The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 21 of 32
Sorry double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I prefer to accept theories or information in general based on scientific evidence or factual data.
And therein lies your own set of unprovable beliefs.
Who says scientific data is the only kind of data that has evidentiary quality? Surely this is nothing more than epistemological imperialism. Much stock is given to the idea that only things that are empirically verifiable count as knowledge. But curiously, there's no way to empirically verify that idea!
Furthermore, the idea that only material things exist is also an unprovable hypothesis. Universal statements like that reduce to the form, "Given any X, X is physical." But that sort of universal is impossible to prove because to prove it, you'd have to have access to every X that currently exists, and ever did exist and ever will exist, and then you'd have to have a way to test all those Xs to see if they really were purely physical. And of course, it's ludicrous to think that we could ever gather all Xs for examination, and it's doubtful whether we're equipped to examine them all.
I guess the main point is that a purely scientific worldview rests on unprovable hypothesis, just like religion does. Its foundations rest on certain metaphysical and epistemological commitments which, though they be so widely repeated and so widely accepted as to appear to be beyond doubt, are really nothing more than the fruits of philosophical inquiry. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science are really the last results of a metaphysical analysis."
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
The above statement manages to illustrate a very flawed equivication at the heart of most arguements between believers and their detractors.
It's true science can probably never claim to prove anything absolutely. True science should never and would never claim to anything resembling epistemological imperialism. Rather science is valid in a range which varies in it's ability to predict. The greatest scientific theories are are the ones which manage to predict the most fantastic occurences sight unseen which sometimes don't become validated for decades at a time, as in the case of many of Einstein's prediction. Newton is the best example of science's measured worth through predictive range. The X's fundamentally ingrained in his equations fail on the quantum level, but these failings are immaterial to it's true worth in a range of predictive knowledge regarding gravity.
Theists often get it wrong when they try to equate the validity of scientific knowledge to the purely backward looking philosophies religions use to describe the existence of the natural world. That all crucial moment of creation is their first and final obsession...it's the true face of the 'causality' chain so central to the visions of theistic thinkers like Spinoza and Liebenitz. Science is not dependent on such foundational issues. Luckily(heh ironic)it just so happens to be the case, science's predictive values often work in both directions when it comes to temporal observations.
If I'm not mistaken, theism offers little by way of similar predictave value. It may try, but I don't think anyone's been bowled over by any one result yet. That said, it doesn't really need to. Religion often seems to derive it's greatest value out of foundational theories, whether used for justifying moral behavior or creating a sense of comfort and place in the vast universe. Faith is religion's function, which does not adhere to the logical apprehensions of time and space. Causality is a surprisingly weak principle inside the labratory.
The equivication difficulties for theists and their detractors continue beyond arguem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know.... I missed Casual's post the first time around but now after reading it I think it's pretty good.
Bottom line is I think both science and religion are bullshit. Or they are both real. Or one is right, while the other is wrong.
It takes a leap of faith to subscribe to either philosophy. There are things that happen in the Science world and observations made that I do happen to believe are true. Many claims Science has made are false and have even been proven false by other Science... and who's to say they won't someday be prooven true again by Science. There are also things that I've read in the Bible that I believe are true. There are also many things in the Bible I've read that I simply can't believe, or would have to seriously change the way I thought about everything else in my life to fully buy into.
As far as a Science vs. Religion debate goes, I really don't see how either side has much of an argument here at all. We're all just a bunch of lost souls latching onto something to legitimatize our otherwise pointless existances.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
I know you know what I'm saying.... being that in actuality you wouldn't even classify yourself as an Athiest
Actually I think that the Strong Agnostic subgroup fits better under the Atheist group then the Agnostic group, perhaps renamed as "Weak Atheist"? So by my own (obviously superior) classification system I would fall under Atheism.
I thought some more about this as I was burning my fingers off in an attempt to consume some Taco Bell and I've come to the conclusion that the Strong Agnostic group isn't even a valid classification. The difference between Atheism and Strong Agnosticism is simply the admission of fallibility which has no bearing on beliefs. Thus the subgroup that used to be Strong Agnosticism would be folded into standard Atheism just with the caveat that we admit that we are fallible, which most atheists, 6ix's brother being an exception apparently, would be willing to stipulate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think I'm grasping this Atheism concept then. I'm confused. Please define Atheism to me because I was under the impression that they flat out didn't believe in God, and I just don't know why you would be willing to go as far as to come right out and say "THERE IS NO GOD" without being absolutly sure that there wasn't a God. That's a big gamble to make if you're unsure.
