God is "beyond" science!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
This was a good discussion, guys n gals. Thanks.
A nice bit of nonsense to come back to.

(although it contained some unnecessary Ghost-baiting)

It's why I like this place.

In summary, we had discussion about FART: Faith, Authority, Revelation but not Tradition (unless the teleological bit at the end can
be put in that category).

Maybe we can agree that Proof by Hot Air (FART) is not something that scientists need to care about but the reasons why some people like the OP's aunt/nun want to believe it is of interest.

I reckon that the debate stops once the nun claims one or more of these proofs because she has her answer and will brook no more questions. The body of knowledge cannot be furthered.

Again, nice discussion.
Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Hey, fst.

I find it a little gross that someone with so much knowledge would use their talents to make a highly biased and condescending video.

While watching the video, I felt that the jump made to agenticity was a pretty big one, but I just accepted and moved on. After watching, I did a quick Google search and discovered that agenticity is not a widely accepted term, but is something that was invented by one person; Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics Society. I'm not saying that he's necessarily incorrect, but I am saying that it will take a lot more convincing to make me accept that specific idea and it reminds me to not just accept the word of Internet videos when they present their "facts".

All of that being said, the video has nothing to do with mental DISORDERS whatsoever.

Hey, Rahn.

I was gonna... but I'm not even gonna.

Chas.

I have no idea why you're being so stubborn. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure, but this was intensely frustrating.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(01-01-2013 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  I never said incontrovertible.

Stenger has provided compelling evidence that the God(s) of the big monotheisms does not exist.

The natural world provides compelling evidence that no kind of benevolent gods exist.

If by "God" one means something that is undetectable, then it is equivalent to non-existent.

If your "God" acts in the physical world, then "He" is detectable. A non-detectable god that acts in the world is an incoherent concept. It is nonsense.

I didn't mean to mis-represent you, Chas, and upon re-reading it looks like I did. I is sowwy. *sad face*

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
Delos Banning McKown
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Denicio's post
04-01-2013, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2013 06:12 PM by Luminon.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(29-12-2012 06:46 PM)GodlessnFree Wrote:  According to her, faith is simply "the way to know the reality beyond science". Then, she said that I was closed to faith because I had been absorbed by the deceit of "scientism". She also claimed that she couldn't explain me her reasons for believing in her god because since I believed in "scientism" my mind was "closed to anything beyond science".

That seems patent bullshit.
Indeed. The abilities to "know" and "explain" things belong to philosophy and science, not religion. She actually meant, she has to imprint a mental picture and evoke an emotional relationship in you to that mental picture. And she has to bypass the rational centers in your brain, she has to put you into a state of mild hypnosis, as good spokesmen often do. This is what she means as "explaining".

It's a peculiar phenomenon, actually. When I hang out with like-minded people (even if I've just met them), I don't have to explain things to them completely, they can sort of follow my point, see what I mean. It doesn't work with non-like-minded people, they need a technical and literal explanation, which is very counter-intuitive and initially I thought they're just obtuse. This is why they don't get the concepts of "spirituality", "energy", "vibes" and so on. I don't think it's the "naked emperor syndrome", that is, nod and pretend you understand. It seems to me there's really some other kind of communication at play, some kind of convergent evolution of ideas.

(29-12-2012 06:46 PM)GodlessnFree Wrote:  Lennox illustrated his criticism of scientism with a metaphor: Aunt Matilda's Cake. The metaphor is often praised among faitheads, I suggest you watch it in case you haven't done so yet. In a nutshell, the metaphor of the cake explains that science can allow us to know the physical properties of the cake (density, weight, volume, material composition) but not the metaphysical properties of it (purpose, maker, proper use). Then the cake is compared to the universe and Lennox claims that the universe also has metaphysical properties that are beyond science and require another way of reasoning in order to be known.


Well, enough of my rambling, I wanted to hear opinions/objections towards this high-sounding but really fallacious argument of "The Limits of Science". The best I got yet is AronRa's brilliant response: "Science may not have all the answers, but some answers are better than no answers at all, and that's what religion gives you".

Cheers.
I'm convinced there are other methods of acquiring knowledge than science, I think I actually use one of them, often when I post here. My people, not being very fond of neurology, classify them as "transcendental", though it's their fortune they're not dogmatic about it. Even our most appreciated authors (chief gurus) renounce all dogmatism and say their teachings are a material for students' consideration, for the sake of completeness of philosophy, and at best a hypothesis to be proven by science or demonstrated by its beneficial effect on people's lives. Which is why I appreciate these authors, they know when to backpedal Wink
The problem is, it's not a concrete knowledge. The knowledge I receive through contemplation is kind of an abstract pattern/principle and it requires me to translate it into a real world vocabulary through a pattern-matching intuitive process, matching the pattern with my memory of facts about the real world. So I can't tell or discover anything materially new, I can only discover a new arrangement of things, a new pattern or a better pattern of things that already exist. It's not science, it's the practice of intuitive and logical synthesis and analysis. I feel respect towards science and I defend it, but I can't say I practice it.

Science (and some philosophy) is the only thing that has the right to be dogmatic, to order people to accept the facts. Science is special, it dissects and classifies everything, yet unites all rational people. It's not a complete source of human knowledge, but that's all right, not all human activities are based on a specific, empirical or rational knowledge. Art, for example.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2013 03:45 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(02-01-2013 08:33 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

I find it a little gross that someone with so much knowledge would use their talents to make a highly biased and condescending video.

While watching the video, I felt that the jump made to agenticity was a pretty big one, but I just accepted and moved on. After watching, I did a quick Google search and discovered that agenticity is not a widely accepted term, but is something that was invented by one person; Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics Society. I'm not saying that he's necessarily incorrect, but I am saying that it will take a lot more convincing to make me accept that specific idea and it reminds me to not just accept the word of Internet videos when they present their "facts".

All of that being said, the video has nothing to do with mental DISORDERS whatsoever.

Hey, Rahn.

I was gonna... but I'm not even gonna.

Chas.

I have no idea why you're being so stubborn. I'd like to say that it was a pleasure, but this was intensely frustrating.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
"As soon as it is asked of man, what are the gods before whom he
prostrates himself, forthwith his sentiments are divided. In order that
his opinions should be in accord, it would be requisite that uniform
ideas, analogous sensations, unvaried perceptions, should every where
have given birth to his notions upon this subject: but this would
suppose organs perfectly similar, modified by sensations which have a
perfect affinity: this is what could not happen: because man,
essentially different by his temperament, who is found under
circumstances completely dissimilar, must necessarily have a great
diversity of ideas upon objects which each individual contemplates so
variously. Agreed in some general points, each made himself a god after
his own manner; he feared him, he served him, after his own mode. Thus
the god of one man, or of one nation, was hardly ever that of another
man, or of another nation. The god of a savage, unpolished people, is
commonly some material object, upon which the mind has exercised itself
but little; this god appears very ridiculous in the eyes of a more
polished community, whose minds have laboured more intensely upon the
subject. A spiritual god, whose adorers despise the worship paid by the
savage to a coarse, material object, is the subtle production of the
brain of thinkers, who, lolling in the lap of polished society quite at
their leisure, have deeply meditated, have long occupied themselves with
the subject. The theological god, although for the most part
incomprehensible, is the last effort of the human imagination; it is to
the god of the savage, what an inhabitant of the city of Sybaris, where
effiminacy and luxury reigned, where pomp and pageantry had reached
their climax, clothed with a curiously embroidered purple habit of silk,
was to a man either quite naked, or simply covered with the skin of a
beast perhaps newly slain. It is only in civilized societies, that
leisure affords the opportunity of dreaming—that ease procures the
facility of reasoning; in these associations, idle speculators meditate,
dispute, form metaphysics: the faculty of thought is almost void in the
savage, who is occupied either with hunting, with fishing, or with the
means of procuring a very precarious subsistence by dint of almost
incessant labour." D'hobach System of Nature Volume 2

The tlBig Grinr version is that the idea of god or gods evolves, and changes as societies become enlightened. Their primitive gods often resemble things you can actually see in nature.

When you move towards agriculture and civilization, people get more time to think about their gods, and ask questions. As these questions are asked the religion changes, and in a last ditch effort to save their religions, they begin to move their god from natural representations, to other worlds. That is to say this agent is no longer natural but some how separate from nature so that you can never disprove it.

Which to any rational person looks at this and sees the last ditch effort to save their deity from annihilation.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Anthropomorphism and agenticity are exchangeable words in the way Shermer uses it.

His argument is that people who haven't any knowledge of the world, would most likely see the movement of things the result of other creatures. After all experience in primitive worlds would show them that only living agents are the movers of things, and that the movement of the earth, winds, rains, must have a grand agent behind them.

In this way early man reliant upon his lack of knowledge personified nature as a god, and through the evolution of this idea many religions were made to explain how the agents affected the world.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 10:57 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
Hey, fst.

You'll never get any argument from me that culture evolves Cool

Social constructivism what! Universal Darwinism what!!!

Look at food. What we eat, what we like to eat, what we consider delicacy, what we consider taboo, what we consider beneath us, what we consider gross, changes all the time. But the underlying question, what keeps us alive and what poisons us to death remains regardless. We can prove which is which with science.

Who God is, what he is, what he's like, who he likes, who he hates, who he castigates, whether he castigates, these things change all the time. But the underlying question, does God exist or not, remains. That, we cannot prove by any means.

The whole savage thing? Yo... That shit's straight up racist. You might as well be quoting KKK literature. As a savage and as someone whose family works extensively with other savages, that shit is straight up offensive and it belongs lodged in the anus of history. "The faculty of thought is almost void in the savage"???? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! Straight up racist Colonial Era horseshit.

I will grant (intensely grudgingly) that Animism functions very differently than Theological religions and that it does predate them all.

I am a rational person and I do see that some beliefs become maladaptive and go extinct despite the death throws of it's faithful. But as a rational person, I also know that the essential question remains. I also know that it is beyond the ability of science to answer, let alone comment on.

Shermer should be more specific with his terminology. And I still think that the leap he makes (or at least the leap the video Douche suggests he makes) was a bridge too far.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2013 12:22 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God is "beyond" science!
(06-01-2013 10:57 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

You'll never get any argument from me that culture evolves Cool

Social constructivism what! Universal Darwinism what!!!

Look at food. What we eat, what we like to eat, what we consider delicacy, what we consider taboo, what we consider beneath us, what we consider gross, changes all the time. But the underlying question, what keeps us alive and what poisons us to death remains regardless. We can prove which is which with science.

Who God is, what he is, what he's like, who he likes, who he hates, who he castigates, whether he castigates, these things change all the time. But the underlying question, does God exist or not, remains. That, we cannot prove by any means.

The whole savage thing? Yo... That shit's straight up racist. You might as well be quoting KKK literature. As a savage and as someone whose family works extensively with other savages, that shit is straight up offensive and it belongs lodged in the anus of history. "The faculty of thought is almost void in the savage"???? Are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! Straight up racist Colonial Era horseshit.

I will grant (intensely grudgingly) that Animism functions very differently than Theological religions and that it does predate them all.

I am a rational person and I do see that some beliefs become maladaptive and go extinct despite the death throws of it's faithful. But as a rational person, I also know that the essential question remains. I also know that it is beyond the ability of science to answer, let alone comment on.

Shermer should be more specific with his terminology. And I still think that the leap he makes (or at least the leap the video Douche suggests he makes) was a bridge too far.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Savage was merely the term they used for preliterate societies, or tribesman. It was quite common in enlightenment era literature. If that word offends you then never read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

I thought you wouldn't play the "that's racist" trump card, or quote mine.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: God is "beyond" science!
It's true; reading Darwin's stuff right now and he uses the word "savage" quite casually.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: