Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[SuperFerret]

Bald is a hairstyle.

 

[bunk]

And atheism isn't a religion, though Science has many traits in common with religion though.

Such as...

 

[bunk]

Bald is a hairstyle.

How so?

 

[redhawk23]

Consideringthe percentage of chacne of the Big Bang happening and forming all life is barely even a number it's so small...I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than it does to be of any form of religion. A belief in theory, often times not based on any firm facts or proofs. One could say that Atheism in itself is a religion of a sort.

First of all, no one with any understanding of science or the scientific method ever claimed that the big bang theory was infallible. It is simply the best explaination that we have now based on the observable evidence. As new evidence arises, our understanding of the theory, the theory itself will be adusted or even abandoned. It is not a matter of faith because it is a conceptual framework made up of what we know, not what we believe.

It is calculated that there are roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)stars in the observable universe and most likely many more beyond that (they are so far away that the light of even the first stars there hasn't even reached us yet). Even if the chances of life being produced are infinitesimal, with that amount of space, with that number of stars, with amount of time that has been available, ther percent chance is that there are millions of planets with life.

Also chemicals react in certain ways. Put certain elements and compounds together with some kind of stimulation, be it simply movement, gravitation, eletrical sparks, radiation, etc, they react very easily. Created or not, we are made up of chemical compounds. Nothing that we are made up of is particularly rare. Just compounds produced by fusion at the hearts of the aforementioned preposterous amounts of stars, that all work under similar processes. Meaning that what life is made of is all over the universe.

 

[SuperFerret]

Such as...

Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word.

"But SuperFerret, with science, I can go and look for myself and find out that X is true."

Two things here, (1) can you?, and (2) speaking to anyone who's truly faithful, they surely have experiences that show the existence of a higher power to them, how is this any different?

How so?

Do some not shave their heads for style?

 

[redhawk23]

^it can be impractical resourcewise, but yes, thats actually a stipulation of science, that it is repeatable.

The point of the scientific method is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Removing all subjectivity is of course impossible (all perception is subjective) however that error is acounted for. It is calculated. Nothing is stated as infallible, fallibility is assumed. The goal of science is increasingly remove more error. It is never finished, never complete.

It's one thing to have something happen, and interpret it. However then in science you must find support for that interpretation. It is not simply accepted. Never assumed to be 100% true.

It is the difference between saying "God works in mysterious ways" and seeing unanswered questions and seeking most objective explanation we are capable of.

It is a difference in how our perception of the world is understood, aproached and used.

 

[redhawk23]

Do some not shave their heads for style?

Just a bad analogy.

It's more the like the difference between 0 slope and No Slope, if you understand my meaning.

 

[SuperFerret]

^it can be impractical resourcewise, but yes, thats actually a stipulation of science, that it is repeatable.

The point of the scientific method is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. Removing all subjectivity is of course impossible (all perception is subjective) however that error is acounted for. It is calculated. Nothing is stated as infallible, fallibility is assumed. The goal of science is increasingly remove more error. It is never finished, never complete.

It's one thing to have something happen, and interpret it. However then in science you must find support for that interpretation. It is not simply accepted. Never assumed to be 100% true.

It is the difference between saying "God works in mysterious ways" and seeing unanswered questions and seeking most objective explanation we are capable of.

It is a difference in how our perception of the world is understood, aproached and used.

It's best to agree to disagree here. I feel that there are a lot of problems with the current scientific method of "it needs to be repeatable", especially since it doesn't have the tools to recognize certain aspects of reality. I really don't want to continue the "arguing in circles" theme here.

Just a bad analogy.

It's more the like the difference between 0 slope and No Slope, if you understand my meaning.

I'm sure I don't understand your meaning. 0 = No.

 

[Saint]

Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word.

Uh, yeah, that's not science. Science is a method.

speaking to anyone who's truly faithful, they surely have experiences that show the existence of a higher power to them, how is this any different?

Are their experiences peer-reviewed and rigorously tested with the scientific method? No? Then yeah, it's actually completely different.

 

[SuperFerret]

And the scientific method is faulty.

 

[ALP]

First of all, no one with any understanding of science or the scientific method ever claimed that the big bang theory was infallible. It is simply the best explaination that we have now based on the observable evidence. As new evidence arises, our understanding of the theory, the theory itself will be adusted or even abandoned. It is not a matter of faith because it is a conceptual framework made up of what we know, not what we believe.

It is calculated that there are roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (70 sextillion)stars in the observable universe and most likely many more beyond that (they are so far away that the light of even the first stars there hasn't even reached us yet). Even if the chances of life being produced are infinitesimal, with that amount of space, with that number of stars, with amount of time that has been available, ther percent chance is that there are millions of planets with life.

Also chemicals react in certain ways. Put certain elements and compounds together with some kind of stimulation, be it simply movement, gravitation, eletrical sparks, radiation, etc, they react very easily. Created or not, we are made up of chemical compounds. Nothing that we are made up of is particularly rare. Just compounds produced by fusion at the hearts of the aforementioned preposterous amounts of stars, that all work under similar processes. Meaning that what life is made of is all over the universe.

So there is a big possibility that aliens exist. With the incredible amount of solar systems and planets that exist then surely we would not be the only one of many billions to form life. And I mean very advanced life like our own, not just a microscopic single celled organism. In fact, maybe there is another billions year old advanced planet out there with humans just like us similar to krypton. Wakka wakka.

 

[Saint]

And the scientific method is faulty.

I'm not sure you're qualified to say that it's faulty, since you don't seem to know what it is (otherwise, you wouldn't have described "Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word" as science, nor would you have likened personal anecdotes to science).

Regardless, the assertion doesn't have much to do with my response.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm not sure you're qualified to say that it's faulty, since you don't seem to know what it is (otherwise, you wouldn't have described "Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word" as science, nor would you have likened personal anecdotes to science).

Regardless, the assertion doesn't have much to do with my response.

As someone who has studied science, I am familiar with the scientific method and what it is.

Trusting someone on their word is not part of it, but you are implicitly trusting that they went through this method and that their findings are legitimate.

And the reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence is one of the biggest faults of the scientific method. Something need not be repeatable to have happened.

 

[Manic]

The average person just takes scientists' words for it. They don't question it. They're told that X is the truth because of Y, and they just accept it. They don't attempt to recreate the experiment themselves (mainly because the average person doesn't have the equipment or knowledge to do so with certain experiments). They just trust that they're being told the truth.

And really, religion is the same way. You get religious leaders saying Z is the truth, and the average person doesn't question it. They don't bother checking their religious texts. They just trust that they're being told the truth.


Unless you're a scientist or a religious scholar of some sort, all you're doing is arguing something that someone else told you and you assume is true.

 

[SuperFerret]

The average person just takes scientists' words for it. They don't question it. They're told that X is the truth because of Y, and they just accept it. They don't attempt to recreate the experiment themselves (mainly because the average person doesn't have the equipment or knowledge to do so with certain experiments). They just trust that they're being told the truth.

And really, religion is the same way. You get religious leaders saying Z is the truth, and the average person doesn't question it. They don't bother checking their religious texts. They just trust that they're being told the truth.


Unless you're a scientist or a religious scholar of some sort, all you're doing is arguing something that someone else told you and you assume is true.

 

[Saint]

As someone who has studied science, I am familiar with the scientific method and what it is.

And yet, you still likened science to "Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word" and personal anecdotes. This suggests a critical misunderstanding, or alternatively, a deliberate misrepresentation.

Trusting someone on their word is not part of it, but you are implicitly trusting that they went through this method and that their findings are legitimate.

As I explained previously, that is not science. An individual's trust has nothing to do with science; it is simply that person's trust. Trusting someone who claims to have done some science is not science.

Not incidentally, this is why the scientific community will rip apart the experiments, methodologies, and theories of their peers for the express purpose of determining whether or not the information is valid.

And the reluctance to accept anecdotal evidence is one of the biggest faults of the scientific method. Something need not be repeatable to have happened.

Such as...?

 

[SuperFerret]

And yet, you still likened science to "Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word" and personal anecdotes. This suggests a critical misunderstanding, or alternatively, a deliberate misrepresentation.

Where did I do this? I'd like a direct quote, because I don't believe I did any such thing.

As I explained previously, that is not science. An individual's trust has nothing to do with science; it is simply that person's trust. Trusting someone who claims to have done some science is not science.

Not incidentally, this is why the scientific community will rip apart the experiments, methodologies, and theories of their peers for the express purpose of determining whether or not the information is valid.

Maybe you should read Manic's post. He was a bit more wordy, but he said what I was saying.

Such as...?

Okay, explain emotions scientifically.

 

[Saint]

Where did I do this? I'd like a direct quote, because I don't believe I did any such thing.

Very well:

Science has many traits in common with religion though.

Such as...

Trusting those who tell you "X is true" based on their word.

"But SuperFerret, with science, I can go and look for myself and find out that X is true."

Two things here, (1) can you?, and (2) speaking to anyone who's truly faithful, they surely have experiences that show the existence of a higher power to them, how is this any different?

As seen here, when asked by Bunk what traits science has in common with religion, you first liken science to trusting one's word without proof (the first item in bold) and then go on to liken it to personal anecdotes (the second item in bold).

Maybe you should read Manic's post. He was a bit more wordy, but he said what I was saying.

I know what he is saying, and I know what you are saying. I understand that most people do not scientifically verify what they believe. What I am explaining to you is that this is not science. Trusting someone's word is not science, believing someone's claim is not science. Only the scientific method is science.

You claimed "Science has many traits in common with a religion." This is false, because science is a method, not a belief system. People may believe in scientific claims or theories in a way that is religious or faith-based in nature, but that is not science. That's just that person's belief.

Okay, explain emotions scientifically.

Why? You haven't explained how emotions illustrate your claim about repeatability in the scientific method.

Sort of an absurd request, anyway; of course I cannot scientifically explain emotions any better than a ten second google search, as I have not studied the matter scientifically. One might guess "The brain" is a good starting point, though.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Okay, explain emotions scientifically.

Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves "physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience." Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality and disposition, and motivation. Motivations direct and energize behavior, while emotions provide the affective component to motivation, positive or negative.

No definitive taxonomy of emotions exists, though numerous taxonomies have been proposed. Some categorizations include:

"Cognitive" versus "non-cognitive" emotions
Instinctual emotions (from the amygdala), versus cognitive emotions (from the prefrontal cortex).
Categorization based on duration: Some emotions occur over a period of seconds (for example, surprise), whereas others can last years (for example, love).
A related distinction is between the emotion and the results of the emotion, principally behaviors and emotional expressions. People often behave in certain ways as a direct result of their emotional state, such as crying, fighting or fleeing. If one can have the emotion without the corresponding behavior, then we may consider the behavior not to be essential to the emotion.

The James–Lange theory posits that emotional experience is largely due to the experience of bodily changes. The "functionalist" approach to emotions (for example, Nico Frijda and Freitas-Magalhaes) holds that emotions have evolved for a particular function, such as to keep the subject safe.

 

[Saint]

The James–Lange theory posits that emotional experience is largely due to the experience of bodily changes. The "functionalist" approach to emotions (for example, Nico Frijda and Freitas-Magalhaes) holds that emotions have evolved for a particular function, such as to keep the subject safe.

The latter makes sense to me; one would expect that organisms capable of a love response are going to breed more than the alternative, for example.

 

[bunk]

The average person just takes scientists' words for it. They don't question it. They're told that X is the truth because of Y, and they just accept it. They don't attempt to recreate the experiment themselves (mainly because the average person doesn't have the equipment or knowledge to do so with certain experiments). They just trust that they're being told the truth.

And really, religion is the same way. You get religious leaders saying Z is the truth, and the average person doesn't question it. They don't bother checking their religious texts. They just trust that they're being told the truth.


Unless you're a scientist or a religious scholar of some sort, all you're doing is arguing something that someone else told you and you assume is true.

The difference is that we all experience the results of science on a daily basis. We know that the system in place that produced all of our scientific accomplishments is also responsible for producing the scientists themselves. We trust scientists, because we trust the results of their efforts. What similar system is in place for our religious leaders?

 

[Manic]

The difference is that we all experience the results of science on a daily basis. We know that the system in place that produced all of our scientific accomplishments is also responsible for producing the scientists themselves. We trust scientists, because we trust the results of their efforts. What similar system is in place for our religious leaders?

Religious leaders produce results on a social level. Charities, rehab programs, counseling. Scientific discovery hardly produces social results, just as religion is hardly going to produce technological results.

 

[Saint]

Religious leaders produce results on a social level.

I think you missed the point; Bunk was explaining that science produces results that demonstrate truth value of the science. That is to say, we know the science of the combustion engine is sound and true because we have combustion engines that work.

Religion may have social effects, but none that demonstrate the truth value of the religious claims.

Scientific discovery hardly produces social results, just as religion is hardly going to produce technological results.

Well, no, that's not really true at all. The internet? Medical science? The industrial revolution? Education and the dispelling of ignorance? All of these have fundamentally and irrevocably shaped the development of our social environment. Science is a method for discovering truth, and nothing affects the world more than truth.

 

[SuperFerret]

As seen here, when asked by Bunk what traits science has in common with religion, you first liken science to trusting one's word without proof (the first item in bold) and then go on to liken it to personal anecdotes (the second item in bold).

I know what he is saying, and I know what you are saying. I understand that most people do not scientifically verify what they believe. What I am explaining to you is that this is not science. Trusting someone's word is not science, believing someone's claim is not science. Only the scientific method is science.

You claimed "Science has many traits in common with a religion." This is false, because science is a method, not a belief system. People may believe in scientific claims or theories in a way that is religious or faith-based in nature, but that is not science. That's just that person's belief.

Actually... no.

You're displaying a gross misunderstanding of what I'm writing, and that's where the problem lies.

I describe two things that are aspects of one of the similarities that both science (or if you'd prefer "belief in science" since you're taking every word I say as the literally as possible, instead of actually having a conversation like a person) and religion (let's define this, as I always have, as "belief in a higher power") share. That similarity is that both ("to most", I guess, since I need to spell everything out) represent knowledge that (MOST) people have not gained on their own, but rely on others in trusted positions to provide this knowledge for them. They (most people) take this at face value because (ta-f***ing-DA) they trust these people in trusted positions, be they a science teacher or priest.

Why? You haven't explained how emotions illustrate your claim about repeatability in the scientific method.

Sort of an absurd request, anyway; of course I cannot scientifically explain emotions any better than a ten second google search, as I have not studied the matter scientifically. One might guess "The brain" is a good starting point, though.

It was a poor example, and I'm tired and I can see where this is going, so I'm not even going to bother. I'm sure you or someone else will provide some unsatisfying explanation for whatever I've suggested that completely misses the point I'm making.

 

[Manic]

If that's the point bunk was trying to make, then it had nothing to do with my point, which was partially supplemental to (but not entirely the same as [because I wouldn't presume to speak for the man]) Ferret's original point.