Certainty of anything probably translates into less stress and better health.

Why and how are two different things. When we realize that as a species, and stop belittling each other over it, we'll be able to get some shiat done.

Marine1: Why and how are two different things.

Right. "Why are stars hot," is a why question, and therefore a religious one. Science should not try to answer why questions. "How do humans live a good life," is a how question, and therefore only the domain of science- religion should not try to answer how questions.

"Why do idiots constantly repeat this aphorism as if it has any weight of language, reason, philosophy or meaning behind it?" is a question beyond the realm of answering.

I defeated a raccoon!
SCIENCE

t3knomanser: Marine1: Why and how are two different things.

Right. "Why are stars hot," is a why question, and therefore a religious one. Science should not try to answer why questions. "How do humans live a good life," is a how question, and therefore only the domain of science- religion should not try to answer how questions.

"Why do idiots constantly repeat this aphorism as if it has any weight of language, reason, philosophy or meaning behind it?" is a question beyond the realm of answering.

Me thinks you don't quite understand the saying, but whatever, not doing another one of these threads.

Marine1: t3knomanser: Marine1: Why and how are two different things.

Right. "Why are stars hot," is a why question, and therefore a religious one. Science should not try to answer why questions. "How do humans live a good life," is a how question, and therefore only the domain of science- religion should not try to answer how questions.

"Why do idiots constantly repeat this aphorism as if it has any weight of language, reason, philosophy or meaning behind it?" is a question beyond the realm of answering.

Me thinks you don't quite understand the saying, but whatever, not doing another one of these threads.

Were I drunk what would be the appropriate question.

Religion makes you happy, college makes you none religious. here is a man who wants you to be happy Link (new window)

Marine1: Why and how are two different things. When we realize that as a species, and stop belittling each other over it, we'll be able to get some shiat done.

There is no "why" there is only "what" and "how". "why" is a anthropocentric conceit.

Alcohol does wonders for happiness therefore we should be alcoholics.

Marine1: Me thinks you don't quite understand the saying, but whatever, not doing another one of these threads.

No, I understand the saying fine. The saying is stupid. It's facile, childish, and does nothing to enlighten us as to how we interact with the world.

Current Resident: Close...there actually is only How, Why, and Where.

I thought it was Duey, Cheatum and Howe.

Marine1: Why and how are two different things.

Well, one of them came out of left field. How. . . never heard of him. Is he the utility infielder?

What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

FTFA: According to the new study of almost 200,000 people in 11 European countries, people who are religious have higher self-esteem and better psychological adjustment than the non-religious only in countries where belief in religion is common. In more secular societies, the religious and the non-religious are equally well-off.

Now I'm really curious as to how small the "ambient culture" can be for this effect to still manifest. If you broke it down by state in the US, would this trend still apply? By county? If you lived in a fairly secular/pluralistic area but everyone that you personally interacted with was super-religious?

enry: What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

Misleading headline misleadingly implies that science the opposite of religion.


enry: What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

"40% of working physicists and biologists hold strong spiritual beliefs" (source). They seem to get along just fine.

Thought would destroy their Paradise.
No more;-where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

GilRuiz1: Misleading headline misleadingly implies that science the opposite of religion.

One operates through the accumulation of evidence, the falsification of theories and hypotheses, independent confirmation and replication through converging approaches using different methodologies, and encourages doubt and investigation while downplaying the role of authority figures, anecdotes, and wishful thinking. The other is the exact opposite in that it operates through authority, anecdote, and wishful thinking, and discourages doubt and investigation while downplaying any evidence, dismissing or ignoring anything that is contradictory, and demands solidarity and unity of thought and method.

One resulted in and still results in the development of antiretrovirals to combat HIV/AIDS, allows for this conversation to take place on the Internet, and is responsible for the degree of understanding of the cosmos that we currently possess. The other resulted in and still results in witch trials, egregious acts of violence towards those who are different, and many more attempts at genocide than any other human activity - and that's even if we limit those attempts at genocide to the last four hundred years.

The advancement and spread of one is correlated with lower infant mortality rates, lower STD transmission, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower rates of abortion, lower rates of divorce, lower rates of violent crimes, and lower rates of suicide. The advancement and spread of the other is correlated with higher infant mortality rates, higher STD transmission, higher teen prengnacy rates, higher rates of abortion, higher rates of divorce, higher rates of violent crimes, and higher rates of suicide.

Just because humans are really good at minimizing the cognitive dissonance of holding mutually exclusive beliefs, attitudes, or ideas - or behaving a way that contradicts a deeply cherished belief, attitude, or idea - doesn't mean the actual contradictions or mutually exclusiveness aren't real. Science and religious are pretty damn opposite.

Kome: One operates through the accumulation of evidence,
...
doesn't mean the actual contradictions or mutually exclusiveness are ...


That's a pretty cartoony view of things. With all of the post-modernist philosophy-of-science battles you enjoy engaging in, I expected a more nuanced perspective from you.

Lies, happiness in intelligent people is rarer then an open motorized fat people cart at walmart.

Is this really surprising? Extremely religious societies tend to be miserable places to live. They have few civil liberties, enjoy very little culture outside of the church, and generally respond only to fear. Now, if you're religious, at least you have a majority of like minded troglodytes to bask in the shiathole you've collectively created.If you're not religious in a religious society, then you still live in a backwards shiathole, only those ever-loving religious people openly despise you, and you don't get the comfort of deluding yourself with notions of a cushy afterlife.

Some 'Splainin' To Do

There's certainly a meaningful distinction to be made between "what is" and "what ought to be". It is, however, in no way a defense of religion (meant in the usual sense). NOM seems to make more of a semantic distinction, by defining religion as the study of such moral questions. "Religion" is too loaded to be a good term to use for it (moral philosophy might be better), but it helps make the fundies feel less threatened.

The trouble arises, then, when people take it to mean that religion (in the loaded sense) is more fit to determine "what ought" than a secularism/humanism/atheism/agnosticism/whatever. That is, the distinction is between different methods used to gain different kinds of knowledge, not between the groups that might use such methods. For example, traditional religious morality is based on authority and intimidation.. which seem like rather terrible method.

If we do take "religion" to mean what it implies, then I'd like to think of NOM as saying "Alright, we scientists will take care of everything that can be observed and tested. Religion, you can have everything else." That is, the fundies think that it is a concession and the scientists think it's a rather funny practical joke.

Some 'Splainin' To Do:

That's because it works, biatches.

POIDH

Marine1: Why and how are two different things. When we realize that as a species, and stop belittling each other over it, we'll be able to get some shiat done.

War gets shiat done.

enry: What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

Then you are lying?

No duh

StoPPeRmobile: enry: What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

Then you are lying?

Nope.

enry: Nope.

To yourself, at least. Don't get me wrong- there's no scientific principle that demands atheism. But the practice of science, the philosophy that drives science, strongly directs one to that conclusion. Many people are perfectly willing to live this lie- they accept the mechanics and process of science, even participate in it, but then segment off a section of their personal life and claim that it's immune or exempt from such investigation.

Some 'Splainin' To Do:

I think we'll see a two-state solution before we see fundamentalists agreeing to let science have the final say on the origins of humanity or the universe, and that's before we get into messy subjects such as cloning that have both empirical and moral dimensions.

Oh, come on... Science will have to do better than "First, there was nothing, and then it blew up into everything" before its grip on the origins of the universe are considered as firm as that on the origin of the species. And, "dark matter" and "dark energy" because the equations don't work otherwise? Seriously? How about "new hypothesis" because the equations don't work?

enry: StoPPeRmobile: enry: What if you know science to be true and are religious?

/shock, horror, etc.

Then you are lying?

Nope.

In standard English, you is both singular and plural.

The world revolves around you, huh?

GilRuiz1: Kome: One operates through the accumulation of evidence,
...
doesn't mean the actual contradictions or mutually exclusiveness are ...


That's a pretty cartoony view of things. With all of the post-modernist philosophy-of-science battles you enjoy engaging in, I expected a more nuanced perspective from you.

None of which actually addresses any of the content in my post. Which is pretty much what I expected from you.

t3knomanser:

Don't get me wrong- there's no scientific principle that demands atheism. But the practice of science, the philosophy that drives science, strongly directs one to that conclusion.

Horse crap. The philosophy of science would direct that one observe, and accept what one sees, even (and perhaps ESPECIALLY) if what one sees goes against one's preconceived notions. It's clear you are not willing to do that, should reality point out to you the existence of a First Cause. "I have seen no evidence of a First Cause, therefore I do not believe one exists" is perfectly good science. "There is no God." is not; it is a statement of faith.

GeneralJim: Horse crap. The philosophy of science would direct that one observe, and accept what one sees, even (and perhaps ESPECIALLY) if what one sees goes against one's preconceived notions. It's clear you are not willing to do that, should reality point out to you the existence of a First Cause. "I have seen no evidence of a First Cause, therefore I do not believe one exists" is perfectly good science. "There is no God." is not; it is a statement of faith.

No, it wouldn't. At least, not in its entirety. Quite a few philosophical views acknowledge the inherent flaws in our ability to observe a thing, and the most widely accepted philosophies of science are pretty clear on that.

"There is no god" is not the only atheistic position. "There is no evidence for god, therefore we should carry on as though there is no god" is another. "There's probably no god based on x, y, and z reasons" is another. "The so-called evidence for this god or that god are dubious at best, so we can at least rule out those gods" is another. "The evidence is inconclusive, but there is no compelling reason to accept the claim that god exists" is yet another.

Nick the What: I drunk what

hemlock

is this another one of them science vs. religion threads? i wonder who is going to win...

PirateKing: There is no "why" there is only "what" and "how". "why" is a anthropocentric conceit.

Why?

GilRuiz1: I expected a more nuanced perspective from you.

I drunk what:

Nick the What: I drunk what

hemlock

is this another one of them science vs. religion threads? i wonder who is going to win...

Drew.

Kome: GeneralJim: Horse crap. The philosophy of science would direct that one observe, and accept what one sees, even (and perhaps ESPECIALLY) if what one sees goes against one's preconceived notions. It's clear you are not willing to do that, should reality point out to you the existence of a First Cause. "I have seen no evidence of a First Cause, therefore I do not believe one exists" is perfectly good science. "There is no God." is not; it is a statement of faith.

No, it wouldn't. At least, not in its entirety. Quite a few philosophical views acknowledge the inherent flaws in our ability to observe a thing, and the most widely accepted philosophies of science are pretty clear on that.

"There is no god" is not the only atheistic position. "There is no evidence for god, therefore we should carry on as though there is no god" is another. "There's probably no god based on x, y, and z reasons" is another. "The so-called evidence for this god or that god are dubious at best, so we can at least rule out those gods" is another. "The evidence is inconclusive, but there is no compelling reason to accept the claim that god exists" is yet another.

Yeah, Plato came up with that, a long time ago.

If they made it in XXLT I'd own a dozen.

/No, XXXL will not work.

I drunk what: PirateKing: There is no "why" there is only "what" and "how". "why" is a anthropocentric conceit.

Why?

Characterizing the causal relationship can be the subject of much debate?

More at eleven.

StoPPeRmobile:

Kome: GeneralJim: Horse crap. The philosophy of science would direct that one observe, and accept what one sees, even (and perhaps ESPECIALLY) if what one sees goes against one's preconceived notions. It's clear you are not willing to do that, should reality point out to you the existence of a First Cause. "I have seen no evidence of a First Cause, therefore I do not believe one exists" is perfectly good science. "There is no God." is not; it is a statement of faith.

No, it wouldn't. At least, not in its entirety. Quite a few philosophical views acknowledge the inherent flaws in our ability to observe a thing, and the most widely accepted philosophies of science are pretty clear on that.

"There is no god" is not the only atheistic position. "There is no evidence for god, therefore we should carry on as though there is no god" is another. "There's probably no god based on x, y, and z reasons" is another. "The so-called evidence for this god or that god are dubious at best, so we can at least rule out those gods" is another. "The evidence is inconclusive, but there is no compelling reason to accept the claim that god exists" is yet another.

Yeah, Plato came up with that, a long time ago.

Good call on the Plato thing. With a reasonable response from some quarters, chances of plagiarism approach 100%.

I would also note that many things I would categorize as agnostic are, on Fark at least, considered to be atheistic. Logic itself, can only lead one to agnosticism. Believing that God exists requires either an act of faith, or an otherwise inexplicable experience, and certainty that God does not exist requires an act of faith.

GeneralJim: I would also note that many things I would categorize as agnostic are, on Fark at least, considered to be atheistic. Logic itself, can only lead one to agnosticism. Believing that God exists requires either an act of faith, or an otherwise inexplicable experience, and certainty that God does not exist requires an act of faith.

Atheism, at it's core, is simply non-belief. Agnosticism is not belief. It can be ambivalence, it can be skepticism, it can be wariness, it could be confusion, or it could be indifference. Ergo, it can be a kind of atheism. Agnosticism can be a kind of theism as well, for much the same reason. That same ambivalence, skepticism, wariness, confusion, or indifference approached from a different angle. Often times on Fark, on other websites, in philosophical texts and literature, and in scientific texts and literature that comes into contact with theological claims and dogma, agnosticism is expressed in a way that is more in line with the atheistic agnosticism rather than the theistic agnosticism. It doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist, or is a tiny minority, it just means that when you look at comments and statements in a dispassionate view, they fit better in one category than another.

However, your inability to understand the simplest definitions of the terms you are using aside, once again you are equating non-belief in all its forms with a kind of non-belief imbued with certainty. Not only is that a particularly rare expressing of non-belief (as a whole; it's easy, acceptable, and common to express certain non-belief about very specific and demonstrably false claims), your pithy objection to atheism is akin to someone complaining about how trees have pine needles that are hard to clean up after the holiday season when only a small subset of trees fit that description. Understanding the logic of Venn diagrams might help you out there.