quisquose Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 To nick a quote from Dawkins: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." I'm willing to accept evidence to contradict that statement, but the more evidence science digs up the more it seems to confirm it. What's more, I'm quite comfortable with that fact and need no comfort blanket. I respect people's choice to hold whatever beliefs they want, and will defend their right to have them, but I have contempt for people who attempt to use science to confirm them. There's also the hypocrisy of accepting the scientific method when it is used to confirm beliefs, whilst simultaneously condemning it when it contradicts with beliefs. If these people have such a problem with evolutionary biology, I fully expect them to implode in some feedback loop error when neuroscience starts to unravel some mysteries. I hope I'm around to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The ball court is now open. Can science prove that it has scope enough (is adequately equipped) to address the question of god's existence? Also, what is 'science', surely it's just humans doing their thing. Which is just what 'religion' is too... The whole thing, is like the eye debating with the ear, about the existence of light (or sound). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Can science prove that it has scope enough (is adequately equipped) to address the question of god's existence? Also, what is 'science', surely it's just humans doing their thing. Which is just what 'religion' is too... The whole thing, is like the eye debating with the ear, about the existence of light (or sound). How is it like that? That's just modern nonsense that the religious have come up with so that their beliefs don't have to conform to reality. It's a meaningless cop out. Science is better equipped than religion to answer all questions. That's not to say that science has all the answers, merely that it is the best tool we have ever had in the history of mankind for determining truth. Religion was our first attempt at understanding the world, based on fear and guesses, science is its upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Utter rubbish. And your reasoning behind that would be...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 How is it like that? That's just modern nonsense that the religious have come up with so that their beliefs don't have to conform to reality. It's a meaningless cop out. Science is better equipped than religion to answer all questions. That's not to say that science has all the answers, merely that it is the best tool we have ever had in the history of mankind for determining truth. Religion was our first attempt at understanding the world, based on fear and guesses, science is its upgrade. I'm not at all religious, or defending religion. I'm not copping out of anything. People talk about science, as if it exists on it's own, apart from humanity. I am asserting that science, like religion, is a human activity. They are simply different ways in which we human beings use our minds. The eyes and ears analogy, is making the point that different modalities of awareness, have different limitations and are better suited to different tasks. I am not convinced that 'science' is best suited to answer ALL questions. I think it's important to understand the limitations and nature of the science process (and I do not mean the scientific process, I'm talking about something more fundamental - the context within which the scientific process takes place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 How is it like that? That's just modern nonsense that the religious have come up with so that their beliefs don't have to conform to reality. It's a meaningless cop out. Science is better equipped than religion to answer all questions. That's not to say that science has all the answers, merely that it is the best tool we have ever had in the history of mankind for determining truth. Religion was our first attempt at understanding the world, based on fear and guesses, science is its upgrade. Jimmy- what we all should agree on is that scientifically verified truths should be accepted. But the question of God's existence doesn't really come down to science, especially since science, by definition, doesn't deal with God's existence (as it deals with the material world only). Also, science cannot tell us things like why moral truths exist (yet you accept them without evidence) or metaphysical truths. In addition, if your statement that 'science is the best tool' then how do we account for disciplines used (especially in educational institutions) on evaluating philosophy, art, literature and music- all these lie outside the realms of science. Science won't tell me why painting X is a masterpiece or why poem Y is a work of a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Jimmy- what we all should agree on is that scientifically verified truths should be accepted. But the question of God's existence doesn't really come down to science, especially since science, by definition, doesn't deal with God's existence (as it deals with the material world only). No I do not accept that. And it is cetainly not true 'by definition' unless you make up your own definition of science, which I see you have. If there is a god it cannot be completely immaterial and must have material manifestations or else it could not have created the universe, and certainly could not interfere. If god exists then it is a physical thing that actually exists, otherwise it doesn't exist. Also, science cannot tell us things like why moral truths exist (yet you accept themNo I do not. There is no such thing as objective morality. So far both of your objections are based on false assumptions. In addition, if your statement that 'science is the best tool' then how do we account for disciplines used (especially in educational institutions) on evaluating philosophy, art, literature and music- all these lie outside the realms of science. Science won't tell me why painting X is a masterpiece or why poem Y is a work of a genius. It almost certainly can tell us why some people love painting A yet others love painting B, we just don't understand those systems well enough yet. Besides, religion doesn't provide any answers to any of those questions either. I sense a god of the gaps approaching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Why have you changed the words of Dictionary.com's definition? Did you not think that someone might have a look for themselves? This is the full definition from your source... I can't see your quote anywhere in there. The definitions I can see (from your source) agree with what I said, none of them indicate that knowledge cancels out belief. If anything it only strengthens belief (in most cases). I didnt change the words i merely cut and pasted the relevant definition. As you have shown there are multiple definitions, the one I chose most suited how I myself defined the word in this context. You have chosen to define it in yours. On that point I will agree to differ with you. be·lieve [bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing. verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. verb (used with object) 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border. 5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town. option 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I'm not at all religious, or defending religion. I'm not copping out of anything.I never suggested that you were, and in fact am aware that you are not religious. I just think you're being far too easy on them, and letting them have their cop out. People talk about science, as if it exists on it's own, apart from humanity. I am asserting that science, like religion, is a human activity. They are simply different ways in which we human beings use our minds. The eyes and ears analogy, is making the point that different modalities of awareness, have different limitations and are better suited to different tasks. I am not convinced that 'science' is best suited to answer ALL questions. I think it's important to understand the limitations and nature of the science process (and I do not mean the scientific process, I'm talking about something more fundamental - the context within which the scientific process takes place). Well I am talking about the scientific process, so we've crossed wires here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I didnt change the words i merely cut and pasted the relevant definition. From where? it wasn't from the source you sited As you have shown there are multiple definitions, the one I chose most suited how I myself defined the word in this context. You have chosen to define it in yours. On that point I will agree to differ with you. I haven't chosen a definition, I've listed all the definitions from your source, all of which I agree with, none of which contain the "cut and paste" you gave EDIT: Looks like you edited your post as I was writing mine. Now I can see your full copy/paste I can see that we're looking at different words. I looked up "belief" on Dictionary.com whereas you looked up "believe". Oddly, Dictionary.com gives slightly conflicting definitions between the two, one of the reasons I always prefer the Oxford Dictionary: "Definition of believe verb [with object] 1accept that (something) is true, especially without proof: the superintendent believed Lancaster’s story [with clause]: some 23 per cent believe that smoking keeps down weight accept the statement of (someone) as true: he didn’t believe her [no object] have religious faith: there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe (believe something of) feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something: I wouldn’t have believed it of Lavinia—what an extraordinary woman! 2 [with clause] hold (something) as an opinion; think: I believe we’ve already met (believe someone/thing to be) four men were believed to be trapped" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.