A religious scientist

Originally posted by The Dude 84
There is no god, and religion is useless. Get over it.

how do you know?

and religion cannot be useless if it exists, even by your standards....

Originally posted by Penguin
Still waiting for a decent explanation of why Christianity is not a religion but Freaky seems to have diverted the discussion down a back alley. Maybe he's hoping that if he stalls and digresses for long enough the'll all forget that he ever made that claim...

--- Penguin.

This is beneath you. You have already failed at assigning a non-religious definition for naturalism, whereas I have offered you a definition by which Christianity would not be called a religion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is beneath you. You have already failed at assigning a non-religious definition for naturalism, whereas I have offered you a definition by which Christianity would not be called a religion.

I think the relevant post is on page10, thread id 1502837 (sorry, I have mot figured out how to get a direct link to that post).

In it, I suggested that the definition you offered in order to qualify science as a religion: "a belief system involving belief in a creator", was for one thing like defining a mammal as 'something that eats grass', ie a complete departure from any accepted meaning of the term in question and secondly (pointed out in an earlier post) still fails to encompass naturalism since naturalism does not imply belief in any creator.

You have ignored the above 2 points entirely.

I don't think I need to assign a non-religious definition for naturalism but if you insist, naturalism is a subset of the set of belief systems based entirely on natural phenomena whereas religions are a subset of the set of belief systems that are based on concepts of supernatural phenomena, usually involving some kind of deity.

By the way, it's possible that I am not a naturalist anyway since I have not read through all the tenets of that position it is possible that there are some that I do not subscribe to. I do believe that we cannot ever know if our understanding of the world is The True Situation and the scientific method is the best way we have to discover if our understanding is False.

Another point I raised in the above post that you have ignored is the following:

You said "Sounds like question begging to me. And the point source came from... ?"
and I replied "We don't know. And that is a perfectly valid statement to make. Just because you don't know is no reason at all to believe in any particular bogeyman. It is reason however to try to come up with hypotheses that can be tested and thrown out. Any specific explanation that cannot be tested has exactly the same value as any other explanation that cannot be tested."

And my final point from that post: "I was not trying to suggest that Pastafarianism was a winner. I was pointing out that it has as much truth value as any other supernatural belief system, including yours. If it is impossible to distinguish between a universe where the FSM (or God, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor, Woden, the Wheel of Life, etc etc) exists and one where the above do not, then they they are all equally valid. If you discount the FSM as ridiculous then you must discount all the others as well."
you responded that one of us has not thought his faith through properly which I think is a fairly crap response. If you cannot point out the error in my reasoning above then its either you who has not thought things through or both of us (a possibility that had obviously not ocured to you since I had to point it out). We might also both be right but I can't see how that would work at the moment since our positions seem to be diametrically opposed.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is beneath you. You have already failed at assigning a non-religious definition for naturalism, whereas I have offered you a definition by which Christianity would not be called a religion.

Actually, you have had to go way out on a limb to invent a definition of religion that exludes Chritianity: "A belief system requiring effort for salvation". This is a definition I have never heard before and would like some references to confirm that it is a recognised definition by anyone other than yourself, analagous to my definition of a mammal as 'something that eats grass'. Also, I'm pretty sure that it does not actually exclude Chritianity! Correct me if I am wrong but are there not branches of Christianity that hold that you cannot be saved unless you have been baptised?

And Naturalism is easily shown to be non-religious by refering to any recognised defitions of naturalism and religion (see my previous post). You have only made it a religion by using another unusual definition for religion, "belief in a creator", along with a misrepresentation of the tenets of Naturalism since naturalism says nothing about how or indeed whether the universe was created.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I think the relevant post is on page10, thread id 1502837 (sorry, I have mot figured out how to get a direct link to that post).

In it, I suggested that the definition you offered in order to qualify science as a religion: "a belief system involving belief in a creator", was for one thing like defining a mammal as 'something that eats grass', ie a complete d ...[text shortened]... the moment since our positions seem to be diametrically opposed.

--- Penguin.[/b]

... still fails to encompass naturalism since naturalism does not imply belief in any creator.
Naturalism requires creation, either self- or external agency of some kind.

While some go to elaborate lengths to avoid the question altogether--- concerning themselves strictly with what is, not with how what is came to be--- ignoring the impetus for the existence of the physical realm is akin to pretending the elephant isn't in the room.

Because the universe had a starting point, we can fairly conclude one of at least two things: something acted upon that pinpoint to facilitate its creative explosion, or something within the pinpoint forced the same. If the first scenario is correct, we have a creator. If the second is correct, we have matter behaving in a manner inconsistent with observable patterns of any kind known to man--- acting supernatural, in other words.

I do believe that we cannot ever know if our understanding of the world is The True Situation and the scientific method is the best way we have to discover if our understanding is False.
In the lecture you're involved with now, the professor alludes several times to the perfect instrument, which is the essence of what you are saying here. To a degree, I agree that we face an uncertainty certainty quandry. However, I disagree with the notion that the scientific method is the preferred method for clarification of any and all truth.

The shortfalls of the scientific method are many, a few of which as follows. A purely trial-and-error (sans faith) approach to life is simply stupidity in action. Not only would we see no progress, there is an assumption of patience which reality contradicts.

Equally problematic for a scientific approach is determining definitions within a closed system: upon what are even the elementary concepts to be based?

Any specific explanation that cannot be tested has exactly the same value as any other explanation that cannot be tested."
All things should be tested. But how? You say the Bible (and, specifically, its stated miracles) cannot be tested: does this mean they are not historical? Are present conditions the only arbiter of truth?

If it is impossible to distinguish between a universe where the FSM (or God, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor, Woden, the Wheel of Life, etc etc) exists and one where the above do not, then they they are all equally valid.
This point has been addressed, along the lines of testing the truth claims for any of those mentioned, among other considerations. An assumption of validity exists until such time as other verifiable facts more strongly contradict the original statement.

The bearing any of the above might have on mankind presents obvious contrasts. Who has acted in time? If action has occured, what were the implications then and how do those actions impact now? What (if anything) do any within the group say about the human condition? Is their description consistent with human history? Do they offer a remedy to life's obvious pains?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because the universe had a starting point, we can fairly conclude one of at least two things: something acted upon that pinpoint to facilitate its creative explosion, or something within the pinpoint forced the same. If the first scenario is correct, we have a creator. If the second is correct, we have matter behaving in a manner inconsistent with observable patterns of any kind known to man--- acting supernatural, in other words.

That is a popular fallacy.

1. In your first option, you went 'before' the starting point but that means it was not a starting point. You also assumed the existence of something 'outside' the universe - again, does this not mean that you failed to cover the whole universe?

2. In your second scenario you make unproven assumptions about the rules of space time and also make the false claim that if something is not known to man then it is supernatural.

In both scenarios you are assuming that everything must be caused which again is a totally unproven claim which is not consistent with modern physics at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a popular fallacy.

1. In your first option, you went 'before' the starting point but that means it was not a starting point. You also assumed the existence of something 'outside' the universe - again, does this not mean that you failed to cover the whole universe?

2. In your second scenario you make unproven assumptions about the rules of sp ...[text shortened]... which again is a totally unproven claim which is not consistent with modern physics at all.

... but that means it was not a starting point. You also assumed the existence of something 'outside' the universe - again, does this not mean that you failed to cover the whole universe?
As is currently understood, we are able to extrapolate backwards from present to an actual starting point for the universe. Some have likened matter's original state as a pinprick (or less). As far as we can tell, all matter began from that pinprick, thus prior to the explosion of that dense genesis, no matter existed. That concept shouldn't be as problematic as you're making it sound.

2. In your second scenario you make unproven assumptions about the rules of space time and also make the false claim that if something is not known to man then it is supernatural.
And those assumptions are... ?

In both scenarios you are assuming that everything must be caused which again is a totally unproven claim which is not consistent with modern physics at all.
An unproven claim? I wonder what standard you're employing. Perhaps you can offer an example of something which exists although not caused.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]... still fails to encompass naturalism since naturalism does not imply belief in any creator.
Naturalism requires creation, either self- or external agency of some kind.

While some go to elaborate lengths to avoid the question altogether--- concerning themselves strictly with what is, not with how what is came to be--- ignoring the impetus for description consistent with human history? Do they offer a remedy to life's obvious pains?[/b]

Because the universe had a starting point, we can fairly conclude one of at least two things: something acted upon that pinpoint to facilitate its creative explosion, or something within the pinpoint forced the same. If the first scenario is correct, we have a creator. If the second is correct, we have matter behaving in a manner inconsistent with observable patterns of any kind known to man--- acting supernatural, in other words.

Maybe it's been expanding & contracting, effectively bouncing off itself forever? That does not require a creator or an uncaused event. We simply don't know. The scientific way is to formulate hypotheses of how it might work and then find ways to test them to see if they are wrong. No other way has been invented that provides anything close to the same confidence.

In the lecture you're involved with now, the professor alludes several times to the perfect instrument, which is the essence of what you are saying here. To a degree, I agree that we face an uncertainty certainty quandry. However, I disagree with the notion that the scientific method is the preferred method for clarification of any and all truth.

I'd like to talk about this in a new thread when I have finished them. However for the moment I will just say that I have never said that the scientific method is the perfect instrument. It is far from perfect since it cannot provide absolute knowledge of The Truth. However, it is by far the most reliable method yet found for uncovering falsehood.

Equally problematic for a scientific approach is determining definitions within a closed system: upon what are even the elementary concepts to be based?

