Thorak: So attacking religion for being based on a similarly unprovable assumption is hypocritical.

Park the truck, dude.

mvfreeman: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," A. Eisntein

You might want to read the whole speech, because you miss the point, entirely. He was using a metaphor.

From that same speech:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

What was he getting at?

This: The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Whole text, here: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

Read it, and stop abusing his legacy.

FloydA

I don't understand all of what you posted, but it seems reasonable. I wonder why more scientists don't accept punctuated equilibrium over some form of gradualism?

When it comes to biology I have to appeal to authority. It's the weakest of all arguments I know, but I just don't have the time in life to read a dozen books for a thurough understanding.

I do appreciate your input.

Late to the party, but ahem


Rocked.

that is all.

/me hearties

..dead for 3 days.. (my bad)

What a worthless show.

Thorak: People say that religion is "wrong" or "false" because you can't prove there is a God.

Not this person, and not anyone I've seen in this thread so far. What I've seen is a bunch of people taking issue with the idea of people basing all or part of an unexamined world view on religious dogma. Religion is certainly "wrong" on many levels, but I don't think anyone is trying to say with certainty that gods do not exist. Remember, there are Gnostic Theists, Agnostic Theists, and Agnostic Atheists, but very few Gnostic Atheists. Gnosticism is the problem here, not Theism.

I'm pointing out that science shares the same absence of proof, making that argument an invalid one.

It isn't an attack on science, or a support of religion. Or a claim that solipsism is all there is. It's trying to get people to see what logic actually entails, and recognize that logic is only a tool, not the way we measure reality.

At the risk of a Nerd Alert, I'll quote Mr. Spock- "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." Logic is certainly not to only criteria by which one should judge an argument, but it's definitely a powerful one. The scientific method may be founded upon an unprovable assumption, but it's pretty consistent from there on. Religion, particularly the prevalent religious consensus in America these days, is fraught with problems, contradictions, rationalizations, cognitive dissonance, and an agenda that I find to be, frankly, evil.

I think you're mistaking people's reaction to this complex issue for an oversimplified objection.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Thorak: DaBishop: Absence of proof =/= truth.

Never claimed it was.

Turn it around. Absence of proof of God doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

In general, you don't prove something doesn't exist. You prove that it does. The burden rests on the belief in a god, not against it.


Science rests on the assumption that our observations are valid representations of universal fact.

That's a huge pillow for science to rest its head on. If you can't believe in the assumption that our observations are valid representations of universal fact, then you have nothing to believe in.

Could the assumption Cogito ergo sum possibly be a delusion?

I certainly can't prove to anyone else that I think or exist, but as purely personal "observation" I think it MUST be accepted.

/rest of you acid flashbacks please go away

LOL you're all being super-trolled by Thorak. 9.9bar/10

slipperyrockdawg
There was a guy in my best friend's class that thought Columbus' captain's log was a piece of wood. No joke.

yookaloco: From Ye Olde Wikipedia....

Shepherd was the subject of controversy due to the September 18, 2007 broadcast of the View. An excerpted clip of the show was rebroadcast by numerous news programs in which she appears to express a neutral position on whether the Earth is flat. In the September 19 broadcast, she amended her apparent neutrality on the subject and stated that she is aware of the Earth being round (presumably meaning the traditionally accepted spherical shape of the planet) and that in the previous broadcast she had been too nervous, confused and stupid to answer the question adequately. [highlight mine -- at least the editor got one part right!]

Isn't that just a way of saying, "my agent and my publicist told me I looked like an idiot. Can I has do-over with better answer?"

/it worked for miss teen south carolina
//sort of
///congress does it all the time, too

AgeOfReason: Agreed, and thankfully Satan was there to lead her to the proper choice in that fable. The entire xian view of the old testament is upside down. Satan is the good guy, the god character is the evil one, and somehow humans persevere.

Careful, I think thats what most early Gnostic sects sort of believed and the rest of the Christians killed them for it.

Personal responsibility, blaming others, not have common decency towards others.

Those are the things that should sue this guy. Because he obviously lacked any of them when he went to ask questions.

FloydA: To be honest, the PE/phyletic gradualism "wars" ended more than 15 years ago. (It's just that "most scientists agree" isn't really the type of thing that makes headlines, so it didn't really get reported in the same way that the preceding conflict did.)

Its sort of like the (still sort of ongoing) Neutralist/Adaptationist arguments in molecular evolution. Basically it boils down to the fact that both mechanisms/modes occur and the real debate is just around which is more common or the most important. Most of the "argument" and misrepresentation comes from outside of the core field.

I bristle every time any evolutionary change is automatically explained in an adaptive framework. Neutral Theory as the Null Hypothesis is there for a reason folks.

Bah

DaBishop: In general, you don't prove something doesn't exist. You prove that it does. The burden rests on the belief in a god, not against it.

See, but I never claimed God did exist. Nor was I trying to prove it.

I was only saying that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's true regardless of whatever it is we don't have evidence of.


tortilla burger: LOL you're all being super-trolled by Thorak. 9.9bar/10

It never fails. Point out logical truths, get called a troll.


The trick is to actually have a valid point to defend.

Thorak: I was only saying that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's true regardless of whatever it is we don't have evidence of.

I'm gonna quote myself, pre-emptively, to say that I'm sure this'll generate comments about how there's no evidence for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or Invisible Pink Unicorns, and that I must therefore believe they all exist.

Let me just say that those who would make those comments completely missed the point.

and so now i've seen the view.

DamnYankees: Using logic to point towards solipsism is a cowardice use of that tool, and will be mocked. That's why far too many 'sophisticated' theologies do.

First, it's "cowardly". And your second sentence is almost impossible to make sense of. Did you mean "what far too many 'sophisticated' theologians do"?

Finally, I wasn't pointing towards solipsism. Go back and read my posts again, maybe you'll see the point I was actually making. I mentioned solipsism, but it was as a point of interest, nothing more.

You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color: I am truly AMAZED at the amount of ignorance and stupidity religion causes.

Don't blame it on religion. I think that person's stupidity and ignorance is of her own making.

Thorak

I sure do. You might want to look up some basic logic, since apparently my point's flying right over your head.


Logic requires axioms. What are yours? I think it's pretty clear what ours are.

I find it funny that so many farkers here are actually surprised by this shiat. Seriously, get out more, and you'll understand how a batshiat crazy tard can get elected to president. It's because of people like her, that still identify with religion.

Democracy = fail.

Let's work on eliminating the US government. I certainly don't want people like her telling me what to do, or taking my tax dollars for her use. I have no need for people like her in my life.

You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color: jonasborg: US Department of Education FTL

I'm gonna go with religion on this one.
The ONLY reason people doubt evolution is because it conflicts with their insane religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with lack of evidence

Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Only fanatics on either side believe that they are.

DamnYankees: Do you demand astrology to be testable? Tarot card reading? Alternative medicine? Why not? And why is theology different? The moment you makje *any* empirical or constrained statement, you have entered the realm of argumentation.

The first two, no, because they're not scientific, and likely have more to do with people reading into them what they want to see. There's no way to test them precisely because they aren't scientific.

For alternative medicine, that's testable. It either improves your health, or it doesn't. Therefore, it's science, it just may be outside current medical practice (if it works) or quackery (if it doesn't).

Theology isn't testable for the same reason ethics isn't. You can't test "lying is wrong" empirically to see if it's true.

And entering the realm of argument means you've entered philosophy. Science is only one part of philosophy, and it uses tools and methods that aren't applicable outside that part.

I cry for the human race when in this day and age some one from a first world country cannot answer the simple question of "Is the world flat?"

Pontus and the Nail Drivers: Afternoon Delight: GoBadgers: I got this crazy idea while drinking beer and watching "The Universe" on the History Channel.
The lifespan of humans is short, so we are impatient creatures. Things need to happen within a framework we can understand, and we call it time. Humans say that God created the heavens and Earth within a week, and the first humans were created instantly.
God is eternal, correct? So the passage of time means nothing to God. He can take all the time he needs.
Watching the scientific explanations of the creation of the universe, the Earth, and the appearance and evolution of living creatures over the course of billions of years got me thinking.

IF there is a God, what if evolution is the process by which God creates his works? Could this be possible? Are we too impatient to understand it, being human and all? Maybe I should ask a preacher or something.

/BTW, I'm not religious, but my wife is, and she thinks it's a valid point.

//That was some mighty fine beer.

Interesting. That's not an impossible thought. Does anyone in this thread know if the word for "day" in aramaic could translate as anything else, say, epoch or age?

Yeah, troll. This is just the place for your contrarian horse manure. What's the Aramaic phrase for "The Earth is roundflat"?

What the, you thought that was a troll post...and WHAT??? Holy DAMN, how do people like you even make it to adulthood?!?!?

Thorak: Malicious Bastard: Those assumptions and observations are testable.
That's the big difference between religion and science.

That something be testable is a concern of science. It doesn't have any relevance to other philosophical methods of thought, like morality and ethics, or theology. You can't go pulling methodologies that are useful in one area of philosophy and assuming they're useful in every other, willy-nilly.

That's another pet peeve. It's just as ridiculous to demand religion be testable as to demand that science be taken on faith. They're two entirely different and unrelated philosophical systems.

THIS.

DamnYankees: It's not true, though. If you have a claim which says "X causes Y" and you don't find Y, you have evidence for the non-existence of X. You don't have definitive proof, but you have evidence. If you then want to counter than claim, and say that X still exists, you need to have some sort of explanation for the lack of Y.

The prime example of this is double blind studies of intercessory prayer. The absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in the same way that the absence of evidence of the luminiferous aether was evidence *against* it's existence.

This is true from a scientific point of view, but not a logical point of view.

Again, logic deviates from pure logic in several ways. This is another of them.


Clever Neologism: Logic requires axioms. What are yours? I think it's pretty clear what ours are.

I've only been saying that science is based on certain unproveable assumptions.

My axiom is this; A fundamental axiom of science is "observations are evidence of the nature of reality".

My point is that this cannot be proven true, as it is not derived logically, nor can it be based on the observations it mentions, as that would make it circular.

I've never said this is bad or means science is wrong or flawed.

DamnYankees: You didn't explicitly state solipsism as your goal, but you accessed its vapors, if you will. This constant desire to say "if you can't prove is through rigorous logic, you can't rationally conclude it" and the idea that its ok to build up unnecessary layers of unprovable ideas is a very solipsistic one in tone. It's the theistic march towards absurdism which renders all claims equally capable of claiming truth, since after all, nothing can be shown to be true at all, ever.

That wasn't my intent.

I was only trying to show that science takes leaps that aren't logically arrived at, and that therefore attacking religion for making similarly unfounded leaps is hypocritical.


You sniffed solipsisms's butt, basically.

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't smell like anything.

Huh?

DamnYankees: It's not true, though. If you have a claim which says "X causes Y" and you don't find Y, you have evidence for the non-existence of X. You don't have definitive proof, but you have evidence. If you then want to counter than claim, and say that X still exists, you need to have some sort of explanation for the lack of Y.

The prime example of this is double blind studies of intercessory prayer. The absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, in the same way that the absence of evidence of the luminiferous aether was evidence *against* it's existence.

This.

Thorak: Again, logic deviates from pure logic in several ways. This is another of them.

Of course, by this I meant that science deviates from pure logic in several ways.

You know who else had to feed their kids?!

Thorak
Thorak: Again, logic deviates from pure logic in several ways. This is another of them.

Of course, by this I meant that science deviates from pure logic in several ways.

dude...are you commenting to yourself now?

Whodat: Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Only fanatics on either side believe that they are.

Evolution and "creationism" in its most general sense maybe not. Depends what you take "creationism" to mean. However, what is commonly meant by the term Creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis. And those two are definitely mutually exclusive.

DamnYankees:
Do you demand astrology to be testable? Tarot card reading? Alternative medicine? Why not? And why is theology different? The moment you makje *any* empirical or constrained statement, you have entered the realm of argumentation.

Not trying to answer for Thorak here, but I have something to say about that. Religion ideally should be applied only to one's own life. If one receives some benefit from a religious practice, then what does the verifiability of it matter?

/I realize that unfortunately many people don't stop at applying religion to their own lives

Wuld somebody please help me understand these questions, my faith is lacking and I am drawn towards the dark athiestic hell. I need your help to be saved and get to have a personal relationship with Jesus. I Really dont wanna go to hell !!!!

1) Why does Jesus share; a miracle birth, date of birth, making miracles, the number 12 (12 disciples/Brtohers etc), crucifixion, being dead for 3 days and return to the living/Heaven and a host of other similarities, with at least 15 pre-Jesus deitys? Was Christ a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a lay-figure that was once the Ram, and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods?

An example: Krishna.

bullet#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
bullet7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
bullet8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
bullet13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.
bullet18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
bullet21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
bullet27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
bullet30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
bullet41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
bullet56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
bullet58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
bullet60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
bullet64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
bullet66: Both were "without sin."
bullet72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
bullet76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
bullet83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
bullet86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
bullet101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
bullet109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
bullet115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
bullet121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
bullet128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Also explain Horus, Mithra, Dionysus, Orpheus please.

2) Why is there no evidence of Jesus historically ? No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud)?

/Please save my soul !!!

A bit of a digression but I think it explains this ignorant lady's viewpoint.

In America we live in very dangerous times. We are a very ignorant and very fearful society. This is a combination that can be very disastrous in the short and long run.

An example from last night. I attended a neighborhood meeting about building a bike path that would go through the neighborhood to another, cross under a bridge of a busy road and through some wooded areas.

The people against the path were fearful of outsiders using the path. I read this as minorities and poor people, mostly because of the following complaints; our property values will go down, criminals will use the trail to get our children.

When the captain of the police who lived in the neighborhood and has 2 children in it tried to explain rationally what he thought would happen, they just kept on with the ignorant and fearful rhetoric. Never mind that he explained your children are far more likely to get hurt crossing the busy road or biking on or near it, than if they were on a bike path. Never mind that we have an extremely low crime rate and the majority of the crime is perpetrated by neighborhood youths, with no incidents of sex abuse or kidnapping by strangers. All that abuse happens at the hands of family, friends, and clergy.

The parents were ignorant and fearful and voted down a bike path that would increase the safety of their children in the long run. They voted down a path that would allow their children to cross a busy road where their elementary school is located underneath that road where the cars are not, instead keeping them on top where the cars are. The ultimate irony is that the cop will be right and one of their little precious kids will be tagged by a car before a black man breaks into their house and yells "You gonna get raped!"

In our county and the next one south last year 622 people walking or biking were hit by cars, 15 of them died, 522 of them were classified as injured in the accident. No kids were killed or kidnapped in our county by anyone that was a stranger to the family lurking outside. I am not saying that it doesn't happen, but a bike path doesn't make it easier or harder in one way or another.

Long story short: People who are ignorant and fearful make very bad decisions that have disastrous consequences. See above story or Iraq.

Thorak: I was only trying to show that science takes leaps that aren't logically arrived at, and that therefore attacking religion for making similarly unfounded leaps is hypocritical.

One leap. One. That it loudly announces before leaping. Meanwhile, Religion looks like a pogo-stick convention. You're equivocating again. And no, I'm not missing the point.

DamnYankees: You can't test predictions? You can't test the idea that character traits are determined by when you were born? Why the hell not?

Because even within astrology and tarot, there's variation that can't be predicted.

If they could use it as accurately as you suggest, they'd be able to predict lotto numbers and not just that you'll meet a dark handsome stranger, but that his name is Joe, and it'll be 5:42 on Wednesday, so keep an eye out.

The very nature of the predictions is so broad that it is either easy to see it as accurate, or easy to see it as wildly off, depending on how much you want to believe either way.

That's not theology. That's ethical philosophy. Theology is the study of "theos", or god(s). There's nothing inherent in theology which requires philosophical meditation. In fact, its the cooption of ethical philosophy by theology that is so often so aggravating, because theology has no innate claim to that domain of human life. It refuses to justify itself.

Theology is philosophy. It's the philosophy about matters pertaining to God. That's pretty much the definition of theology. And yes, I used an example from ethics. You may note that I mentioned ethics in the same sentence as theology, so my example could be from either, and more likely the most recently mentioned. Which was ethics. Hooray, grammar.


Science is not a part of philosophy, though they do intermingle. And unless you want to consider philosophy a domain with no rules at all, what's your point? Even philosophical ideas have basic requirements for coherence and logic which most theology utterly fails.

Do me a favor. Go Google "philosophy of science", and do some reading up.

Also, the existence of bad theology doesn't make theology not philosophy. There's some crap science and crap ethics out there, too. That just means those specific arguments were crap, not that the entire school of thought is wrong.

entropic_existence: Careful, I think thats what most early Gnostic sects sort of believed and the rest of the Christians killed them for it.

I am an FSM Gnostic by the way. He touched me with his noodly appendage but I still prefer Gnocchi.

FloydA: Absolutely! If it's any consolation (which it isn't), the situation is FAR worse in anthropology! Of the few folks who even recognize that evolution is a useful way to study human behavior, nearly all are almost caricature adaptationists. It's almost as if Kimura never existed.

I could tell you horror stories...

I bet, and that is mostly what I was referring too. We had a few examples on Fark awhile back concerning hominid evolution discussing morphological differences between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, all of which were given in an adaptive framework. Sure we can think of reasons why a particular feature was an adaptation but without more sophisticated statistical tests we can't reject the null hypothesis which is that it is not an adaptation.

It irks me, mostly because it propagates the stereotypical belief among the general public that all evolutionary changes need to be beneficial adaptations. But I'm preaching to the choir here anyway :)