Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Hey peoples

Many of our members are or were religious at some point in their lives. Feel free to post discussions on religious topics here.

Re: Hey peoples

Postby zilch » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:21 pm

Hey Daniel! You say:

Any way, if determinism were not real, then science would be impossible to be relied upon as science, because reality would be indeterminate. It would certainly undermine any reliable reason that you believe in a mechanical material world. One cannot have an effect without a cause. If one can have an effect without a cause then all reality is unstable. Any reliance on science would then be wishful thinking, when in fact leads to having no sound reason to believe whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

G.E. already answered this, and my answer is basically the same: you can do science even if the world is not determined, as long as it's not completely chaotic. I just want to amplify a bit on this point because I have the feeling your position here shows very clearly one reason why we are talking in circles.

I don't know if the world is deterministic. But as fascinating as the question is, as far as doing science or even just living day to day goes, it doesn't matter one whit- because whether or not the world is deterministic, there is a great deal of order and predictability in it, and science (and day to day life) can work with that order and predictability. The important thing to keep in mind is that this order and predictability is a matter of observation, not a matter of philosophizing. Having observed that the Sun continues to rise, and having a smattering of understanding about why it continues to rise, gives me (and anyone else who thinks about it) enough certainty to bet my life that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Your claim that this is "wishful thinking", and that it's not a "sound reason" to believe the Sun will rise tomorrow, is merely philosophical posturing. If you need some authority to tell you that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that's okay with me, but you can't expect me to share your weakness here.

Can I prove logically that the Sun will rise tomorrow? No. Does it matter? No. Can I prove that the world is deterministic, or non-deterministic? Likewise not. So what? How does that weaken science? Doesn't.

As far as I can tell, you're just saying that since we cannot be absolutely certain of anything in the world, therefore we must believe in some absolute, who is coincidentally the God of the Bible, or we have nothing. This would be a more convincing argument if there were any evidence that knowledge is dualistic: either you have it, or you don't. But this doesn't seem to be the case: the world is more complex than that.

Again: the word is not the thing. The world is not divided into yes/no, black/white, right/wrong, as nice and simple as that would be.

cheers from vernal Vienna, zilch
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15280
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Shol'va » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:35 pm

This point once again circles back to emotional needs of the one appealing to authority
"But I must have some absolute certainty and absolute standard in my life, otherwise I can't do without it !!!"
It is difficult for me to remain polite in the face of someone applying personal needs and wants to others. In such a case god is nothing more than a replacement for a parent for somebody that never quite grew up emotionally, and now that they are on their own two feet in the world, more or less, need to have that same comfort in the back of their mind that was there when they had mom and dad to care for them.
They must be comforted by the thought that there's somebody at the helm of the universe, somebody in control.
I understand, accept and respect that some people have this emotional void that must be filled, and religion does it nicely. But as soon as they use that as a tool for argument to convince me as to why the reality of their perception must be that of mine as well, then I am going to resist that bullshit, and I might add sometimes with a certain degree of hostility.
Shol'va
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:35 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Daniel (Da Pilgrim) » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:53 am

Ok, I would like to reply briefly, and I will discontinue the AfR discussion. I think we have found where our thinking runs a different course.
GE said:
I don't deny determinism. I said that I think that it is an over-conclusion, but that I might be wrong. If determinism were not real science would be impossible? What are we talking about? I don't think that it is either determinism or abject randomness. I think there's both things. That there's predictability to a point, but that some phenomena are random. That's why evolution works, because there's some random processes, and their interactions with the more deterministic parts of natural phenomena produce spectacular results, like ourselves.


Ok, Philosophically I am a determinist, there is excellent evidence for it and one cannot even begin to truly comprehend indeterminism, as it would mean a particle that is one form can "magically" change into another spontaneously and without cause, which poses problems for the reliability of science. I would like to hear your definition of "random". To me random only refers to incalculable complexity, as in, it is still complex causality and not "magic". Here stems many of my questions regarding the "randomness" of mutations. To me they cannot be magically random, they must have had a cause and I wonder what that might be?
Also, you like to assert "reality" as precluding reason. I cannot accept that ideology. We bring our consciousness to a perception of reality and thus construct reality according to our consciousness. Reason is a means by which we can make sense of our consciousness' perception of reality. Reality is constructed, not consciousness.

Shol'va
It is an emotional need to rid yourself of beliefs that incorporate a god, yes? Why not believe fairytales to be true? I mean, they might make you happy, or does "not believing in them" make you "happier" for some reason.
Pointing out fallacies can be helpful, but really they need to be used wisely, because it is hard to form any arguments at all without using a perfectly unsound argument. Be wary of lemon picking.

What would take to convince you of evolution? You stated earlier that evolution is not immediately observable. Let's pretend thats true. Then I have to ask, were you there when god created the universe and us? No? So you have no way of knowing that our existence is evidence for it. You inject god into a gap of knowledge.


Good question. I have no way of being sure in an absolute sense that God created the world, since I was not there. But I can postulate His reality as creator by observing the universe and all that is therein. Same with evolution, I wasn't there to observe millions of years, but I can potentially postulate its validity from what I observe. I just need to observe first and I haven't really observed enough yet to convince me, though I am sure there must be good evidence out there considering that many people believe it. I will look into it more when I actually have time.

Froggie to answer your question earlier. I am studying a Social Work degree, not a theological degree. But I would love to study philosophy and theology officially at a later date maybe :)

Cheers.
User avatar
Daniel (Da Pilgrim)
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:10 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby E-lad » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:19 am

Daniel (Da Pilgrim) wrote:Shol'va
It is an emotional need to rid yourself of beliefs that incorporate a god, yes? Why not believe fairytales to be true? I mean, they might make you happy, or does "not believing in them" make you "happier" for some reason.


It's shit like this that makes me want to just jump up kick your ass.
By now if you do not understand why most of us do not believe in the supernatural then you're a moron. But I suspect you are not. You use the reversal fallacy that all fundumbentalists use.
If we say, "you have no evidence," you just turn it around and say, "you have no evidence, it takes more faith to believe in evolution.......et & et." However, what you have done is unwittingly admit that your position is based on emotional belies. You just punched yourself in the head! :lol:
It is totally common to hear fundies tell non theists things about them that have no basis in truth, but are things that the fundie wants to believe about them. It is a pitiful and pathetic ploy, to say the least.

There is nothing emotional about evidence or lack of evidence. The fact that you were raised from infancy to get your security based on ancient beliefs means that you are emotionally invested and that is why you distort, lie and obfuscate most everything that is said to you. That is the stock-in-trade of fundamentalists. They don't have real answers so they use idiotic statements just like you just did there.

It is because of the fact that of a non-emotional investigation being done is reason people conclude there are no supernatural powers operating in the universe.



Froggie to answer your question earlier. I am studying a Social Work degree, not a theological degree. But I would love to study philosophy and theology officially at a later date maybe :)


Yeah, just make sure you don't get near any science courses. :)
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Daniel (Da Pilgrim) » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:39 am

Froggie
It's shit like this that makes me want to just jump up kick your ass.
By now if you do not understand why most of us do not believe in the supernatural then you're a moron. But I suspect you are not. You use the reversal fallacy that all fundumbentalists use.


It will only be used if you make the assertion that our beliefs are solely on emotion. Emotion is a deep concept and you make it shallow, to the point where you are naive that emotion has nothing to do with your beliefs. Our worldviews are tainted. Welcome to postmodernism.

Oh and Shol'va, regarding searching for other truths... I meant, have you searched the earth for every other idea before having convictions of your own? If you have, then all good, but for you to restrict me from stating what I think is reasonable because I may have not searched multiple other ideas is ridiculous. I have looked into other views and paradigms but in no way exhaustively. It has value to look at all other ideas, but it is not essential. No one lives like that and no one is physically able to. I am happy to hear your viewpoint even though you may have not heard other ideas before. Because you haven't heard other ideas doesn't make yours invalid.
It comes back to fallacies. It really is hard to make an argument without a fallacy. Quite funny really but I remember Lennox and Dawkins debating freely when Dawkins accused Lennox of a fallacy, but then Lennox cut back and pointed out Dawkin's fallacy that he was using. From memory it came to a stalemate after that little toss and they carried on talking. Rightly so. With inductive reasoning (which we all work with), evidence is often about what strongly indicates something or what is "weak", which can be relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
User avatar
Daniel (Da Pilgrim)
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:10 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby E-lad » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:25 am

I am absolutely sure that your beliefs are based on the same emotions and cultural conditioning as the Muslims of Iran, the Buddhists of Japan, the Hindus of India and all the varieties of superstition on the African continent. Your beliefs are no better than the half naked Shaman dancing and throwing bones on the ground.
I am not surprised that you bristle at this obvious fact. :)

Cheers!
Life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.- Horace Walpole
User avatar
E-lad
 
Posts: 14772
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Northwestern Pennsylvania

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Photosynthesis » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:03 pm

Daniel (Da Pilgrim) wrote:Ok, Philosophically I am a determinist, there is excellent evidence for it and one cannot even begin to truly comprehend indeterminism, as it would mean a particle that is one form can "magically" change into another spontaneously and without cause, which poses problems for the reliability of science.


It doesn't mean that particles of one form will transform into other forms "magically", spontaneously and without a cause. It means that some phenomena are not deterministic, not that every phenomena is not deterministic. Do you really not see the difference? I explained this to you. Please try and read more carefully and for comprehension. There's no problem for the reliability of science if some parts of reality have a tad of freedom, while others are more "railed." Science is not about perfectly predictable patterns, but about figuring things out.

I would like to hear your definition of "random". To me random only refers to incalculable complexity, as in, it is still complex causality and not "magic". Here stems many of my questions regarding the "randomness" of mutations. To me they cannot be magically random, they must have had a cause and I wonder what that might be?


It might as well be just incalculable complexity. As I said. I just think that determinism might be wrong. I can't just shrug and accept abject determinism as if we knew everything. We just don't. Yes, mutations seem random, but maybe it is "incalculable complexity" that's behind each mutation that occurs. Whatever makes you happy. The main point is this: whether it is true or false or something in-between, nether scenarios precludes nature from being the source of reason.

Also, you like to assert "reality" as precluding reason.


Au contraire. I assert reality as the basis for reason. It was you who denied that nature could be the source of reason. Not me.

I cannot accept that ideology.


Me neither. Nice that we can agree on something.

We bring our consciousness to a perception of reality and thus construct reality according to our consciousness.


False, false, false, false. We don't construct reality. Before we could even imagine that we construct reality there has to be a reality supporting us.

Reason is a means by which we can make sense of our consciousness' perception of reality. Reality is constructed, not consciousness.


Au contraire. Reality is what it is regardless of consciousness. Consciousness is, by its very nature, dependent on reality, We are conscious [of something]. As I said above, we can't even begin to imagine that "reality is constructed" without a reality supporting us in the first place. But sure, reason is a means by which we can make sense of or perceptions of reality. Hey! Second thing we can agree about. Now, pay very close attention: the reason reason helps us make sense of our perceptions of reality is precisely that it comes after reality. It is not some magical thing that appeared independently of reality and it just happened to be helpful. It is a result of reality just like bacteria swimming towards nutrients use a more obviously physical logic. Are you starting to get it now? It's very simple Daniel.Just make a bit of effort towards understanding. This is what I have been trying to explain to your from the very beginning.

Cheers.


Cheers to you too.
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Photosynthesis » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:55 pm

Daniel (Da Pilgrim) wrote:Our worldviews are tainted. Welcome to postmodernism.


Yours for sure. Mine is clean and immaculate.

It comes back to fallacies. It really is hard to make an argument without a fallacy.


No it isn't. But suppose it were. How would that make it acceptable to rely on fallacies that you can obviously avoid?
User avatar
Photosynthesis
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:14 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Shol'va » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:36 pm

Daniel (Da Pilgrim) wrote:Oh and Shol'va, regarding searching for other truths... I meant, have you searched the earth for every other idea before having convictions of your own?

No, and you know why? Because you even asking me that clearly indicates you have no idea what the concept of "burden of proof means".
I have absolutely no burden or obligation to explore every single belief system that man has come up with through the ages, both past and present.
The only burden I have is to look at the available evidence objectively.
I was once a Christian. A devout Christian, more than you'll probably (and hopefully) ever be. I lost my faith the moment when I was able to put my personal desires and emotions aside and look at the evidence objectively and ask myself why I believed what I believed. The road to complete deconversion was long and hard and even depressing at times.

but for you to restrict me from stating what I think is reasonable because I may have not searched multiple other ideas is ridiculous.

No it isn't. Because you chose one belief system to the detriment of others, on faith and what you feel is "reasonable" without knowing full well what the others are about. To contrast that, no faith required in accepting evidence and accepting the fact that we live in a material universe.
And I am not restricting you from anything. I am challenging your assertions.

I've told you this before and you are in willful denial of it: we all start with the same premise. We live in a material universe. We are born, we live, we die. These are the facts of life. Anyone that posits a transcendental, something above and beyond our material universe must present their evidence. To date, there is no evidence for god; the existence of gods is taken on faith. So the onus is not on me to go out there and search for evidence for a god, or even disprove a god in order to support my world view. In fact, I am eager to review my world view based on new evidence. To date the only things you presented were logical fallacies, arguments from emotion, non-sequiturs, unsupported assertions and arguments from faith and religiocentrism.
The only reason you're not muslim is because you were born in a predominantly Christian country instead of somewhere in the Middle East.
The reason you opted for Christianity has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with the accident of birth (you happened to be born to a Christian environment).

It has value to look at all other ideas, but it is not essential.

This is like saying "vanilla is my favorite ice cream flavor and tasting others is irrelevant because I already know I like vanilla best".

It really is hard to make an argument without a fallacy.

YOU may find it difficult to posit an argument without fallacies and all you're doing now is projecting it onto others.

With inductive reasoning (which we all work with), evidence is often about what strongly indicates something or what is "weak", which can be relative.

Right. And when your inductive reasoning is confirmed by multiple different kinds of experiments and evidence from many different scientific fields, the conclusions are no longer up to debate.
Shol'va
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:35 am

Re: Hey peoples

Postby Shol'va » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:05 am

What, no updates on this? I am dissapoint.
Shol'va
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to The SMRT Religion Project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron