Religious belief among scientists

ThatOwlWoman said:
Interesting. My dad was both a Christian and a chemist. He was, however, an atheist until he and my mom met.
Click to expand...

Science it’s self has recorded a certain group of the human population has a Brain wiring to believe in a higher being


I believe it kept people alive longer to the effect of procreating and leaving offspring
 
In another thread it got mad when a righty thought it voted for Obama


There are fakes here and everywhere


Learn to spot them
 
Cypress said:
You are like a broken record.
Click to expand...
No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.
Cypress said:
True reality, a higher reality, ultimate reality (take your pick)
Click to expand...
No such thing.
Cypress said:
exists independently of our minds
Click to expand...
How would you know then?
Cypress said:
Our minds do not have direct access to true or higher reality.
Click to expand...
Then I submit that there is no such thing. You have already admitted that no mind can conceive of it.
Cypress said:
The reality we perceive or feel that we understand is filtered, shaped, interpreted by our sensory perceptions, our neurology, our psychology, and on the beliefs we hold at any given time.
Click to expand...
Much closer. This is what the phenomenology is all about. How we perceive the world and the universe.

That is reality. It is the reality that you perceive, that I perceive, the everyone perceives. Each of us perceives it in our own way depending on our own experiences and beliefs. That reality is as unique to each of us as fingerprints. It is different for every single person.
All we know we receive through our own senses. Those sensory stimuli must be interpreted to give them any kind of meaning. That interpretation is governed by our own experiences and beliefs. That IS reality to each and every one of us.

Now to logic and mathematics:

These two disciplines are closed functional systems. They are each set up by a set of axioms, like the rules of a game. Change any one of those axioms, and you are playing a different game. That 'game' cannot exist outside of those axioms, or rules.
Closed functional systems use proofs to extend those axioms into the expanse that we see in both logic and again in mathematics. Those proofs do not override any axiom. The same game is still being played.

With the power of the proof comes the power of prediction. Example: if 2x+y=42, and x is 6, you know what y is. You can predict y for any value of x.

This example is still based upon the axioms of mathematics and the proofs extending it. Change an axiom, and this example no longer makes any sense.
Yet this is not a universal or absolute reality. It is simply someone agreeing on the rules of the game of mathematics.

The same is true of logic. It is a closed functional system just like mathematics. It too has proofs extending its axioms, and it too cannot exist outside those axioms.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Interesting. My dad was both a Christian and a chemist. He was, however, an atheist until he and my mom met.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
It is interesting how people can balance their training in an inductive empirical scientific inquiry system with a personal moral code based on spiritual tenets and beliefs. I have known a lot of scientists who are agnostic, and I also know physicists and geologists who are Mormons, Jews, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Catholics.
 
Cypress said:
Thanks.
It is interesting how people can balance their training in an inductive empirical scientific inquiry system with a personal moral code based on spiritual tenets and beliefs. I have known a lot of scientists who are agnostic, and I also know physicists and geologists who are Mormons, Jews, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Catholics.
Click to expand...

What is your point? Serious inquiry. You always post about how it is okay to be religious. If you are not proselytizing, what is your agenda?
 
evince said:
So are you claiming there is no such thing as actual fact?
Click to expand...

A fact is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth. People often use it as such, but it is neither of these things.

A fact is simply an accepted predicate between parties of a conversation. Like pronouns, they are used to shorten speech. It means people do not have to declare that predicate in every argument they make. It's simply accepted.

It can be considered a fact, for example, that Hobbits have hairy toes. This description comes from a work of fiction. People who read that work of fiction generally just accept that Hobbits have hairy toes. It is a fact.

The moment someone disagrees with a fact, it ceases to be a fact. The predicate is no longer just accepted. The 'fact' becomes an argument. That argument, like any argument, is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Regardless of the state of that particular predicate that is no longer accepted as a predicate, other predicates are used in arguments and are often accepted as facts.

Stating that something is a fact is pointless. If someone disagrees with it, it is not a fact. It is an argument that you are not addressing. It is not a proof of any kind in and of itself. It is not a Universal Truth, because there isn't any. What one calls 'Truth' is based on their own perception of reality, which is defined by their own experiences and beliefs (see the branch of philosophy known as phenomenology, which defines 'real' and 'reality').

Yes, there are actual facts. The proof is by identity. That simply means they exist. In other words, ?A->A.

Whether a particular predicate is considered a fact is an entirely different can of worms.
 
And I bet the largest one segment believe the current concept of god under western religion is false

I could call my non god beliefs as a belief in a kind of god

I believe there is something after this life

I don’t pretend to know it’s perimeters


But I don’t believe it is anything like the image of a king god like western religions claims exits
 
Into the Night said:
A fact is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth. People often use it as such, but it is neither of these things.

A fact is simply an accepted predicate between parties of a conversation. Like pronouns, they are used to shorten speech. It means people do not have to declare that predicate in every argument they make. It's simply accepted.

It can be considered a fact, for example, that Hobbits have hairy toes. This description comes from a work of fiction. People who read that work of fiction generally just accept that Hobbits have hairy toes. It is a fact.

The moment someone disagrees with a fact, it ceases to be a fact. The predicate is no longer just accepted. The 'fact' becomes an argument. That argument, like any argument, is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Regardless of the state of that particular predicate that is no longer accepted as a predicate, other predicates are used in arguments and are often accepted as facts.

Stating that something is a fact is pointless. If someone disagrees with it, it is not a fact. It is an argument that you are not addressing. It is not a proof of any kind in and of itself. It is not a Universal Truth, because there isn't any. What one calls 'Truth' is based on their own perception of reality, which is defined by their own experiences and beliefs (see the branch of philosophy known as phenomenology, which defines 'real' and 'reality').

Yes, there are actual facts. The proof is by identity. That simply means they exist. In other words, ?A->A.

Whether a particular predicate is considered a fact is an entirely different can of worms.
Click to expand...


No one even reads your shit dude

It’s like watching you wack your meat

Disgusting and boring all at once
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top