Human Race and Earth Endangered by New Strain

[pgriz]

In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.

I'm hoping it's science (that's small-s not big-S science), since ultimately the "truth" is embedded in the natural world, and it is up to us to learn about it and understand it. But science is always going to have loose ends with stuff that is not known or not yet discovered, and perhaps, not even knowable by us at our stage of evolution. The laws of physics and chemistry will most probably be the same, no matter where in the universe they are measured, or by whom (setting aside, for the moment, the discussion of fundamental constants not being constant).


Religion, on the other hand, is a human creation and as such suffers from all the usual problems of humans. It is, however, very attractive to people who want their world to be neat and tidy, with certainties and rules and clear guidance as to what's right and wrong. Fundamentalist religions have their bed-rock truths which you can doubt or dispute only at the risk of being killed (the choice of appropriate method depends on the time in history, the religion, and the region). Underlying all religions (well, at least the traditional ones), is a set of assumptions (call them beliefs) about how the world "should" work and how to distinguish "right" from "wrong". However one justifies one's religion, ultimately it is about a belief, something that cannot be proven or disproven (note that I'm not talking about the BASIS of the belief, but the belief itself).

There is another aspect to this discussion, and that is the confabulation of "science" with "technology". Technology takes basic science and turns it into human tools. Understanding how genetic material works is science, manipulating the genes to introduce or remove certain properties is technology. Understanding how light amplification works is science, using this to make DVD readers or "death rays" is technology. Science is amoral, whereas technology is a human creation and therefore does have a morality (or lack of) implicit in it. Technology is tool-making.

If we go back to the OP, the article referenced points to those who will ignore evidence to hold onto whatever article of faiths they have. Ideology is quite similar to religion in that it has some basic assumptions, upon which the whole edifice of the ideology is built. And as for religions, there is a strong tendency to ignore contradictory evidence or even evidence that seems to disprove the tenets of the ideology. Whether the ideology is "free-market" or "communism" or "socialism" or "consumerism", the believers do not accept evidence to the contrary. Personally, I would like more people to be sceptics, people who always question the basis behind any set of pronouncements. That's different from cynics, by the way.

 

[bribrius]

Ecclesiastes 1 NIV - Everything Is Meaningless - The words - Bible Gateway

 

[bribrius]

In a two man enter one man leaves Thunderdom style fight to the death scenario who would win, Science or Religion.

I'm hoping it's science (that's small-s not big-S science), since ultimately the "truth" is embedded in the natural world, and it is up to us to learn about it and understand it. But science is always going to have loose ends with stuff that is not known or not yet discovered, and perhaps, not even knowable by us at our stage of evolution. The laws of physics and chemistry will most probably be the same, no matter where in the universe they are measured, or by whom (setting aside, for the moment, the discussion of fundamental constants not being constant).


Religion, on the other hand, is a human creation and as such suffers from all the usual problems of humans. It is, however, very attractive to people who want their world to be neat and tidy, with certainties and rules and clear guidance as to what's right and wrong. Fundamentalist religions have their bed-rock truths which you can doubt or dispute only at the risk of being killed (the choice of appropriate method depends on the time in history, the religion, and the region). Underlying all religions (well, at least the traditional ones), is a set of assumptions (call them beliefs) about how the world "should" work and how to distinguish "right" from "wrong". However one justifies one's religion, ultimately it is about a belief, something that cannot be proven or disproven (note that I'm not talking about the BASIS of the belief, but the belief itself).

There is another aspect to this discussion, and that is the confabulation of "science" with "technology". Technology takes basic science and turns it into human tools. Understanding how genetic material works is science, manipulating the genes to introduce or remove certain properties is technology. Understanding how light amplification works is science, using this to make DVD readers or "death rays" is technology. Science is amoral, whereas technology is a human creation and therefore does have a morality (or lack of) implicit in it. Technology is tool-making.

If we go back to the OP, the article referenced points to those who will ignore evidence to hold onto whatever article of faiths they have. Ideology is quite similar to religion in that it has some basic assumptions, upon which the whole edifice of the ideology is built. And as for religions, there is a strong tendency to ignore contradictory evidence or even evidence that seems to disprove the tenets of the ideology. Whether the ideology is "free-market" or "communism" or "socialism" or "consumerism", the believers do not accept evidence to the contrary. Personally, I would like more people to be sceptics, people who always question the basis behind any set of pronouncements. That's different from cynics, by the way.

from dust you came, from dust you shall return. And as all, you will be long forgotten. Science is no savior either. While a ant can seek to climb, it remains a ant.