This is partly why it cannot provide certain knowledge of The Truth. However, those elementary concepts can be tested just as much as the theories built on them. If the tests fail then either the initial assumptions or the theory itself is not The Truth. If they do not fail, then although we cannot say the assumptions and theory are The truth, they could at the very least be a useful abstraction. Useful enough to build and place our lives in the hands of satellite GPS, car brakes and kidney dialasis machines build and run using them.

All things should be tested. But how? You say the Bible (and, specifically, its stated miracles) cannot be tested: does this mean they are not historical? Are present conditions the only arbiter of truth?

The only arbiter of truth is 'does it work?'. Does it predict events and phenomena that are observed? And if it does, all you can say is 'it might be true'. All miracles thus far either can be explained using natural scientific theories, or they show no evidence that they ever happened (there is plenty of evidence of past widespread flooding in biblical areas but no evidence whatsoever of a global flood)

An assumption of validity exists until such time as other verifiable facts more strongly contradict the original statement.

So we must believe in the flying spaghetti monster because nothing in pastafarianism can be disproved?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Because the universe had a starting point, we can fairly conclude one of at least two things: something acted upon that pinpoint to facilitate its creative explosion, or something within the pinpoint forced the same. If the first scenario is correct, we have a creator. If the second is correct, we have matter behaving in a manner inconsistent with observab ...[text shortened]... ng spaghetti monster because nothing in pastafarianism can be disproved?

--- Penguin.

Maybe it's been expanding & contracting, effectively bouncing off itself forever? That does not require a creator or an uncaused event. We simply don't know.
Thus, action required of an object inconsistent with known behavior of said object. Such a rendering eliminates any characterization other than supernatural inaccurate.

However, it is by far the most reliable method yet found for uncovering falsehood.
Wrong. The scientific method is emphatically the deadliest of all methods a man could employ.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

Wrong. The scientific method is emphatically the deadliest of all methods a man could employ.
I must agree. The other day I almost lost an arm when I was questioning my hypothesis.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Maybe it's been expanding & contracting, effectively bouncing off itself forever? That does not require a creator or an uncaused event. We simply don't know.
Thus, action required of an object inconsistent with known behavior of said object. Such a rendering eliminates any characterization other than supernatural inaccurate.

However, ...[text shortened]... Wrong. The scientific method is emphatically the deadliest of all methods a man could employ.

Einstein posited behaviour of space and time that was inconsistent with the known behaviour of space and time at that point. Does that mean that relativity theory was supernatural? No.

I'd like some justification of your suggestion that the scientific method is the deadliest. I'd say that science and the scientific method is neutral. What we do with the knowledge it gives us can be deadly but science itself is not.

Could you respond to some of the other points in the previous posts?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I'd like some justification of your suggestion that the scientific method is the deadliest.

He's talking in Christian-speak. He means spiritual death which means immortal life in hell. If you ask too many questions (scientific method) then you will not believe in God and will end up in Hell. Simple.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As is currently understood, we are able to extrapolate backwards from present to an actual starting point for the universe. Some have likened matter's original state as a pinprick (or less). As far as we can tell, all matter began from that pinprick, thus prior to the explosion of that dense genesis, no matter existed. That concept shouldn't be as problematic as you're making it sound.

The concept is problematic because time started at the same 'pinprick' as matter and you were extrapolating into time that does (did?) not exist.


And those assumptions are... ?
Your scenario was "or something within the pinpoint forced the same".
The assumption here is that for anything to happen in the universe it must necessarily be forced / caused by something in the universe.

An unproven claim? I wonder what standard you're employing. Perhaps you can offer an example of something which exists although not caused.
The whole universe perhaps. Perhaps you can offer a counter example of something which exists that is known to have a cause?
In fact Quantum physics is founded on the fact that everything is in fact random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
He's talking in Christian-speak. He means spiritual death which means immortal life in hell. If you ask too many questions (scientific method) then you will not believe in God and will end up in Hell. Simple.

"Christian-speak?" How positively ignorant of you.

The scientific method--- strictly speaking--- is trial by error. Some great examples of such lunacy are the methods used to determine whether or not a person accused of witchcraft was, indeed, a witch.

And that's just for starters. What of the assumption that one knows the right questions to ask?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The concept is problematic because time started at the same 'pinprick' as matter and you were extrapolating into time that does (did?) not exist.


[b]And those assumptions are... ?
Your scenario was "or something within the pinpoint forced the same".
The assumption here is that for anything to happen in the universe it must necessarily be forced ...[text shortened]... a cause?
In fact Quantum physics is founded on the fact that everything is in fact random.[/b]

The assumption here is that for anything to happen in the universe it must necessarily be forced / caused by something in the universe.
It's an either/or proposition, really. Either something within the pinprick compelled the explosion, or something outside forced the same.

The whole universe perhaps. Perhaps you can offer a counter example of something which exists that is known to have a cause?
The whole universe perhaps! That is akin to declaring words have no relationship to letters whatsoever.