I've been called a pussy for being Agnostic because I won't make up my mind, but I don't care. Personally, I think it's better to have an open mind. I take from Science and Religion what I feel are the good they have to offer and I discard the rest. Mulling all this shit over in my mind I find to be an excellent time waster. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't think I'm grasping this Atheism concept then. I'm confused. Please define Atheism to me because I was under the impression that they flat out didn't believe in God, and I just don't know why you would be willing to go as far as to come right out and say "THERE IS NO GOD" without being absolutly sure that there wasn't a God.
You are taking the admission of fallibility as a sign of being unsure when in reality it is simply the admission of fallibility. I am not a god, I do not know everything, thus to state that my conclusion is infallible would be amazingly arrogant and stupid. Your definition of atheism is correct, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god.
Quote:
That's a big gamble to make if you're unsure.
With the other option being Agnosticism? I really don't think that god would be much happier with "I don't there is a god but I'm not sure" then "There is no god, but I could be wrong". Personally I think Pascal's Wager is shit, if god is so vain that lip service to belief will do or so blind that he-she-it can be fooled by false belief then I think I'd rather kick it with Satan for eternity myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
With the other option being Agnosticism? I really don't think that god would be much happier with "I don't there is a god but I'm not sure" then "There is no god, but I could be wrong". Personally I think Pascal's Wager is shit, if god is so vain that lip service to belief will do or so blind that he-she-it can be fooled by false belief then I think I'd rather kick it with Satan for eternity myself.
I don't think he would either. In the end, if I do decide that I'm a believer and I'm "born again", God will know that there was no difference between your views and mine. This is more for my benifit than anyone elses. It's so I don't look like a dumbass and have to eat a lifetime of words against God if I decide to go that route. Plus the more you say something the more true it becomes to you too. You are what you think. I'm just not ready to repeat "There is no God" over and over and over again. I haven't yet decided to take that road either.
With your definitions, there really doesn't seem to be any difference between the two anyhow. Neither an Agnostic or an Atheist knows what the hell is happening, but an Agnostic will admit they don't know while an Atheist will pretend vehemently that they do know, while having a little fine print clause saying that they could be wrong.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.
This is assuming that you are incapable of guilt and conscience free. Hannibal Lechter lived a life without regret.
Says who? It's perfectly possible to be at peace with one's life at the end of it. That doesn't mean certain things have not been regretted at a point or that no mistakes were made.
Unrelated to that:
After yesterday's heatwave has died down, I am less motivated to make a fuss about what amounts to be my own personal problem with the bible, so unless people are eager to keep discussing this (I doubt it), I'll be bowing out now and leaving this thread in peace.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I meant here was that while there is truth to the statements made about Religion and belief in God causing guilt, being free from God does not equate being free from guilt and regret. I'm sure you couldn't possibly believe that to be true. Humans do a lot of bad things and there are quite a few things I've done that I feel guilty about and stuff that I've said that I regret and I don't believe they are attached to God at all. I do not believe that if the concepts of God or Religion never existed that I would be free from guilt or regret.
Hannibal Lechter is an example of what it would be like to be free from guilt and regret. That would be pretty scary to have 6.5 Billion Hannabals roaming the world.
EDIT: I re-read your posts and it seems that you think that everyone has their regrets and makes mistakes (that's what you said last post). The reason I said anything in the first place was because of a line in your previous post:
"If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me."
This is impossible for any sane individual, with or without God. Although because of your most recent post, I think you were speaking more ideologically here rather than literally. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
EDIT: I re-read your posts and it seems that you think that everyone has their regrets and makes mistakes (that's what you said last post). The reason I said anything in the first place was because of a line in your previous post:
"If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me."
This is impossible for any sane individual, with or without God. Although because of your most recent post, I think you were speaking more ideologically here rather than literally.
I'll admit to a poor word choice there and say "If, at the end of your life, you can look back with acceptance and peace...[insert rest]"
I think it's possible to live a life that one doesn't have to feel sorry for at its end (and I include arrangements made with human society and its rules in there) that might stand in conflict with God's laws, and I dislike the notion of having to pay for that in hell fires, simply because my idea of good and God's idea of good aren't the same. If that's his idea of free will, he can bite me. That's not loving, that's controlling.
Which is basically my point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME