That statement isn't self evident. Because there are ways we can come into existence with out the work of a god, and that outcome is much more likely given the dubious nature of religious claims.

The origin of this world isn't a self-evidence either. We can only observe the causality chain.

[Linliel]

Ah yes "The Golden Rule" which sounds nice, until you meet a masochist.

If you get to study and make up your own moral sets, then everyone else should be able to as well.

If it's so easy, then why aren't we all Kantians? Or Utilitarianists?

Edit again: And you're right, science is better than religion at describing the observable universe. That's just my opinion, anyways. But my point was that although interesting, it certainly would never lead me to "believe in science" because as I said, that's an empty statement.

Well, I'm not a masochist, so I think you'll be okay.

And people do make up their own moral sets all the time. It's just that most of the time, people aren't dicks, so we have banded together on a bunch of basic moral values, established a system to run our communities, devised laws, etc. etc. and somehow the world isn't (on the whole) a lawless nasty place to live in. In fact, in devising these, in Western countries at least, there is a distinct effort to separate religion from the state. So there must be something to work with outside of religion that makes us generally agree on how to live our lives.

We probably are all Kantians and utilitarians to a certain degree. You might feel you have a duty to do something, such as not tell a lie, or to follow the law; that's pretty Kantian (loosely speaking). You might do something that's not so "good" now in expectation of a better outcome for more people in the future. That's pretty utilitarian (once again, loosely speaking).

You don't need religion for a value system. Religion just comes with its own value system, some of the bits are good ("love your neighbour"), some not so good ("adulterers should be stoned"). And religions pick and choose from those as well. But they're all modelled on much older value systems that are inherent to human society. Aristotle wrote his Nicomachean Ethics well before Jesus romped onto the scene, and many religions have very similar statements about how to treat other people, so there is certainly underlying similarities even amongst quite different religions.

[Kaylia]

How does that differ from psychosis? How can you differentiate it from delusion? It's not psychotic to assume existence. Nor to assume reality. The assumptions aren't based on nothing. That's why the axioms aren't based on belief, but logic or truth.

In this sense, you can't differentiate them. The only difference come from the question they were originally trying to answer. One is born from confusion, the other is proposing one axiom (God) to explain the structure of the causality chain (world) we are observing.

The problem is, if we know this, then we know the answer to existence. We can just stop there. Why bother looking for the truth when it's already been provided to us. I'm tired of the god of the gaps argument. Theism previously explained the origin of the world, and the origin of man just like it claimed the origin of the universe. How well has that worked out? How can you believe that theism offers any real answers when it's been proven wrong time and time again.

Is it possible for a physicist to look for a scientifical truth while believing in a particular religion?

If yes, how do you explain that we can make science progress while believing in God?

It's not "anything you can see". It is, "anything that accurately describes reality". My words.

Same thing.

Every truth religion has offered us in the past had to be disproved under great scrutiny from the dogmatic.

Is it possible to that you're confusing the political religion (organisation) to the actual concept behind religion?

Our understanding of mathematics and logics has evolved greatly over the last 2000 years, and almost everything was redefined, including religion. Religion won't propose axiom that contradict logics, or the reality axioms.

[Kaylia]

No seriously, what are you talking about?

Best between what? I didnt give an either or, I wasnt comparing anything. My statement on "reason for being" didnt have anything to do with what was best, nor did it compare 2 things.

So again, what are you talking about?

I am here for the same reason you are here: to consume and propogate. To most efficiently contribute to the lowest state of entropy.

No, but if this is the only axiom you use to define your existance, can you tell me what reasoning lead you to believe that one thing is better than the other. In this case, religion vs science.

[kareface]

Axiom is the mathematical term to represent an absolute truth. I don't mind using it here, but you were saying earlier we can't talk about absolute truth.

Jesus dude, you're just full of fallacies. Just because absolute truths exist in mathematics does not mean all of mathematics represents absolute truth. Where does it define axiom as absolute truth? It doesn't matter what term you use, just understand that the basis does not rely on faith. Make up a word for all I care.

Woud you disagree with this epistemology statement?

The question really is do you. You do realize that is exactly what I've said. Certain truths must be accepted before anything can be evaluated or demonstrated. You are the only one here that seems to believe otherwise.

The origin of this world isn't a self-evidence either. We can only observe the causality chain.

What are you even talking about. What you said had nothing to do with the quote, and has no bearing on anything I've said.

In this sense, you can't differentiate them. The only difference come from the question they were originally trying to answer. One is born from confusion, the other is proposing one axiom (God) to explain the structure of the causality chain (world) we are observing.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the delusion is. When did it ever? You make it sound as if I intend nothing but good things that it should be differentiated. A delusion is a delusion, it doesn't matter if it's all smiles and rainbows, or if it's Armageddon.

Is it possible for a physicist to look for a scientifical truth while believing in a particular religion?

If yes, how do you explain that we can make science progress while believing in God?

You have to ignore the tenets of your religion. Why do you think the religious sites have worked so diligently to undermine evolution, one of the most widely accepted and agreed upon theories in the entire scientific community. Are you saying it's impossible for humans to do things that are contradiction? Can I not love someone and still cheat on them?

Same thing.

No, not all observations accurately represent reality as a whole. Relativity is key here. Inaccurate observations, perspective even delusion has to be addressed. Even if I swear up and down I've seen a flying pig, I would have to question the validity of my own observation if I was unable to reproduce or quantify it.

Religion won't propose axiom that contradict logics, or the reality axioms.

Any claims that religion makes that manifest themselves can be subject to logic. Theism makes the claim that there is not only a god, but he intervenes in our existence in some way or another. Otherwise you'd simply be a Deist. This can be measured, whether it's prayer, worship, miracles, any action that a supernatural being taken upon the natural realm can be subject to logic.

http://stomped.com/mini/wrong2.jpg

[Linliel]

Even if I swear up and down I've seen a flying pig, I would have to question the validity of my own observation if I was unable to reproduce or quantify it.

I saw the flying pig too! Let's start a religion!