 

[bribrius]

 

[Buckster]

Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:

 

[pgriz]

Brian, on one point I will disagree with you. We've reached a level of understanding in which we can conceptualize the lack of knowledge. The invention of zero (0) was a significant milestone in the development of mathematics. As for "Science" being a saviour, perhaps we're asking the wrong question. For me, "science" is a process of discovery, and of inquiry, which follows a set of principles (observation, theory, testing of the hypothesis, etc.). The problem for us as a species, our tool-making ability is much greater than our ability to understand how our actions have consequences, most of which we are blissfully unaware of.

 

[bribrius]

If you can show me, or anyone, even a grain of proof which speaks against the things that people gather to observe on Sundays, Fridays, or Saturdays then I'll be delighted to consider it.

This common fallacy by believers to try to shift the burden of proof from the believer to the skeptic doesn't work.

If I claim there are invisible pink poodles with gills who live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's an invisible blue dragon who breathes invisible heatless fire sitting on my shoulder right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

If I claim there's a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth right now, the burden is on me to prove it, or you have no reason at all to believe me. You have no obligation at all to disprove it.

The same is true for all claims; The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

But it was not me who brought in this type manoeuvring to the discussion, but rather that was you:

No, we don't join hands on Sundays singing about how gravity is real in our own echo-chamber to try to convince each other that it's true in spite of tons of actual factual evidence against it. Same goes for the rest of science, which is just confirmation of the observable facts that surround us all, you included, like it or not. Some people just look a lot deeper into things than others to discover and confirm the truth about things you apparently can't even imagine, no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

If you can disprove any accepted scientific theories, you should jump right on that and win yourself a Nobel Prize.

Literally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the scientific theories you question as "cobbled together" exist, and more are being discovered, revealed, and shown every day by the people investigating them. Those people are called scientists, and that's their job.

While there is no "obligation" to believe a claim nor to disprove it, in science, anyone who CAN disprove one of those theories with overwhelming evidence like that instantly wins fame and fortune in the scientific world, including Nobel prizes, so testing those theories is constantly going on. The fact that those theories continue to withstand those many tests over time lends even more credence to them. That is why I suggested that if you really think they're "cobbled together" (without actual evidence) then you should get in line with 10,000 others trying to disprove them, and win a Noble if you can really pull it off.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: No scientist says, "I claim that "X" is true. I have no proof, no evidence, nothing to support it, not even a mathematical equation. I just pulled it out of my butt last night after too much heroin and pizza. If you cannot disprove what I've just now claimed, you must accept it."

That's essentially what you're saying though when it comes to those beliefs that take place outside of scientific study; Beliefs that involve the supernatural and have no proof or evidence at all - only claims. You're saying that's all they need are the claims, and that the skeptic has some obligation to disprove those claims, or they remain viable.

But they don't.

Any claims without evidence are on the same footing as the claims without evidence about invisible pink poodles, invisible blue dragons, or teapots in orbit, as examples. They don't require being disproved by anyone to remain unbelievable. They can be waved away and dismissed with a laugh, at least until such time as credible evidence from the claimants of any of them is presented, examined and tested.

They are very much different from the scientific theories that have tens of thousands of pieces of evidence that continue to withstand scrutiny and testing.

Now, it's about time to recognize that this thread is headed into Lock-Land as it gets deeper and deeper into religion, which is a no-no here at TPF. I've been trying my best to avoid going there, but it's getting more difficult with each new round of posting. If I stop replying, it's because I'm going to try to avoid breaking that rule. It doesn't mean I don't have a reply, just that I'm not going to voice it here. Feel free to PM or email me if you want to continue the conversation deeper into religion.

science is its own religion, proven or disproven . The aspect of evolution to perhaps a higher state, which is assumed a higher state by nature. As man assumes he is higher than the chimpanzee. However both accepts the same end result and fate. My question with such a steadfast belief and supporter of science. Is. Where is it everyone thinks they are going?

 

[pgriz]

Maybe, as the song goes, it's not the destination that's important, but the journey.

 

[bribrius]

Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:

and............
if you were going to place bets....

Pascal s Wager - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[bribrius]

Maybe, as the song goes, it's not the destination that's important, but the journey.

"16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief."

Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
13 I saw that wisdom
just as light is better than darkness.
14 The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both."
“As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work,because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?





beyond me, ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the most fortunate were those never born. I am huge fan of Ecclesiastes. Read it once a year. Then i go build something or plant something in the ground and find my peace with it.

 

[The_Traveler]

Pascal s Wager

Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.

(1) To believe in God simply for the payoff is the wrong motive for belief. Such self-serving individuals would not properly serve the Deity.

(2) In order to be sure of a payoff, an individual would not know which God or gods to believe in to cover the conditions of the wager. Would the Wager also hold for Zeus, Odin, or Mithra? One would have to believe in all gods to be sure, but if there were only one God in fact, then this strategy would defeat itself.

 

[unpopular]

What the Bleep Do We Know should never be cited.

 

[Buckster]

Enjoy one of my favorite lectures:

and............
if you were going to place bets....

Pascal s Wager - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Pascal's Wager is supremely flawed, and has been known to be supremely flawed from it's inception.

Believing in A god isn't enough. You have to believe in the CORRECT god, or you're screwed, according to nearly every religion ever devised. Not only that, you usually have to ALSO believe in the correct interpretation (religious sect) of that one correct god, or your screwed, again according to nearly every religion ever devised.

Since there are 30,000 variations on Christianity alone, plus all the other current religions, plus all the ancient religions that are now seen as mere myths by even the most devout believers, the chances of buying the wrong ticket in a Pascal's Wager are extremely high.

It's just like lottery tickets. It's not enough that you buy one. You have to buy the winning one, or you lose even more than the person who didn't blow even a dollar on it.

And in the end, it's not enough just to SAY you bought it, which plenty of people do so as not to have a confrontation with the faithful about it and possibly lose friends, family, job, community standing, etc. No - you have to ACTUALLY buy it.

So even IF you buy into Pascal's Wager "just in case", and even IF you choose the right god, and even IF you choose the right religion, if you don't ACTUALLY believe it, you're STILL screwed, and therein lies yet another problem with it.

If I tell you there's an invisible pizza in that empty box, and that you shouldn't take the chance of not believing me, and instead continue to think that there's not an invisible pizza, and I remind you that IF you're wrong and I'm right you will suffer for eternity over it, will that be enough for you to ACTUALLY believe that there really IS an invisible pizza in that empty box?

For most rational, reasonable people, the answer is a resounding, "no, it's not enough - not by a long shot. Your story about an invisible pizza in that box is BS, and I don't buy it for a minute." But even if you just THINK that, and say instead, "YES! I DO BELIEVE IN THE INVISIBLE PIZZA!!! HALLELUJAH!!!", you're still screwed because now YOU'RE full of BS.

 

[bribrius]

Pascal s Wager

Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.

(1) To believe in God simply for the payoff is the wrong motive for belief. Such self-serving individuals would not properly serve the Deity.

(2) In order to be sure of a payoff, an individual would not know which God or gods to believe in to cover the conditions of the wager. Would the Wager also hold for Zeus, Odin, or Mithra? One would have to believe in all gods to be sure, but if there were only one God in fact, then this strategy would defeat itself.

That would be for the individual to decide. Personally, i don't follow a particular religion and most often avoid them. If i were wagering, i would suggest there is one, that has been called many names amongst many people. Much a attempted explanation for the human condition and existence, or natural events. Each giving their personal twist to it in their adaptive religion. In fact it is the human titles, doctrines i separate from it as fallibility. Then i just nolonger concern myself. The largest objective to pascals wager may be the assumption of eternal life. Personally, i am pretty content with just accepting the unknown and with the plausibility of being recycled through the ground. So no pay off needed.

 

[Buckster]

Pascal s Wager

Two main objections are often raised to Pascal's Wager.

(1) To believe in God simply for the payoff is the wrong motive for belief. Such self-serving individuals would not properly serve the Deity.

(2) In order to be sure of a payoff, an individual would not know which God or gods to believe in to cover the conditions of the wager. Would the Wager also hold for Zeus, Odin, or Mithra? One would have to believe in all gods to be sure, but if there were only one God in fact, then this strategy would defeat itself.

That would be for the individual to decide. Personally, i don't follow a particular religion and most often avoid them. If i were wagering, i would suggest there is one, that has been called many names amongst many people. Much a attempted explanation for the human condition and existence, or natural events. Each giving their personal twist to it in their adaptive religion. In fact it is the human titles, doctrines i separate from it as fallibility. Then i just nolonger concern myself. The largest objective to pascals wager may be the assumption of eternal life. Personally, i am pretty content with just accepting the unknown and with the plausibility of being recycled through the ground. So no pay off needed.

As Pascal asked, "What if you're wrong?"

What if there IS one god and that god DOES insist that you believe in him alone and follow his rules to the letter as set forth by one particular sect OR you will suffer throughout eternity to come?

What good then does believing your false religion and your false god do you, in terms of Pascal's Wager, since you brought it up?

Aren't you scared you might be wrong?