Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
AAAND that is the problem. Religions claim you will be given power in the next life, but it wants power in this one.
Religion wants to convert everyone that is one of the main points of it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/02 21:27:56
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits. There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all. Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Last but not least, if you want to believe you can determine your own destiny, you'd better turn away from science. Most scientists seem to come to the conclusion that the world is deterministic in nature.
Without wanting to get into the larger debate, while some things can be predicted with high degrees if certainty, reality is not deterministic, at least given current understandings. Reality is, at the most fundamental levels, a function of probability with inherent uncertainty. The entire field of quantum physics revolves around this fact.
Without wanting to turn this into a debate on determinism and quantum mechanics, it is not that simple. Scientists are not of one mind on it (nothing involving quantum mechanics is ). Renowned scientists in the field have a whole range of different opinions. Very interesting but also very off topic.
But religion makes the claim it does so by divine right.
So what? Communism makes the claim it does so for social equality. Anti-religious zealots make the claim they do so for the progress of the human species. What difference does the exact justification make, if the end result is always the same?
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
AAAND that is the problem. Religions claim you will be given power in the next life, but it wants power in this one.
Religion wants to convert everyone that is one of the main points of it.
Not necessarily. Not all religions are big on converting. There are even religions in which it is forbidden. Meanwhile, there is plenty of non-religious ideologies that want to convert people to their point of view. Again, wanting people to see things your way is something inherent in humans, not a fault inherent to religion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/02 21:42:27
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
Actually that's very possible and quite common. The reason the percentage of atheists in the world is rising (besides less persecution from religious extremists and fewer governments being tightly coupled with religions) is because people are often born into religious families or communities but as they learn about the world, science, and how things work they lose their religious believes. No need for violence, it's actually the absence of violence and lack of power from religious leaders that makes this much easier today than ever before.
It happened to me too. I was born into a christian family but during what would be equivalent to high school years I learned things and read books. At some point it just made no sense anymore to put such a big amount of trust in books that provide no proof of anything they assume to be the truth. To me the bible, the quran, and other religious texts are more like fiction novels that may, or may not, include historic elements. Religion as a phenomenon is interesting but it's not something I would want to or need to actively include in my life.
The situation may be different for people who live in heavily religious countries where one religion or another has actual power but as this power of religion decreases so does the number of followers. As we reduce inequality all over the world religion seems to shrink too and I don't see that trend reversing is things keep getting better.
I can understand what you are saying Mario, but there will still be people uneducated and highly educated people that need to fill the void in themselves with religion.
People seem to need to adore or idolize something may it be a godly figure, an artist, sports team, ideology political parties and so on.
Religion as we know it may disappear as the world becomes more educated and technological, but i believe it will just change its form.
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits.
There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Invalid comparison.
In the case that you propose the number of possible answers would literally have to be infinite to cover all possible possibilities.
Here is a different test. All question have a blank field in which you write your answer and the justification for your answer. Next to every single question is also a little box marked "I don't know". Choose either.
That is the way to know as many true things and as few false things as possible.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
The questions that religion generally provides answer to are more existential in nature. Questions like: "Why am I here?", "What is the meaning of life?" or "What happens to me after I die?"
You mean, those are the questions that religion pretends to provide answers to.
Got anything better?
Completely irrelevant. Answers stand on their own merits.
There is not default position that "automatically wins" if no other answer is provided. Thinking like that is classically religious thinking.
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Invalid comparison.
In the case that you propose the number of possible answers would literally have to be infinite to cover all possible possibilities.
Here is a different test. All question have a blank field in which you write your answer and the justification for your answer. Next to every single question is also a little box marked "I don't know". Choose either.
That is the way to know as many true things and as few false things as possible.
Your analogy does not correspond to the situation.
The situation is that there is a question that religion do provide a possible answer for (as many answers as there are religions, but for the sake of simplicity, let us pretend there is only 1). Therefore, on the test in our analogy, one of the possible answers should already be filled in. Those disagreeing with the religious answer will have to leave the question blank or fill in "I don't know", since there are no alternatives and they can't know what the actual answer to the question is. Of course this means that they won't get points for the test. The people who did pick the religious answer meanwhile similarly have no idea what the actual answer to the question is. The answer they gave may very well be wrong and they also won't get any points. However, for them there is at least a chance that is correct and that they will receive points. This is pretty much the basics of how multiple choice questions work. If you don't know the answer you just pick something that seems reasonable and hope it is right and it will give you points. Leaving a question blank or answering 'I don't know' is never the correct answer and will never give you points.
Ergo, an answer is better than no answer at all, even if you do not know whether the answer you gave is true or not.
Of course, you could just write in your own answer instead of picking the one that is given, but seeing as that you have no idea at all as to what the correct answer is this would not be meaningfully different. It does not really matter whether the answer provided for you by those more knowledgeable about the subject (in our analogy, the makers of the test. In reality, religious scholars) seems right to you or whether you ponder the issue yourself to come up with an idea that seems right to you. The first option would be institutionalised religion, the second is personal religion. Whatever the way you get to your answer, you will have to resort to something supernatural since the answer to these existential questions can not be provided by our knowledge of the natural world. If you really want to avoid any supernatural explanation you will be forced to answer "I don't know". This may be good enough for you and others, but for most people it is not. Therefore they come up with supernatural explanations and therefore religion exists, has always existed and always will exist. It is quite simple.
Iron_Captain wrote: It is quite a scary statement, actually. In a society where there is no place for religion, what is going to happen to all the religious people?
They all look back and say "wow, that was a silly thing we believed". It's possible for religion to end without violent persecution and forcing religious people to give up their religions.
Oh come on mate, get back down to earth. That is no more possible than it is to peacefully convert the entire world to a single religion.
Actually that's very possible and quite common. The reason the percentage of atheists in the world is rising (besides less persecution from religious extremists and fewer governments being tightly coupled with religions) is because people are often born into religious families or communities but as they learn about the world, science, and how things work they lose their religious believes. No need for violence, it's actually the absence of violence and lack of power from religious leaders that makes this much easier today than ever before.
It happened to me too. I was born into a christian family but during what would be equivalent to high school years I learned things and read books. At some point it just made no sense anymore to put such a big amount of trust in books that provide no proof of anything they assume to be the truth. To me the bible, the quran, and other religious texts are more like fiction novels that may, or may not, include historic elements. Religion as a phenomenon is interesting but it's not something I would want to or need to actively include in my life.
The situation may be different for people who live in heavily religious countries where one religion or another has actual power but as this power of religion decreases so does the number of followers. As we reduce inequality all over the world religion seems to shrink too and I don't see that trend reversing is things keep getting better.
It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures. The importance and authority of institutionalised religions may wax and wane, but religion, neither on personal nor institutional level will ever disappear. Not unless we could somehow reach a flawless utopian post-scarcity society. But a belief in the possibility of such a society could very well become a religion in itself *cough*communism*cough*.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 13:58:36
Iron_Captain wrote: It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures.
Is Albania affluent? They sure don't seem to flock churches or mosques like sheep.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Iron_Captain wrote: [
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Having something is not better than nothing and religion does not inherently making people better people. Just look at history and the numerous deeds done in the name of religion. Belgrade, Pedophilia, Inquisition, Crusades, Suicide Bombing, Jihad, Genocide, War, Slavery...
In the pitch blackness of night a blind man is the best guide. But when the morning comes and the sun is out there is no need. Or, using the bible against itself: "When you are no longer a child it is time to put away childish things."
As far as your test example goes. That is why we have the ever changing reason of science. It is always updating to take new facts into account.
Once we thought the plague is sent down upon sinners now we know the truth of how it spread.
Natural disasters occur and you have many religious leaders crying out this was punishment from god. When you can clearly look at scientific evidence to see how they came about.
To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/03/03 15:35:14
Iron_Captain wrote: [
I respectfully disagree. Having something is always better than having nothing at all.
Let's say you are at school, taking a test. All questions are multiple choice with 4 possible answers: A, B, C and D. Question 13 completely eludes you. You have no idea as to what the answer to it could be. However, underneath the question you see that instead of 4 there is only one possible option: A. Are you going to pick that option or are you going to leave the question empty?
Having something is not better than nothing and religion does not inherently making people better people. Just look at history and the numerous deeds done in the name of religion. Belgrade, Pedophilia, Inquisition, Crusades, Suicide Bombing, Jihad, Genocide, War, Slavery...
In the pitch blackness of night a blind man is the best guide. But when the morning comes and the sun is out there is no need. Or, using the bible against itself: "When you are no longer a child it is time to put away childish things."
As far as your test example goes. That is why we have the ever changing reason of science. It is always updating to take new facts into account.
Once we thought the plague is sent down upon sinners now we know the truth of how it spread.
Natural disasters occur and you have many religious leaders crying out this was punishment from god. When you can clearly look at scientific evidence to see how they came about.
To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.
I'm afraid the only thing you are 'proving' is your own personal bias. To say violence in history is predominantly attributed to religion is a myth. Socio-economic factors are usually much more prevalent in wars, attempted genocides, etc.
As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
To say violence in history is predominantly attributed to religion is a myth. Socio-economic factors are usually much more prevalent in wars, attempted genocides, etc.
As far as religion is concerned theirs is excusable by divine right
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/03/03 19:49:47
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Jehan-reznor wrote:I can understand what you are saying Mario, but there will still be people uneducated and highly educated people that need to fill the void in themselves with religion.
People seem to need to adore or idolize something may it be a godly figure, an artist, sports team, ideology political parties and so on.
Religion as we know it may disappear as the world becomes more educated and technological, but i believe it will just change its form.
Hail the Omnisah!
Probably all true. My guess is that at some point religion will lose power and end up as like astrology. Something people dabble in or more of a personal believe thing instead of having actual power like big religious institutions have today, just look at extremist muslims/ISIS or how the catholic church accidentally/intentionally/ignorantly (a bit of all?) contributes to the spreading of AIDS in Africa.
Iron_Captain wrote:
It is a common pattern for (institutionalised) religion to lose its importance and authority in affluent societies as the human needs filled by institutionalised religion can be filled by other means. In times of hardship however, people flock to the church like sheep. This pattern is common across history and cultures. The importance and authority of institutionalised religions may wax and wane, but religion, neither on personal nor institutional level will ever disappear. Not unless we could somehow reach a flawless utopian post-scarcity society. But a belief in the possibility of such a society could very well become a religion in itself *cough*communism*cough*.
See above, I think with a better social and governmental support net the power of "big religion" could be greatly reduced. Some people are proposing and getting used to the idea of some sort of universal basic income. And an overall capitalistic society with UBI could be summarised as "socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich" while making minimum wages and unions obsolete but also increasing the pressure on employers to offer fair wages and treat workers much better at the same time. If people don't have to work and can live comfortably without making extra money you have to actually offer something besides "this salary barely covers housing and food".
It would take a lot of stress out of people's lives and the church would stop being a very local safety net for a lot of people in communities that are otherwise barely supported (read an article about that phenomenon recently). Communism, like we historically know it, probably won't happen but the recent increase in wealth inequality has made people (even in the USA) receptive of more socialist government programs. And further automation won't help the situation because capital can just bypass the worker easier and faster than ever before.
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
I hope the irony of your reference isn't lost on you.
amanita wrote: I hope the irony of your reference isn't lost on you.
What's your point, that Occam was a Christian? The fact that he didn't apply his own principle consistently doesn't reduce the value of it when applied to modern questions. Nor does your comment in any way offer a response to the substance of the criticism of your poor initial argument.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
amanita wrote: As for your scientific 'truths' about plagues and disasters, why do you think it's not possible for such matters to be BOTH scientific and supernatural? Can't a supernatural being cause an event through natural means? Saying it has to be one or the other seems awfully narrow to me.
There is no evidence for the involvement of a supernatural being, only the desire by religious people to believe in the stories of their religion. Therefore there is no justification for belief in the involvement, or even existence, of any supernatural being.
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
That's to some degree true but when your options are "we don't understand this phenomenon 100% in scientific terms but it could be this, that, or it's just unexplainable at the moment" and "it could be some supernatural being that's sprinkling some pixie dust to create natural effects" then Occam's razor would point us away from the "supernatural pixie dust" explanation every time.
The Razor isn't about what hypotheses can be eliminated. It posits only that "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." It's not even really about falsifiability, it's about getting out of having to deal with nonsense. For example "God created the universe." Counter response: "the universe was created by a series of <insert maths here>." Counter counter response: "God made it happen." The counter counter response is an ad hoc assumption with no evidence. Occam's Razor exists as a principle to dismiss it because you can always produce another ad hoc assumption to explain any given gap in a data set (this was the original purpose of the Razor in natural philosophy).
By their very nature any supernatural explanation for something basically fails Occam's Razor as a default, because they are by their own merits ad hoc.
A more classic example is the fervent belief that Unicorn's exist. When asked for evidence you simply say "they are invisible." Someone proposes to test for the existence of Unicorns by air dropping paint from a helicoptor. You simply say "they absorb paint." The proposed test is modified to use baking soda. "Baking soda disintegrates them." Ad infinitum. Conversely I can just say "Occam's razor" and ignore the nonsense until evidence arises to support it, or I can just tell my little sister she's full of bull gak and needs to pay more attention in school (but that would be mean).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/05 00:11:57
OK, i am all about schooling people on the scientific method and why it negates the need for religion to explain anything, or not explain it without the need to resort to the supernatural. Looks like we are headed in a different direction though. Please lets not get this one locked.
I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
You are abusing Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a heuristic to guide people to writing better theories. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. That is not what it was designed for.
It has been established time and time again that in reality, the most simple possible theory is often not correct. Things in the natural world are often more complex than they need to be.
Occam's razor does not tell us anything about what is right or wrong or about justifications for anything. It only tells us which competing hypothesis should be selected for testing first. It has nothing to do with the fact that the simplest answer is probably correct, but rather because simpler hypotheses are easier to eliminate (through the principle of falsifiability).
That's to some degree true but when your options are "we don't understand this phenomenon 100% in scientific terms but it could be this, that, or it's just unexplainable at the moment" and "it could be some supernatural being that's sprinkling some pixie dust to create natural effects" then Occam's razor would point us away from the "supernatural pixie dust" explanation every time.
You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated. Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work? Your 100% reference to understanding scientific terms also works for understanding religious ones...just because something isn't 100% clear doesn't mean you can't glean anything about it. And to ignore it completely is possibly an exercise in self-delusion. Saying there is no supernatural force without any proof is no different than saying there is a supernatural force without proof, correct? Just food for thought, that's all.
amanita wrote: Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
That is pretty much what science started out as. An honest attempt at understanding God's creation.
Unfortunately for the god-concept it seemed to be entirely superfluous when it comes to explaining the universe we exist in. We found that we simply didn't need gods to explain what we observed.
Every time a question has been answered or a mystery solved, the answer has so far always been "not-magic".
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Are you trying to sound like a mean jerk on purpose?
And that's coming from someone who doesn't have any more respect for religions than you do.
redleger wrote: I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
That works 100% well… for someone who is trying to convince himself that he is right. However, that doesn't do anything to convince people that are not already convinced. Because literally anything can be dismissed without any evidence. Even reality (Trump is an expert at this ). What the method favored in science is, and what works super duper well, is to formulate a theory consistent with the existing facts you know (here is the part where you are encouraged to use Occam's razor), and one that allows you to make predictions! And then check if the predictions that you make are close enough to what's actually measured. If it works, then your theory is useful. Maybe it's false, but who cares, it predicts the right thing!!! And if sometime later the measurement improve and they don't match with your theory and a new theory is found, then it's okay, your theory still has been quite useful for some time.
That's basically how every science work. Yes, even evolution: the theories imply that we should be able to find this kind and that kind of fossils, and then we do or we don't, and we adjust the theories accordingly.
That's not how religions work though. They are pretty terrible at predicting stuff, and they are pretty terrible at adapting to new discoveries.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
amanita wrote:
You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated. Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
It very well could be. And that is where belief comes in. We have no evidence to suggest that the universe is a divine work. Neither do we have any evidence to suggest the opposite. Therefore we are left with the choice to either accept the unknowability of the answer, or to belief that either the positive or negative answer is true. Of course both groups of believers will believe in the truth of their own answer, and come up with ways of justifying their belief, but given the untestability and unfalsifiability of either premise those attempts are doomed to fail.
redleger wrote:
I leave you with this Christopher Hitchens quote:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
That is so true. And because it goes both ways, this discussion is something that is never going to end
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
???
That quote literally means that if I assert Unicorns are real and provide no evidence you can freely dismiss it without having to prove unicorns are not real. Literally it means that any claim made absent evidence does not need to be disproved because it has no basis. It has nothing to do with asserting something does not exist due to a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence where one should expect some to exist on the other hand is evidence of nonexistence.
This isn't even about religion. It's just bad science, which is why people should stop gauging religion as though it were an evidentiary exercise because it just doesn't work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/05 14:18:57
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
I think that sentence is the core of what we are discussing. Asserting something exists, with no evidence VS asserting something does not exist due to lack of evidence.
???
That quote literally means that if I assert Unicorns are real and provide no evidence you can freely dismiss it without having to prove unicorns are not real. Literally it means that any claim made absent evidence does not need to be disproved because it has no basis. It has nothing to do with asserting something does not exist due to a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence where one should expect some to exist on the other hand is evidence of nonexistence.
This isn't even about religion. It's just bad science, which is why people should stop gauging religion as though it were an evidentiary exercise because it just doesn't work.
That is correct actually, If you tell me unicorns are real, but the next sentence out of your mouth isnt and I have proof, please peer review it, then your statement that unicorns are real can easily be dismissed.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
amanita wrote:You are missing a point. The idea that science and religion must be at odds with each other is unsubstantiated.
Nobody's saying that religion and science must be at odds with each other. The point is the scientific method doesn't care about religion or what it postulates. But some religious interpretations are at odds with science because scientific explanation take away from the magic or the unexplainable of religions. Science is about "how things work" and religions is about "why things are" (science can't explain that part).
Why can not science be the revelation of a divine work?
If something is assumed to be divine work but is explainable via the scientific method then it's not divine anymore, it's regular and mundane. If divine/supernatural intervention actually existed it would make scientific work quite hard (or impossible) because it would create inconsistencies that are not compatible with the scientific method all over the place. We wouldn't have consistently measurable evidence but chaos. If you can't explain it then it's just another scientific frontier to work on and explore. That's it for science, the divine or religious value of something is irrelevant when it comes to exploring something in the name of science. It's about "how" and can't answer "why". And if the counter-argument is that god(s) made all these scientific findings consistent to give humans something to do and explore (or whatever) then that, again, doesn't matter to science as it's just another convoluted version of "why". To paraphrase a wise man: "Science hears ya, Science don't care"
Your 100% reference to understanding scientific terms also works for understanding religious ones...just because something isn't 100% clear doesn't mean you can't glean anything about it. And to ignore it completely is possibly an exercise in self-delusion.
That wasn't even the point of that point. if you don't understand something via science then that's it. You get to explore it. But if you don't understand something and need something supernatural on top to "explain it" then the second option is by definition the one you can ignore because that "explanation" doesn't add anything to help resolve the unknown.
For example: If you lose your keys then you don't know where they. You might have an idea but you are not 100% sure so you keep looking. That would be the science part but if somebody comes along and explains to you that your keys were stolen by tiny invisible pigs then that's the supernatural "explanation" (why? they are little scamps and like to take your stuff to mess with you) but in the end it doesn't help you with finding your key or explaining how or where you lost them. You can just ignore that "explanation" and not be worse of than before. It's completely irrelevant to your search (be it science or your keys).
Saying there is no supernatural force without any proof is no different than saying there is a supernatural force without proof, correct? Just food for thought, that's all.
Actually wrong, if you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis then your statements have nothing to do with rigorous science. There is a difference between saying "there are no invisible tiny pigs because we haven't seen any" (and we have no proof that they don't exist) and "there are invisible tiny pigs" (but we can't ever provide evidence that they exist). If we can't find proof then the default assumption is that it doesn't exist until we find evidence. And yes, stuff that some hypothesis demands should exist but isn't verifiable gets the scientific method applied to it until it either shows up or is disproven. But if we don't care about proof then we could postulate the existence of anything: gods, goblins, talking bananas, anything. You might have lost your keys many times and actually investigate the possibility of tiny invisible thieving pigs but if you don't find actual proof of their existence you can't just assume that they have to exist because you feel like rationalising your clumsy or forgetful behaviour.
Russel's Teapot is a nice exploration why it's a bad science.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Mario wrote: It's about "how" and can't answer "why".
How and Why are both answered in science.
For example:
Q: How do the planets orbit the sun? A: In ellipses with the sun at one focus.
Q: Why do the planets orbit the sun? A: Because the pull of the suns gravity (or curvature of space time about the sun if you want to get General ) and their resultant momentum from their forming out of the dust cloud in which our sun was born causes them to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/06 02:26:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Mario wrote: It's about "how" and can't answer "why".
How and Why are both answered in science.
For example:
Q: How do the planets orbit the sun?
A: In ellipses with the sun at one focus.
Q: Why do the planets orbit the sun?
A: Because the pull of the suns gravity (or curvature of space time about the sun if you want to get General ) and their resultant momentum from their forming out of the dust cloud in which our sun was born causes them to.
I agree with your little tongue-in-cheek answer.
Mario was clearly talking about How vs. Why in the sense of Mechanics vs. Motivation though.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
). Renowned scientists in the field have a whole range of different opinions. Very interesting but also very off topic.
18.000 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.000
). What the method favored in science is, and what works super duper well, is to formulate a theory consistent with the existing facts you know (here is the part where you are encouraged to use Occam's razor), and one that allows you to make predictions! And then check if the predictions that you make are close enough to what's actually measured. If it works, then your theory is useful. Maybe it's false, but who cares, it predicts the right thing!!! And if sometime later the measurement improve and they don't match with your theory and a new theory is found, then it's okay, your theory still has been quite useful for some time.
