Page 192 of 195 FirstFirst ... 92142182188189190191192193194195 LastLast
Results 2,866 to 2,880 of 2913
  1. #2866
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
    Well, there's Perennial Philosophy that sort of ties all religion together as cultural expressions of universal beliefs or truths or whatever (I haven't really read much about it, just aware of it).
    Too bad nobody told the hardcore believers about that.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  2. #2867
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
    Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.
    That depends on whether the scientist is a positivist or relativist. If the latter, it's more a faith that those questions that can be answered through rigorous process will be, and there may be some truths that are simply unknowable (or far enough beyond our observational and/or perceptual capacities to amount to unknowables).

  3. #2868
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    I don't know, honestly I feel like religious belief in general gets mocked pretty badly on the regular … particularly by some people who consider themselves smarter than average, which is kind of related to how flat-earthers apparently think they are smarter than average.

    I'm not personally going to assign myself arbiter of what anyone else should believe, but I do think people who consider their atheism as some sign of superior intelligence are giving themselves a bit too much credit. Of course religious faith defies what is objectively and undeniably real; if it didn't, faith would not be required. You're not forging some kind of new intellectual territory by saying the thing that is impossible according to everyday observation and experience seems impossible to you; of course it does!

    But, while the average believer may have an understanding or argument for their faith that is sadly lacking, the fact is that there have been people much smarter than your average atheist, who have made complex arguments for faith. I consider myself relatively bright, and I'm well aware of when philosophers have basically left me in the dust. Sadly, a lot of people only as bright as me or less so, seem to have some illusions on the matter.
    I'm going to assume from that post that you yourself have religious belief. I've no doubt that you've come across some arrogant and condescending atheists in your time. Equating their 'misplaced' levels of intelligence with that of flat-earthers just doesn't hold weight though.

    Believers in science and rationality base their worldview on very easily achievable and demonstrable proofs. Evidence to support the scientific model is on permanent display all around us, all the time. We all did the experiments in school right? There's a reason they all worked and hopefully imparted knowledge to all the children that practised or witnessed them. Science isn't dogmatic either, if a new level of understanding comes into being then the scientific model adopts that new learning rather than furiously trying to discredit it. Nearly every single facet of our modern day society is entirely dependant on our current scientific knowledge being true and useful in helping to make our lives happier, healthier and more convenient. This isn't just some claptrap that we've thrown together to suit our own purposes.

    The diatribes offered by the flat-earth movement, creationism, geocentrism and the rest are always centred around stories or theories that can be very easily disproved and are often proffered for ulterior motives. Their imagined intellectual superiority on any level is entirely delusional. Understanding how the reality that surrounds us works may sometimes come across as arrogant to a believer but the rationale behind it is entirely sound.

  4. #2869
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMorgan View Post
    ...Science isn't dogmatic either, if a new level of understanding comes into being then the scientific model adopts that new learning rather than furiously trying to discredit it...
    Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

    As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.

  5. #2870
    Astonishing Member WillieMorgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Posts
    3,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

    As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.
    Maybe that last post was a tad idealistic but I still feel that the point it made is sound overall. However slow moving scientific progress can sometimes be is still a world away from somehow managing to get your mitts on a gyroscope and then completely rejecting everything that it tells you because it isn't confirming your outlandish beliefs .

    I completely agree with your point though.

  6. #2871
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    Etiquette. Not to be a jerk about it or anything, but it just seems an odd instance of sounding a word out.
    I'm dyslexic so spelling is not one of my biggest strong points
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  7. #2872
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,228

    Default

    The good thing about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.
    Last edited by Kirby101; 08-02-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  8. #2873
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    I'm dyslexic so spelling is not one of my biggest strong points
    I raeh uoy orB.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  9. #2874
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    The good think about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.
    There's an old saying: "science advances one funeral at a time."

  10. #2875
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalak View Post
    Carbon Dating, Gravity, and far more precepts than you can name FAR outweigh the 3 theories you've brought up prove that it's not a faith of belief but something based on fact and repeatable experiments. You've even failed to mention that Science still labels them Theories aka Unproven unlike fully proven things like Gravity, and while many believe in the Big Bang if the evidence comes out against it it'll be thrown out. The same cannot be said for the religions of the Bible and especially the more fundamentalist believers.

    The fact that many have no response but to label Science a faith in order to discount it since it's too hard to argue against otherwise is a sad fact that is bringing us down as a species, and for proof I provide the American GoP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Nope, not even close. Those are sound scientific theories that work according to our present knowledge, but they are untested and not accepted. They are theories that need evidence to show whether they are actually true or not. Scientist do not dogmatically say, String Theory is true no matter what comes up. They say the math works, but lets see if it is a predictive model. This is how they recently found the Higgs boson, or proved Relativity to be right.

    Scientist do not say, "I have no proof, I just have faith". It is the opposite. They need objective confirmation.

    Science is nothing like religious dogma and I hate this fallacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
    Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    The good think about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.
    I work in the science field... One the title of Theory does not mean unproven (though it is argument most give by those of a religious nature against them), Theories do not grow up to become Laws they explain them. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains the Law of Gravity, but there will not be a law of General Relativity. The title of Theory goes to something that hasn't been disproven, if a Theory is disproven it will be replaced. The Many-World Theory and String Theory can not be disproven only because we lack the ability and understanding to do so it may belong more in the province of scientific philosophy and regain the title of Interpretation and not Theory. Giving them the title of Theory brings down the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and so on for those such as religious groups to point and say that they are just "Theories".

    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Last edited by Moon Ronin; 08-02-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  11. #2876
    Oni of the Ash Moon Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Here, for now.
    Posts
    951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

    As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.
    Example: Fred Hoyel
    Surely not everybody was kung fu fighting

  12. #2877
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    There's an old saying: "science advances one funeral at a time."
    I like that.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  13. #2878
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    I work in the science field... One the title of Theory does not mean unproven (though it is argument most give by those of a religious nature against them), Theories do not grow up to become Laws they explain them. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explains the Law of Gravity, but there will not be a law of General Relativity. The title of Theory goes to something that hasn't been disproven, if a Theory is disproven it will be replaced. The Many-World Theory and String Theory can not be disproven only because we lack the ability and understanding to do so it may belong more in the province of scientific philosophy and regain the title of Interpretation and not Theory. Giving them the title of Theory brings down the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and so on for those such as religious groups to point and say that they are just "Theories".

    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Of course you are right. And I apologize for my poor use of language. Our point distinguishing science from religion is still valid. They don't have the same faith as religious believers. There belief is more like a best guess. Religious faith is often touted as something for which there can be no proof, and that with proof there is no faith. This is different from saying I believe there was once life on Mars or some other idea that awaits proof.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  14. #2879
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Ronin View Post
    Most equate the idea of religious belief system as something of the dogmatic structure of the abrahamic religions but they are not the only example have religions they are just the most dominate ones. The idea of faith and belief does not require a ridged dogma to exist.

    I'm not saying that physicist worship at the Temple of the String or read for the Book of Multiple Earths on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen while singing hymns to Bohm . But the ones that do work in that field have to have some kind of belief or faith when applying them as theory as they have not been through the scientific vetting process and believe their outcome has a scientific barring if it cannot be challenged.
    Because religions aren't really competing for followers based on the objective merit of their ideas, the more organized and cohesive belief systems tend to win out over loosely defined notions of spirituality. The Abrahamic religions have been successful precisely because their leaders had no qualms about treating faith as a team sport and whipping believers into line on even the most minor points of doctrine, the local cults of ancestor and nature worship that they competed against simply couldn't mobilize their followers in anywhere near the same manner and died out one by one.

    Science simply does not do this, the process of scientific inquiry and discovery is completely separate from that of using scientific ideas as backing to win popular support for policy proposals. The number of people who believe in climate change and are willing to support proposals to reverse global warming has absolutely zero bearing on the legitimacy of climate science and its ideas, precisely because scientific principles can be tested and there is no need to use popularity as a proxy for truth.

  15. #2880
    Fantastic Member TriggerWarning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Or believers are atheists about every other God but theirs.
    Everyone is an atheist. The only difference is that some atheists disbelieve in one more god than the rest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •