religious people don't care about truth

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Science derives from the assumption that we are able to understand the world around us,

An assumption that presumes omniscience.

Science does make assumptions like that, yes. That is why we need Philosophy to keep it in check. Philosophy questions everything, including itself. So even if you argue that Philosophy makes assumptions that presume omniscience, or anything like that, you are making a Philosophical claim, I think.

Science makes assumptions such as: there is an external world; we can rely on our senses to tell us things about the world etc. If these assumptions are correct, then science is a reliable, objective method of gaining knowledge about the world. Philosophers can determine whether these assumptions are correct.

I am sure that plenty of scientists understand that they are making questionable philosophical assumptions when they use the scientific method, and this understanding means that science is not faith-based like religion. Scientists will all have their personal beliefs, but when they are writing up scientific reports, they are not officially making claims that "so-and-so is true." They are claiming that "the evidence seems to point towards this being true."

Science is very unlike religion in that it attempts to be empirical and objective. And Philosophy is completely different to religion, in that absolutely everything is open to debate.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Science derives from the assumption that we are able to understand the world around us,

An assumption that presumes omniscience.

Incorrect.

I said, 'able' to understand the world around us. I did not say that we 'already' understand 'everything' about the world around us.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
It removes the bias that we are superior or inferior to anything in nature,

Not really.

Yes. Really. I just think you don't understand my usage of "superior" and "inferior".

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Science reveals an elegance and mystery to nature which profoundly supersedes anything offered by religious dogma,

Thus contradicting 'we can understand everything about the world around us.' But providing comic relief.

I said "can" understand the world around us, not "do" understand the world around us. There's a big difference. You're obviously missing it. Maybe that's why you misinterpred the opening remark as omniscience.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
and it leaves open the possibility of spiritual aspects beyond its own bounds.

Not often acknowledged, but good. In practice, though, this is ignored because everything is assumed to have natural causes only.

It's always acknowledged. Science must build from a foundation of naturalism, but it can never conclude that the supernatural does not exist. That is beyond the pervue of science, and everyone that understands science knows it.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Science is both freeing, and enlightening.

Freeing from what?

Freeing from the bias of perceiving things as a human. Freedom to see the world as it really is, without assumptions or dogma. The only assumption is naturalism, and it's unavoidable. But I admit it's an assumption (if we want to argue this point we should move to the philosophy forum).

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
But it pulls no punches,

Actually it pulls quite a few.

Name one.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
so if you're insecure, and need to believe something to bolster your ego as a *special* part of nature, then close your eyes and sit back down on the pew, because it's probably not for you

Typical slam. If you're so secure, 'twould seem to be unnecessary.

Sorry, it was a bit of a slam. But it's also a complaint I have about religion. Many people do use it as an excuse to boost their ego by convincing themselves that they are somehow *special* in a supernatural way. Do you think I'm incorrect in saying that?

Many people use their scientific background as an excuse to boost their ego by convincing themselves that they are somehow *special* in an intellectual way, and that if everyone simply *understood* what they believe, then everyone would believe it too and see it their way.

The assumption that the only ones who reject evolution are those who don't *understand* it has been a constant theme of your posts.

How is this much different from the ego boosting that you find distasteful from others?

As for the 'freedom from the bias of perceiving things as a human', you made me chuckle. Thanks.

And you still contradict yourself by claiming to be free from assumptions, but then claiming that an assumption of naturalism is 'unavoidable'. It's not. It's a choice you've made.

I have no problem with the idea that science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and causes.

But the conclusion that everything therefore must have only a natural cause doesn't logically follow.

To a man with a hammer, everything LOOKS like a nail. But it's not.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

[Yesterday, I posted something dorky about good scientists having "faith in reason", or whatever. I would just like to go ahead and retract that, now, if I may. I now think that science relies on reason not out of faith, but necessity. Thank you. ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intrepid,
You stated that in science, "everything is assumed to have natural causes only". Is there an alternative? What is an "unnatural" or "supernatural cause"?
[pardon me, rosborne, for cutting in]

Echi,
I think you are somewhat confused here. I didn't say anything about natural causes. Perhaps you should go back and see who really said that.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Many people use their scientific background as an excuse to boost their ego by convincing themselves that they are somehow *special* in an intellectual way, and that if everyone simply *understood* what they believe, then everyone would believe it too and see it their way.

Touche.

I agree. There are ego trips on both sides.

real life wrote:

The assumption that the only ones who reject evolution are those who don't *understand* it has been a constant theme of your posts.

How is this much different from the ego boosting that you find distasteful from others?

Because I'm only basing it on examples found here in the forum. It's a statistical observation.

Name someone on this forum who understands the theory of evolution, and yet rejects the basic concept.

real life wrote:

And you still contradict yourself by claiming to be free from assumptions, but then claiming that an assumption of naturalism is 'unavoidable'. It's not. It's a choice you've made.

You are misreading things. Naturalism is unavoidable in science. But naturalism is not unavoidable as a philosophical choice. I wish you would slow down and read more carefully.

real life wrote:

I have no problem with the idea that science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and causes.

Good.

real life wrote:

But the conclusion that everything therefore must have only a natural cause doesn't logically follow.

Within the realm of science it does.

Science can only posit theories which are naturalistic.

Science can neither confirm or deny theories outside of naturalism.

People however can choose to believe whatever they want to believe. If you want to believe in magic, but limit yourself to science when trying to understand things, you can do that, and many people do. But the science you use to measure things will never address any issues in your larger belief structure.

real life wrote:

To a man with a hammer, everything LOOKS like a nail. But it's not.

I've always liked that quote. But it doesn't apply here.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Many people use their scientific background as an excuse to boost their ego by convincing themselves that they are somehow *special* in an intellectual way, and that if everyone simply *understood* what they believe, then everyone would believe it too and see it their way.

Touche.

I agree. There are ego trips on both sides.

real life wrote:
The assumption that the only ones who reject evolution are those who don't *understand* it has been a constant theme of your posts.

How is this much different from the ego boosting that you find distasteful from others?

Because I'm only basing it on examples found here in the forum. It's a statistical observation.

Name someone on this forum who understands the theory of evolution, and yet rejects the basic concept.

Me.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
And you still contradict yourself by claiming to be free from assumptions, but then claiming that an assumption of naturalism is 'unavoidable'. It's not. It's a choice you've made.

You are misreading things. Naturalism is unavoidable in science. But naturalism is not unavoidable as a philosophical choice. I wish you would slow down and read more carefully.

real life wrote:
I have no problem with the idea that science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and causes.

Good.

real life wrote:
But the conclusion that everything therefore must have only a natural cause doesn't logically follow.

Within the realm of science it does.

That is assuming that everything is within the realm of science. An unwarranted assumption.

rosborne979 wrote:

Science can only posit theories which are naturalistic.

Science can neither confirm or deny theories outside of naturalism.

People however can choose to believe whatever they want to believe. If you want to believe in magic, but limit yourself to science when trying to understand things, you can do that, and many people do. But the science you use to measure things will never address any issues in your larger belief structure.

real life wrote:
To a man with a hammer, everything LOOKS like a nail. But it's not.

I've always liked that quote. But it doesn't apply here.

See above.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

echi wrote:
[Yesterday, I posted something dorky about good scientists having "faith in reason", or whatever. I would just like to go ahead and retract that, now, if I may. I now think that science relies on reason not out of faith, but necessity. Thank you. ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intrepid,
You stated that in science, "everything is assumed to have natural causes only". Is there an alternative? What is an "unnatural" or "supernatural cause"?
[pardon me, rosborne, for cutting in]

Echi,
I think you are somewhat confused here. I didn't say anything about natural causes. Perhaps you should go back and see who really said that.

I think Echi may have been responding to me.

I did state that some do assume everything to have a natural cause.

What is a supernatural cause?

I would think that the answer is obvious, whether or not you agree that it is possible.

It would be anything caused by something or someone 'supernatural' such as God.

Some folks reject the 'supernatural' since they cannot find any 'natural' evidence for it. A rather odd position, wouldn't you agree?

Kind of like bemoaning the lack of visual confirmation of a sound.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:
Name someone on this forum who understands the theory of evolution, and yet rejects the basic concept.

Me.

Ha, what a joke Laughing

If that's true, then you've sure been hiding it well.

If you can tell us why all your posts are riddled with misconceptions and strawmen, and describe for us exactly why they are misconceptions and strawmen (without quoting the answers we've already given you), then maybe we'll believe you.

0 Replies

I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:
I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.

As if the verifiability of evolution could be decided by popular vote.

0 Replies

Real life, if you want to convince rosborne979 that you understand the theory of evolution, then just prove it. Make a post clearly explaining the theory of evolution, and then this part of the discussion will be done with. Rosborne will see that you understand the theory, and then you can move on to explaining why you reject it.

This is perhaps a bit off topic, though.

0 Replies

I find this talk about evolution a red herring.

The significant differences between religion and science lie in their relationship to to the status of their central concepts, Religion holds its concepts to be true despite its a lack of consensus for supportive evidence. Science holds its concepts to to have explanatory adequacy based on a consensus of observations, yet subject to revision or modification on the basis of counter evidence. The word "true" for a scientist means "valid for now" and "predictive for this existence", but for a religionist it means "valid for eternity" and "predictive of another existence". i.e. Eternal "truth" follows the same mental musing as "eternal life"...they are idealistic wish fulfilment which seeks desired quiesence as a shelter from the hazards of the flux.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Echi,
I think you are somewhat confused here. I didn't say anything about natural causes. Perhaps you should go back and see who really said that.

Am I confused? Well, then how come I've never seen both of you in the same place at the same time? Idea

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think Echi may have been responding to me.

I did state that some do assume everything to have a natural cause.

What is a supernatural cause?

I would think that the answer is obvious, whether or not you agree that it is possible.

It would be anything caused by something or someone 'supernatural' such as God.

Some folks reject the 'supernatural' since they cannot find any 'natural' evidence for it. A rather odd position, wouldn't you agree?

Kind of like bemoaning the lack of visual confirmation of a sound.

(yeah? I'll bemoan you, you little..)

I'm just having a lot of difficulty with the whole "supernatural" concept, that's all. Don't worry about explaining it. I will think on it some more and report back. (Fresco, don't roll your eyes at me.)

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.
As if the verifiability of evolution could be decided by popular vote.

I agree. The number of people who agree with RL's view of evolution has no bearing on the validity of evolution. That's already been verified beyond any reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.
As if the verifiability of evolution could be decided by popular vote.

I agree. The number of people who agree with RL's view of evolution has no bearing on the validity of evolution. That's already been verified beyond any reasonable doubt.

By popular acclaim, I'll bet. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.
As if the verifiability of evolution could be decided by popular vote.

I agree. The number of people who agree with RL's view of evolution has no bearing on the validity of evolution. That's already been verified beyond any reasonable doubt.
By popular acclaim, I'll bet.

If that's what you prefer to believe Wink

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Quote:
Name someone on this forum who understands the theory of evolution, and yet rejects the basic concept.

Me.

Ha, what a joke

If that's true, then you've sure been hiding it well.

If you can tell us why all your posts are riddled with misconceptions and strawmen, and describe for us exactly why they are misconceptions and strawmen (without quoting the answers we've already given you), then maybe we'll believe you.

Ros,

Oh, I am the one that has misconceptions about evolution?

A recent blast from the past:

rosborne979 wrote:

Just because we lack detail in certain areas does not imply weakness in the basic theory. Quite the contrary, we have lacked detail since Darwin published the idea, and in every case when we have found the details, they have strengthened the basic theory.

Genetics is the best example. Evolution predicted that organisms passed on their traits, but how? A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

You attempted to credit evolutionary theory for the notion that organisms pass on their traits. Laughing

We have known that for THOUSANDS of years , Ros, as I pointed out in my response to this misconception of yours.

We did not need to wait for evolutionary theory to know that organisms pass on their traits.

Every parent who has had a rugrat grow up to look just like mom or dad can tell you that we pass on our traits.

Every horse breeder, sheep breeder, dog breeder etc for the last many millenia could tell you that.

In your zeal to credit evolution for the findings of legitimate observation and science, you grab hold of anything and misconstrue it , claiming 'see evolution works.'

Your misconception here is so stark that it staggers the imagination.

The meat-and-potatoes of evolutionary theory is that organisms do NOT pass on all of their traits.

In fact evolution goes so far as to predict that their descendants will have completely new organs, biological systems, chemical processes hitherto unknown and completely novel body plans.

Pass on traits? Yes we do. But evolution didn't 'predict' it. Human observation (the basis of true science) established it thousands of years before Darwin.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Echi,
I think you are somewhat confused here. I didn't say anything about natural causes. Perhaps you should go back and see who really said that.

Am I confused? Well, then how come I've never seen both of you in the same place at the same time?

Uh oh.

Echi is on to us.

(btw how come Superman never wore a mask and nobody could figure out he was Clark Kent? Were those coke bottle glasses really that effective?)

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I agree with your perspective Rosborne. I've batted down many misconceptions that Real Life has spouted on these forums.

I don't think RL will find many supporters for his view of evolution on these forums.
As if the verifiability of evolution could be decided by popular vote.

Yeah what Neo said.

0 Replies

religious people don't care about truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know