Dixie, Step Up

Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Science is a framework. Just because what you are doing utilizes a tool that science uses, does not make what you are doing science.
Click to expand...
If you use it properly it makes it part of science. An ingredient. Just because you have vodka and orange juice in the same room doesn't mean you have a screwdriver, it doesn't give you a screwdriver until you mix them.

It is simply ridiculous when I said it "could be part" of the scientific process to say that I implied in any way that it is all of "science" or that as taken in its current form it is even part of the process. No one thing is "science". This is simply reductio ad absurdum, and I expect better of you AC.
 
"If you use it properly it makes it part of science. An ingredient. Just because you have vodka and orange juice in the same room doesn't mean you have a screwdriver, it doesn't give you a screwdriver until you mix them.

It is simply ridiculous when I said it "could be part" of the scientific process to say that I implied in any way that it is all of "science" or that as taken in its current form it is even part of the process. No one thing is "science". This is simply reductio ad absurdum, and I expect better of you AC."

Read and Learn:

1) Observation
2) Formulation of hypothesis that both explains said hypothesis, and makes predictions of other phenomena that should be observed if said hypothesis is likely to be correct
3) Observation of one or more predicted phenomena
4) Hypothesis is promoted to theory


ATTEMPTING to disprove aspects of a supported scientific theory IS NOT PART OF SCIENCE. If there WAS active disproof, that would be a different story...and even then, ONLY the acrtive disproof would be considered "science".
 
Anyold, some faith in life is good here and there. For family and such for one.
Pure logic does not work very well in personal relationships, sometimes we have to have faith in someone. But beware you can get burned.
 
AnyOldIron said:
And in that is the crux of the problem.

Faith. The act of believing despite all evidence. The repugnant notion of suspension of rational thought.
Click to expand...

What evidence? I'll agree that evidence points to evolution and science as we know it. But "despite all evidence" implies that there is evidence for a lack of God.
 
There is not any evidence either way on the existence of God is there ?

On the other hand there is evidence against another underground world under the surface of the earth inhabited by faeries and such....
 
uscitizen said:
There is not any evidence either way on the existence of God is there ?

On the other hand there is evidence against another underground world under the surface of the earth inhabited by faeries and such....
Click to expand...

Well, that's just stupid.
 
What evidence? I'll agree that evidence points to evolution and science as we know it. But "despite all evidence" implies that there is evidence for a lack of God.

There is evidence of the evolution (forgive the pun) of man's concept of god, of the creation of what is the idea of a god deriving from the worship of phenomenon then considered mysterious. Phenomenon such as fire (hearth worship), conception (attributed to the winds), the seas and tides, the rising of the sun etc etc.

There is the evidence of the hero-cults whereby great leaders or doers of deeds are deified, deemed to be transcendental. This even continued into the late classical era, where men were regularly raised to be gods (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Jesus).

Compare that (and more) to the evidence in support of there being deities (can you think of any other than man's desire that there be something greater?)

But this is besides the point of my statement that faith is belief despite evidence. Faith meaning belief despite evidence doesn't have to be limited to the big Q of the existence of a deity.

Take for example those that adhere to the concept of speciation through design, who hang on this notion despite the overwhelming evidence of speciation through natural selection. Or the Catholic faith in the idea of transubstation. This dead dogma dictates that the wine and bread is the body of Jesus, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is bread and wine.

Faith is the suspension of the need to think for oneself. It is submission to 'truth by authority', it states that all you need to do is accept the word of priests (or priests writings) as truth on the basis of the authority of the person saying the words. It is like knowing and accepting a conclusion without knowing or testing the premises.
 
Beefy said:
Well, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...

Why is the idea of fairies living underground on the moon any less stupid than the idea of a giant Geppeto figure who created us all and now looks down on us, watching our actions like someone playing Sims?
 
Well any the only real difference is that we can pretty much prove by physics that there is no underground shell world within the earth, with a sun at the middle burning uranium to light and heat it and creatures walking around with their feet in the direction outward from the center of the earth.

The existance of God cannot really be disproved or proved, Religions are carefully crafted this way.....
 
The existance of God cannot really be disproved or proved, Religions are carefully crafted this way.....

We cannot prove anything, due to the subjective nature of our existence and the impossibility of absolute knowledge.

We 'know' things by examining the evidence, the reasoning behind the idea. We 'know' that the Earth isn't hollow and full of fairies because there is significant evidence that this isn't the case. There is significant evidence that 'god' is a human creation, far more evidence than there is in support of the notion that a 'god' exists.
 
Religions are carefully crafted this way.....

You are correct, religions do construct houses of cards made from relying on ambiguity and vagueness.

Take for example the end-timers. If these people really had inside knowledge of the end of times, why can none of them produce a date for it, even approximately? Same could be said for the return of Jesus, predicted as imminent since his death 2000 years ago.

Religions rely on the vagueness created by their historical origins, and aggrandise priests so that they may make 'truth by authority'.

They are cunningly crafted, but a good philosopher can easily unravel it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top