Two quick questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(15-11-2016 04:28 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing" - Wikipedia

So you do see that science is faith based? I'm glad we came to that conclusion.

No. We didn't come to the same conclusion. Once again, you are (re)defining words to fit your agenda. "Faith", as religious people use the term, is nothing at all like the trust that we have in science, based on evidence that it works. Stop trying to equate things that are nothing at all like each other.

But... you just said you trust science... trust is an article of faith.

The difference between faith in religion and faith in science is like two grapes in different vineyards. They may be different types of grapes and make different wine, but they are still grapes at the end of the day.

You're looking at how they're two different types of grapes, I'm looking at how they're both grapes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 04:48 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(15-11-2016 04:36 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No. We didn't come to the same conclusion. Once again, you are (re)defining words to fit your agenda. "Faith", as religious people use the term, is nothing at all like the trust that we have in science, based on evidence that it works. Stop trying to equate things that are nothing at all like each other.

But... you just said you trust science... trust is an article of faith.

The difference between faith in religion and faith in science is like two grapes in different vineyards. They may be different types of grapes and make different wine, but they are still grapes at the end of the day.

You're looking at how they're two different types of grapes, I'm looking at how they're both grapes.

Fuck you. They are completely different. One is based on evidence, and one isn't. One is "blind", and the other isn't. The same word can be used for both concepts. That doesn't mean they are the same thing -- unless you also think that a fish (as in a weak chess player) is literally an animal that lives in water, or that a gay (happy) person must necessarily be homosexual. I'm already tired of your slimy word games. Goodbye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Grasshopper's post
15-11-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: Two quick questions
Slimy word games is right. This science = faith bullshit is one of those "tripwire" comments that makes me start getting angry, in a conversation. Unfortunately, I've encountered that phrase far too often in "real life" conversations, as well as online.

Science is not just a body of beliefs or knowledge, but a method of weeding out bias and eliminating poor information. It does so by placing every single idea into contested evaluation. One becomes famous in science as much for disproving a commonly-held idea as one does for coming up with a new idea or discovery. The contest is not only between individual scientists, but between scientists of nations who tend to dislike one another, and who have every reason to make the scientists of the other nation "look bad" by showing that they made a mistake in their methodology or research.

We can have confidence (to the degree such confidence is warranted, based on how solid the evidence is for an idea) in the findings of science because of this perpetual competition and cross-checking. I need not have a degree in physics to know that if a physicist puts forth an idea that can only be substantiated by faith, other physicists will laugh that guy out of the room, rhetorically speaking. Science only holds on to what works; if it does not work, others will quickly show that it does not, and will earn their fame for doing so.

To call it "faith" in any sort of way that is even remotely similar to the concept of religious faith is not only slimy, it's ludicrous and totally disingenuous. It is an attempt to equate untestable, magical ideas with testable reality, in order to suggest that there is some validation (however tenuous) for holding untestable, magical ideas.

They're not both grapes. They're apples and oranges.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-11-2016, 09:08 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 07:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Slimy word games is right. This science = faith bullshit is one of those "tripwire" comments that makes me start getting angry, in a conversation. Unfortunately, I've encountered that phrase far too often in "real life" conversations, as well as online.

Science is not just a body of beliefs or knowledge, but a method of weeding out bias and eliminating poor information. It does so by placing every single idea into contested evaluation. One becomes famous in science as much for disproving a commonly-held idea as one does for coming up with a new idea or discovery. The contest is not only between individual scientists, but between scientists of nations who tend to dislike one another, and who have every reason to make the scientists of the other nation "look bad" by showing that they made a mistake in their methodology or research.

We can have confidence (to the degree such confidence is warranted, based on how solid the evidence is for an idea) in the findings of science because of this perpetual competition and cross-checking. I need not have a degree in physics to know that if a physicist puts forth an idea that can only be substantiated by faith, other physicists will laugh that guy out of the room, rhetorically speaking. Science only holds on to what works; if it does not work, others will quickly show that it does not, and will earn their fame for doing so.

To call it "faith" in any sort of way that is even remotely similar to the concept of religious faith is not only slimy, it's ludicrous and totally disingenuous. It is an attempt to equate untestable, magical ideas with testable reality, in order to suggest that there is some validation (however tenuous) for holding untestable, magical ideas.

They're not both grapes. They're apples and oranges.

It is not a matter of what science holds on to, but how you hold on to science. I find many atheists have conceptualizations on science as incontrovertible dogma. The big bang theory for example, its as though anyone and everyone is supposed to accept it especially if they're atheist. Many Americans however do not believe in the big bang theory, is this because Americans are overly religious or is it because they're more skeptical of science?

We may not will it, we may not know it, but we never lose our religion. We just replace it with something else.

The Evolution and the Big Bang have become for many their new bible, Richard Dawkins, their new prophet, and science their new religion. But you so shun your old religion and hold so strong to your articles of faith that you abhor even the merest comparison of the two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Two quick questions
[Image: dick_zps4lrphcx3.png]


C'mon dude! Almost there.....

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
15-11-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 09:08 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The Evolution and the Big Bang have become for many their new bible, Richard Dawkins, their new prophet, and science their new religion. But you so shun your old religion and hold so strong to your articles of faith that you abhor even the merest comparison of the two.

If you define "religion" as any system of thought that strives to make sense out of our reality, give purpose to our lives, guide our actions, define our morality and create communities (or any combination of those). Than yes, we never loose "religion" we simply replace it with one (or sometime several others). The only problem, is that this definition of "religion" isn't a commonly accepted one because its extraordinarly vague to the point of uselessness since pretty anything can be considered a "religion" or a "religious belief" while using it.

Your statement does make a lot of false equivocation by shifting between several different definition of the same word in the same sentance. Dawkins isn't a prophet in the same sense than let say Mahomet is a prophet. Dawkins can be considered a "prophet" in the sense that he is an inspiring teacher who moulded many minds thanks to his work. Mahomet is prophet in the sense that he is (alledgedly) the messenger and bearer of the will of a deity. That's not at all the same thing. Usually a religious prophet is spelled with a capital letter while a "mundane" prophet, whose more an examplar than anything else, isn't capitalised. Please try to refrain from using loaded terms like prophet, religion, faith, evidence, truth or reason (just to name a few) in such a fashion. It leads to misunderstanding and frustration.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
15-11-2016, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2016 10:45 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 09:08 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The Evolution and the Big Bang have become for many their new bible, Richard Dawkins, their new prophet, and science their new religion. But you so shun your old religion and hold so strong to your articles of faith that you abhor even the merest comparison of the two.

Yeah...um, I'm an evolutionary biologist.

So is my wife, who is a Christian.

There is not one thing about evolution about which we disagree.

So please, PLEASE, explain to me how what you said above is not hip-wader-deep levels of utter bullshit?

Edit to Add: Even using the phrase "incontrovertible dogma" shows that you haven't listened to one word we've said about how science works. For fuck's sake, man. Welcome to your next Negative Rep point.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-11-2016, 10:42 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 09:08 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(15-11-2016 07:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Slimy word games is right. This science = faith bullshit is one of those "tripwire" comments that makes me start getting angry, in a conversation. Unfortunately, I've encountered that phrase far too often in "real life" conversations, as well as online.

Science is not just a body of beliefs or knowledge, but a method of weeding out bias and eliminating poor information. It does so by placing every single idea into contested evaluation. One becomes famous in science as much for disproving a commonly-held idea as one does for coming up with a new idea or discovery. The contest is not only between individual scientists, but between scientists of nations who tend to dislike one another, and who have every reason to make the scientists of the other nation "look bad" by showing that they made a mistake in their methodology or research.

We can have confidence (to the degree such confidence is warranted, based on how solid the evidence is for an idea) in the findings of science because of this perpetual competition and cross-checking. I need not have a degree in physics to know that if a physicist puts forth an idea that can only be substantiated by faith, other physicists will laugh that guy out of the room, rhetorically speaking. Science only holds on to what works; if it does not work, others will quickly show that it does not, and will earn their fame for doing so.

To call it "faith" in any sort of way that is even remotely similar to the concept of religious faith is not only slimy, it's ludicrous and totally disingenuous. It is an attempt to equate untestable, magical ideas with testable reality, in order to suggest that there is some validation (however tenuous) for holding untestable, magical ideas.

They're not both grapes. They're apples and oranges.

It is not a matter of what science holds on to, but how you hold on to science. I find many atheists have conceptualizations on science as incontrovertible dogma. The big bang theory for example, its as though anyone and everyone is supposed to accept it especially if they're atheist. Many Americans however do not believe in the big bang theory, is this because Americans are overly religious or is it because they're more skeptical of science?

We may not will it, we may not know it, but we never lose our religion. We just replace it with something else.

The Evolution and the Big Bang have become for many their new bible, Richard Dawkins, their new prophet, and science their new religion. But you so shun your old religion and hold so strong to your articles of faith that you abhor even the merest comparison of the two.

The core methodologies and underlying epistemology are exact opposites.

Religious faith is exactly as you describe. It fixes its beliefs in dogma and refuses to budge them no matter what... especially in the face of evidence against them. Sometimes the evidence proves stronger than the faith and people abandon the faith, or adopt a variation, but the faith itself is incapable of change. Often, contrary evidence is hidden, attacked, or maliciously discredited to shield the faith.

Science isn't like that at all. Not only will it modify itself in the face of contrary evidence, not only will it face that contrary evidence openly rather than pretending it doesn't exist, but it will ACTIVELY SEEK IT OUT. One of the first things asked about any scientific hypothesis is "how can I disprove it", and then scientists will run it through every test they can imagine trying to tear it apart. The only sense that anything is proven is in the sense that it's been through the proving grounds a dozen times... and even then it's only provisional. Who knows but that run 13 might be the unlucky number that takes it out of the running.

The theory of evolution is still around because, in the main, the general ideas have withstood a century and a half of the most brutal intellectual and evidence-based examination imaginable. Not only has every test it has been subjected to failed to find a critical flaw, but it has predicted many phenomena discovered after it was formulated, which its original authors would have had no way of anticipating save through the correctness of the theorem. IT CALLS ITS SHOTS. It does so in a way that religion cannot match. Yet at the same time it's flexible. Many of its details have been changed to match the evidence (notably punctuated equilibrium) because it is NOT a rigid doctrine.

The Big Bang is nowhere near as thoroughly proven as the Theory of Evolution, but it too has called its shots and withstood decades upon decades of testing. Details have changed in the light of evidence, but no evidence has arisen to unseat the core elements of the theory.

Yet other scientific theorems HAVE been disproven. Newtonian physics. Phlogiston. Steady-state universe. Aether. Bodily humors. Science is quite open to modification. It just needs evidence.

Imagine two different gamblers in a casino with two different systems by which they can win at slots. Both of them think that by picking the right slot machines at the right time, they can on average win and occasionally win big. Gambler A keeps insisting his system is foolproof, does about as well as you might expect someone to do playing the slots, occasionally gets a big payoff, but on average loses big, but refuses to admit that the system is anything but a shining success. Gambler B has a bit of a slow and rocky start, but he admits it and refines his system, and before long he can pick the right slot machines to always get a decent payoff, and manages to pick the machines that are about to give a jackpot with shocking frequency. Maybe he's figured out the algorithm that the machines run on, or has listened to their mechanics with a stethoscope. Regardless, over time it becomes obvious that he KNOWS the truth about the slot machines in the way that the "I've got a sure system and I believe it in unquestioningly" Gambler A does not.

Americans, by and large, are poorly educated in the details of both of these theories, and in the scientific method as well. Most of them are required to make rote memorization of the scientific method as presented as a list of rigid steps, usually sometime in middle school or late high school. But very few of them ever understand why it's such a powerful tool in the search for truth. Often both theories mentioned here (Big Bang and Evolution) are censored from curriculum by religious interest groups, including parents who don't want their children taught anything that might be seen as contradicting the Bible. When that doesn't happen, there's usually a chorus of deliberate and malicious misrepresentations of these theories to confuse people about what they actually say and drown out their true definitions. If a majority of Americans don't subscribe to these theories, that's not a condemnation of the theories. Scientific theories rise and fall based on evidence, predictive value, and explanatory power, not majority vote. Science is not a popularity contest.

The type of faith that atheists have in science is the faith of trust and confidence, not the faith of religion. It's like having faith that the chair you're sitting in will hold you up. We understand the principles of why chairs hold us up, and our experience with that particular chair tells us it's sturdy and reliable. Maybe it actually has weakened over the years and is about to give way any minute, but the faith is not groundless. It's perfectly reasonable, firmly rooted in evidence and understanding. Religious faith -- thinking that one is justified in believing something for no greater cause than the strength of one's conviction in that belief and its popularity -- is a different animal entirely.

Ultimately, science is a process that is about unseating falsehoods. About double- and triple- and quadruple-checking and aggressively seeking out any potential flaws or holes in one's own theories with a passion that borders on fanaticism. About examining every bias you might have and then trying to prevent it from fouling up the results. If it can be disproven, it SHOULD be disproven... and that applies to scientific theories just as much as religious dogmas. More, even. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold you, simply because we expect more of ourselves than we do from you. (Well, I say we. I'm not a scientist, but I'm on Team Science. So.... get me some pom-poms?)

Religion doesn't try to unseat falsehoods unless those falsehoods run contrary to its doctrine... and they'll try to unseat any truths contrary to its doctrine with the same fervor.. It doesn't double- and triple-check. It doesn't try to prove itself wrong. If evidence arises that contradicts religion, it rationalizes and makes excuses and spins as fast as any politician caught with an intern under his desk. (Or a choir boy.) Anything that might disprove a religion is heretical, or the spawn of Satan, or a conspiracy by those dastardly scientists to turn people from God, or so on.

These two processes are polar opposites, different as night and day. One of them is a fairly reliable means of arriving at the truth about reality. The other tells us that geocentrism is God's truth, turns people who question it over to the Inquisition, and doesn't acknowledge that it was in the wrong for centuries after the case is settled.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Reltzik's post
15-11-2016, 10:46 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 09:25 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  [Image: dick_zps4lrphcx3.png]

C'mon dude! Almost there.....

Need to update the Bingo card for "Richard Dawkins is your prophet". We get that stupid shit about every other Tuesday, on here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-11-2016, 10:58 PM
RE: Two quick questions
(15-11-2016 10:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-11-2016 09:08 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  The Evolution and the Big Bang have become for many their new bible, Richard Dawkins, their new prophet, and science their new religion. But you so shun your old religion and hold so strong to your articles of faith that you abhor even the merest comparison of the two.

Yeah...um, I'm an evolutionary biologist.

So is my wife, who is a Christian.

There is not one thing about evolution about which we disagree.

Wait.

..... waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait.

You and your wife don't disagree on ANYTHING in evolution?

Like, you are in perfect harmony on what the most likely method of going from RNA in a primordial soup or similar environment to metabolizing organisms was? And same for all the other open problems?

.... geez. What do you even TALK about, professionally?

....

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: