It wasn't intended as a slight on you - I think you've just got it somewhat wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
It's when people deliberately mislead that I get disgusted. I don't think you do that.
Printable View
It wasn't intended as a slight on you - I think you've just got it somewhat wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
It's when people deliberately mislead that I get disgusted. I don't think you do that.
If by belief or faith, we mean a degree of confidence in scientific models of the physical world around us, Science surely offer more than any God.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
However, if by belief or faith, we choose to mean: a vital commitment that defines how I choose to live each moment of my three score and ten years on this earth, then such devotion – whether to Science, God or something else - surely matters a great deal; at least it matters to me. Although, in this case - for this meaning of truth - Science offers a pittance.
While I can believe evolution happens, I can't believe in it.
Science doesn't actually offer anything, and how can it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
It isn't a doctrine, but a form of investigation and nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of life.
That's a contradiction. What is there to believe in besides the facts of evolution, which you already believe? You cannot get philosophical answers from biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I'm not sure how much more religion offers, despite its claim to a monopoly on people's inner beings and longing for capital-T truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
The least we can say about science is that it has a built-in corrective mechanism in its emphasis on testing. Ideas are constantly refined, and ones that don't stand up to testing are discarded. I've never heard anyone say something like: The geocentric model of the universe wasn't literally true, but it provided inspiration throughout humankind when people believed it.
On the other hand, religious beliefs can't be tested for reliability or coherence, yet we somehow feel that they fulfill our need for intuitive, pre-rational commitment. They supposedly speak to our soul, not our mind.
If you ask me, they merely feed Homo Sap's boundless appetite for delusion and pander to his inflated sense of self-worth.
Regards,
Istvan
Oscar Wilde once said that brevity is the soul of wit,Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
You are clearly a bloody genius!
What's the point is an excellent question, i.e. is there any advantage to believing in a Spinozan/Einsteinian Creator vs being an atheist? For me there is a difference. That was the point of Einstein's ststement that science without religion was blind and religion without science was lame. You have a different attitude towards the world if you believe it was created by a supreme being than you do if you don't believe that. I think that if you believe the universe just came into being without a creator it's easier for you to become very arrogant about your place in the universe. You may realize that you didn't create the world, but, thanks to your evolved mental abilities you develop a god-like sense that you can understand and manipulate nature. Modern science has allowed us to do a lot of that lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm not saying that you must believe in God to behave morally, or that being religious assures moral behavior. There have been atrocities committed in the name of religion as well as in the name of science (e.g. eugenics. An atheist scientist can be a compassionate humanitarian, but there is nothing in science that demands compassion. There is no morality in evolution by natural selection. Darwin himself fretted over the apparent "immorality" and "horror" of insect parasitism. The movie, Alien nicely captures this horror.
There are philosophical ways to develop morality and ethics outside of a framework of religious belief, based on practical and empirical/scientific approaches to human existence. Just read Kant, Hegel, Witgenstein, and whole bunch of others. It just seems a lot easier to develop a compassionate, "humane," and humble morality if you believe that a Supreme Being created the Universe.:wave:
More arrogant than believing that there's a Supreme Being in the universe who adores Homo Sap above all His creations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
More arrogant than believing that we can understand the motives and methods of this Being, and influence His actions by wishing really hard?
More arrogant than persecuting other people for the lack of or difference in their belief about this Being, and excusing our cruelty by saying the Being told us to?
No, I'd say believers have the market cornered on arrogance.
Regards,
Istvan
Just in case anyone thinks this is off-topic, I'd note that it isn't, because while they're different types of evolution, the evolution of human morality is obviously linked to evolution of the species. We're here, aren't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
I'd also claim that evolution of humans as a species is partly due to our morality, because we have unquestionably changed our animalian evolution be design of that morality.
I find it hard to accept your idea. (as does Babbalanja :) )
Do we have evidence for the proposal?
It seems to me that the ever-changing morality theists have given us has contained some pretty horrible stuff, and that many religious groups still practice bigotry against gays, women and other religions, all on the basis of that theistic morality.
Deism is a different proposition, and while I won't deny your proposition for them, I'd wonder what their morality would look like. With religion, it has the handy advantage of being societal, bringing people together to teach. Where do deists gather to discuss morality? And when they have discussed it, why would a non-interventionist god be of use? ince it doesn't interact with the universe, wouldn't designing a morality compatible with it just be creating a god in one's own image?
On the other hand, humanists, who I admire greatly, but am far too radical to ever be part of, have developed a morality which is compatible with Jesus and deism without recourse to anything more than common decency.
Thanks for these excellent ideas. Yes, morality does seem to be something that evolved along with our consciousness. Maybe belief in God is something that also evolved, as did our other mental abilities, including scientific reasoning. In fact it's fair to say that everything about us evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Babbalanja's comments about arrogance were not helpful and to me seem glib, dismissive, and...arrogant. My point was that scientists can be very arrogant. Most religions encourage believers to view themselves as humble before a supreme and inscrutable creator. Many horrible and inhuman things have been done in the name of religion over the course of human history. But religion has no monopoly on arrogance and inhumanity. I mentioned eugenic theory, which is just one aspect of "Social Darwinism."
I suppose that I am a "Humanist." Is belief in God necessary for a Humanist?
I think you are right when you say that belief in a non-interventionist, (i.e. a Deist God, leads to creating God in ones own image (a nice reversal of the theist idea that God created man in His own image). But this is quite different from the atheist position, that I think leads to an amoral view of nature.
Let's consider just one example of how a religious and atheist scientist would deal with a medical/scientific situation. Down Syndrome is a not uncommon medical disorder. We understand the genetic basis for this disorder. We can make the diagnosis in utero, and we can chose to abort a fetus that carries the genetic disorder, if we want.
The natural history of a person born with Down Syndrome is dismal. Mental retardation (low IQ), short life span (40 years or so), and guaranteed medical problems (heart defects and progressive dementia on top of the mental retardation). Everything associated with this disorder would logically prompt a "scientist" to chose to either abort a Down's Syndrome fetus or even to euthanize it at birth. Why would anyone even think of letting such an individual to be born or survive for any period of time?
Well, there is no reason unless you believe that all human life is sacred. Would you believe that all human life is sacred if you did not believe in a creator? I don't think so.
That's only half the story.
One point I want to raise here is while I am not sure whether or not God exists in point of fact and there is nothing to approve or disapprove of this fact with we mortals, and our thinking and imaginative faculties too are limited and we are simply three dimensional beings. What we brag about consciousness is also confined within our environmental peripheries and our ideas cannot transcend these edges. What we know about God, heaven, immortality, afterlife and the like stems from what we read in scriptural texts or we learn from our elders or Gurus. This in point of fact is the base on which we build our ideas and ideologies with regard to God. We have, therefore no authority on these subtle subjects.
Yet we all know that our society has harmony and that said I do believe that our ideals and ideologies are at times as week as castle on sand and people advocating religions are turning fundamentalists and they have done more damages to us, and we know Hitler in history who have subjected so many people to tortures and holocausts, and now we are not unaware of the growing world of fundamentalists whether it is in Christianity, or Islam or Hinduism.
Notwithstanding all these truths I still strongly hold the belief that belief in God or religion or immortality have helped humanity more than without them. If this may not be relevant in many countries, particularly in developed countries at least in underdeveloped countries or societies belief in God or religion or immortality have helped humanity and kept people from committing sins.
I know so many people here take extreme views. If they are atheists they become dogmatically become so and so are the so called theists too. Let us think objectively, disinterestedly without bias religion and belief in God is not as bad as some people think and as a matter of fact these people canonize their ideas and hold them as sacred. I never become rigid personally for what I believe to be true may be proved false tomorrows. We do not want to listen to others and we very adamantly hook ourselves to sets of ideologies whether it is spirituality or materialism and with this pre-determined and unswerving mindset people become diehards or dogmatists no matter what convincing ideas they come across they become too much principled or preoccupied with their rigid ideas.
Yep. There's no doubt that religion has helped societal cohesion and when societies prefer to kill other societies, cohesion is a valuable evolutionary tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Generally, humanists are agnostic or atheist, probably leaning towards a majority of agnostics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Excellent point on Down Syndrome, and pretty topical to me as we've just had a baby and with my wife being almost the dreaded 40, her chances of a Down baby were increased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
We had already decided that if it turned out to be a Down foetus that it would be aborted for exactly the reasons you stated.
Luckily, it wasn't.
Although I am for abortion, I am disturbed by the idea that any fetus is superior to another in some objective fashion. A baby with Down's Syndrome likely has just as good a chance as any other baby to live a happy life, what we're really looking at here is how that baby's existence affects our lives. People don't choose to abort fetuses with Down's for the sake of the future child, but for themselves.
That behavior can easily be extended to aborting a fetus for having brown hair, being gay, not tall enough, or not smart enough. When do we draw the line that a certain type of person is allowed to live?
Congratulations on your baby, and thank God (or chance) that you didn't have to make such a difficult decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Babies with Down Syndrome have a tough and generally short life ahead of them. One thing you are right about is that they seem to have "happy," loving, and guileless personalities, which is something quite remarkable about this condition. I've often wondered about this: it is as if the genetic disorder somehow affected the personality in positive ways, despite the hardships it creates, which you might think would lead to sociopathy in those afflicted with it. Sociopathy and other severe personality disorders rs extremely rare in Down Syndrome. This is one reason why parents of Down Syndrome children have such a hard time giving them up for institutional care.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I think you are too hard on parents who chose to abort a Down Syndrome baby. Sure, they are thinking of their own hardship, but they are also thinking of the hardship their child will face, not the least being worry of who will care for him when they die (since most parents of Down's babies are in their 40's and the life expectancy of DS is around 40 years, the chances are good that the parents will be elderly or dead before the child himself dies).
I chose this example to discuss because of the difficult moral issues it presents.
That's fair enough, but can life for these individuals ever be so hard that it was no longer worth living. Human beings seem to have a capacity to live through almost any hardship and still choose life over death, it seems we as individuals value living over not-living under almost any condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
I can understand aborting a fetus with Cri-Du-Chat, that will kill them within a couple years and most of their lives will be pure agony and they will never learn to speak or interact with the world. DS individuals however are capable of working and living on their own, there are many programs that set up work for them and group homes where they are safe.
Now I don't mean to be so harsh on parents who choose to abort a DS fetus, it is an understandably difficult decision. I'm just put off by these sort of selection processes for fetuses.
Then how can you be "for abortion"?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
What is abortion ever but a choice made by parents for reasons which are usually selfish?
Many abortions are done because of the financial situation of the parent/s or because an unexpected pregnancy happens.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I know several parents of Down children and I don't believe those kids have a quality life. They are unable to do more than the most menial of tasks and are trapped in poverty unless they come from wealthy families.
I also consider that the time spent on a DS child would be hugely detrimental to my other kids.
We don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
If abortion is legal, I don't think parents are asked to justify their reasons, so we don't know that some are being aborted for being the wrong sex anyway.
If we start introducing a list of "valid" reasons for abortions, it would defeat the object of it being a woman's right.
I never said I supported restrictions on abortion, I just said I was bothered by the long term implications for selection of individuals, and the reasons behind them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Is it so outrageous to ask people to consider their reasons for getting an abortion before having one? Abortion in itself I do not consider to be wrong, but when we guide our reasons for it through bias and prejudice then we are allowing something wrong to influence our decisions.
Now I'm really lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I meant this comment:
I took that to mean you supported women's rights to have abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
This seems a contradiction to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Pro-abortion people almost exclusively consider abortion a woman's right, and as such, I don't think divisions in reasons for abortion are appropriate. Any abortion is done for reasons which may be - and probably are - subject to individual biases and influences.
Who has the right to decide which reasons are "right" and "wrong"?
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
As always, it's about the maths. My wife's chances of DS were about 1 in 200, which was lengthened to 1 in 2500 with a nucal fold ultrasound. Amnioscentesis can give you a 100% answer, but as the process iteself involves a 1% chance of miscarriage, we just played the odds that said it was 25 times more dangerous to have amnio than wait & see.
With the odds, it would have been a major surprise if something was wrong, but we were certainly still very happy to see a "normal" baby!
I regret that this discussion has devolved into a debate on abortion. I have my own strong feelings on the issue, but arguing this matter online is truly nothing more than a slapfight for moral high ground. Discussing eugenics is the most efficient way for believers to portray non-believers as callous and amoral, without having to engage in anything more intellectual than moralistic sloganeering.
Despite Nick's reservations, I stand by what I said about believers being arrogant. I believe it's the height of presumption to put faith on a level with rational contemplation or genuine moral thinking. I think religious believers who try to put God in science are woefully misguided.
Regards,
Istvan
Where did I bring God into anything, I don't believe in God, goddesses, or any higher being in any which way. I am an atheist and have never belonged to any religious institution in my entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Pro-abortion legally is exclusively a woman's right, however there is no need to conflate that with an argument about the morality of it. I don't think fetuses are human beings, I don't think they have moral rights in and of themselves. What I think is morally wrong is to take decisions based on prejudice that excludes certain types of individuals from existing. It is no different from refusing a job to someone for no other reason than they being part of some minority group. This all hinges on whether one believes groups can have moral status, and that they have a right to exist.
i.e.
Aborting a baby because of some trait you find icky = wrong
Aborting a baby because of financial limitations, rape, personal inability to raise any sort of baby. etc. = permissible
But how do you decide that abortion is chosen through "bias and prejudice?" It is a choice, and one choses to act for reasons. Except for purely reflexive acts that seem to avoid "choice" (and this is arguable), every willed act involves conscious or unconscious choices. One could argue that all choice involves bias and prejudice.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I'm not speaking in legal terms. In practicality I support the full autonomous choice of individual women, because it is the only way to ensure a free choice by the woman and it is her body that is at issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
That being said, certainly unconscious bias plays a part in the decisions of individuals, but that isn't to say people shouldn't make a conscious effort to avoid making decisions on prejudice. At the least through self reflection one can help mitigate the probability of making overtly prejudicial decisions.
It's all well and fine to complain about people being trapped in their rigid ideas, but let's keep our wits about us. Is it unreasonably dogmatic to say that we know the Earth orbits the Sun? Are we being closed-minded by calling anyone that denies species evolution wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I'm trying to demonstrate that there are certain things that aren't really matters of opinion. Through a cumulative historical process of empirical evidential inquiry, we're in a position to make pronouncements about reality that it's folly to deny. We don't believe DNA is the basis of heredity because it makes us feel good to believe it, we do so because of the evidence from many avenues of research.
I for one am fed up with being characterized as dogmatic for expecting people to present evidence for the beliefs they express in public, or not to express them at all. Religious people should expect their beliefs to be scrutinized and criticized like every other claim in society. And if their ideas are found wanting, they should stop making it sound like they're the victims of materialist dogmatism and face up to the fact that such beliefs should be kept in private where they belong.
Regards,
Istvan
Couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
The persecution syndrome fits the theology though. They were expecting it all along.
;)
I'm glad that you explained that. I've been saying the same thing over and over and over again for the last six years to both people who believe in creationism AND people who believe in evolution but have no idea how natural selection works. Things just are, there's no better than or worse than, there's just fit for a certain environment and unfit. Unfit could be fit in other circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
My issue with evolution is, as you and I have already discussed, that evolution is not an alternative to creationism because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. In order for evolution to work, there has to be a pre-existing species for natural selection to work on. Abiogenisis is the REAL alternative to creationism, and every theory that I've read about abiogenisis has been extreamly stupid and based on very flimsy evidence. So the whole "Creationism VS. Evolution" debate is silly, because evolution isn't a foil of creationism. Evolution doesn't even disprove religion, it just disproves the christian creation myth that everything was made as-is. Evolution and intelligent design could co-exist.
Creationism is a cop-out, and so is abiogenisis. I very strongly believe that both are wrong. However life on this planet originated, we have absolutely no idea. If I were a betting girl, I'd put my money on aliens. :alien:
Aliens is a bigger cop-out than abiogenesis, you're just shifting the question to where the alien life first came into existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Abiogenesis is not a cop-out because it involves at least an attempt to experimentally demonstrate the possibility of chemical evolution. There is substantive research going on in this field, with a number of researches trying to generate proto-cells, and then Craig Venter is working on a project to gradually decrease the genes in a prokaryotic cell to find the base requirements for a functioning cell. Most of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis involve sound arguments that make a lot more sense than an old man in the sky or a unicorn fart starting life.
Excluding wackjobs like Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis.
I was joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Yes it is a cop-out, because even though they are ATTEMPTING to obtain evidence, they ACTUALLY HAVE zippo. Coming up with a theory that's based on nothing is not science. Actually, it sound a whole lot like faith. I know all about abiogenisis experiments that attempt to re-create the origin of life, there's one going on two floors up from my labs at the University of Alberta. So far they've obtained absolutely no evidence, and my prof believes that they're wasting their time (not to mention a whole lot of our money). All of the biology profs whose lectures I've attended or who I've worked with have basically told me that all of the current abiogenisis theories are almost definately crap, and that however life originated we don't have a clue. We're ignorant, neither science nor religion even comes close to answering all of life's big questions. People who pretend that they know everything because their ideas have a big label on them that reads "SCIENCE" are delusional (not to mention pretty un-scientific).Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
First of all, abiogenesis is not a theory, it is something that must of happened unless you want to bring in supernatural causes. The hypotheses that attempt to explain abiogenesis are not acknowledged by anyone to be anything more than possible explanations. The fact that these hypotheses are at least testable and hinge on possible evidence makes them superior than any propositions of divine intervention. It is absurd to just shut off a line of inquiry because you believe it to be a dead-end.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Straw man alert!Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I don't know any scientifically-minded people who claim to know everything. In fact, they're honest about realizing how much there is left to know. Inductive reasoning emphasizes the effect of new information on the theories we hold dear, so scientific inquiry only ever claims to be provisionally reliable. As has been said already, nothing is ever proven scientifically.
This stands in rather marked contrast to religious faith, which claims to know a lot of things that are mere fantasy on no better grounds than that the believer believes very strongly in them.
What were you saying about "delusional"?
Regards,
Istvan
Well, you know what they say about unfounded beliefs...Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I'll ask then; if creationism, abiogenesis and aliens are all false, what other option is there.
We know that life arose, and the choices are supernatural or natural. If natural, there was clearly some process which started it.
I think you might mean, "current abiogenesis theories are rubbish".
Wish I knew what happened to Lovelock. He must've gone mad at some stage. Probably a woman....Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I think you're getting several other things confused as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
You seem to seek "evidence", yet since abiogenesis occurred some ~4 billion years ago, we can't even replicate the world of that time aside from some very broad known data. The only evidence available will be if some scientist creates life, and even then, that would be no proof that it's how life began.
I'm quite happy to say that we don't have a clue how it happened, and we may never do - just like the birth of the universe, we're starting with no data at all trying to work out a couple of the most difficult engineering problems in history.
We're trying to do the equivalent of asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. It's not going to be apparent overnight.
As to biology professors who claim that all current abiogenesis theories are rot, that sounds too much like professional jealousy for my liking. If they're willing to deny current research, they need to be at least offer an alternative before rubbishing others. If they don't have a competing theory, then they're very peculiar biologists. Invite them along.
Yes. Abiogenesis is a logical point to begin explaining the origin of life, unless you want to assume that "life" existed from the beginning of the material universe, which to me is an unscientific approach. It's hard to imagine how life began from non-living matter, but doing so is more intellectually honest than other approaches, like the seeding of alien life from outer space. Darwin never worried about the origin of life. He "merely" concerned himself with explaining how it evolved after it came into being.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What he came up with, evolution by natural selection, is a powerful theory that explains the behavior of living things, within the limits of our current understanding of life, just as Newton's understanding of matter, force, and motion provided a powerful understanding of the universe. But neither Newton nor Darwin have the last word on the nature of the non-living and living universe, and neither addressed the origins of matter, energy, life, and the "laws" that describe them. Those who try to explain the origins of these things are dealing with a much more difficult problem.:sick:
That's just it, we don't know. Whatever the answer is, we haven’t even got the slightest grasp. That would be like Aristotle just randomly guessing the periodic table, except that the events which led to the creation of life and the universe would probably be 1000000000x more complex than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
This is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, except that you're wrong in believing that I'm seeking "evidence." It's exactly the opposite. I realize the futility of trying to discover how life and the universe came into existence. It's not going to happen. You described it perfectly when you said that this would be like asking a caveman to build the Hoover Dam. We don't have the knowledge, or the tools. We're wasting our time. When it comes to questions such as "how did life begin?" and "how was the universe created?" I have as much respect for religious hypotheses as I do for scientific ones: both are equally plausible, because both are not plausible at all. Neither is in any way superior to the other. Therefore, debate is pointless. As I've said before:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
How can you be sure that we will never be able to understand how life began (from non-living matter)? Certainly the question of how the universe began (or "was created") is even more difficult, but can you prove that these things are unknowable? And even if they are unknowable as you assume, why is the pursuit "wasting our time?" It was this pursuit of understanding that led to us being able to build Hoover Dam (your example of something beyond the ability of our ancestors), along with a whole lot of other modern marvels.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
And there is a difference between religious and scientific understanding of the world. Both views depend on reason and even faith. The faith part of science has to do with basic assumptions about reality (number. the nature of mass, space, time, force, cause and effect, etc). The faith part of
religion is bigger than that of science, but there is also a qualitative difference. Science allows for experiment, which is the testing of scientific explanations of the world, which allows scientists to judge the validity of their understanding (i.e., reasoning of how things came to be and work.
It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.
Aquinas and Aristotle employed reason in their arguments. Neither were
scientists. They could be called philosophers or religionists. They employed plausible and convincing arguments to explain many things, but their explanations ultimately failed to conform to scientific reality.
Today we think of science as mathematical. Certainly mathematical reasoning is a powerful tool in understanding the behavior of the universe. But mathematics is just a form of reason. It reflects the way our minds work, and may or may not reflect the way the universe works. We can never be sure that the universe follows the patterns of our reason, but a scientist accepts that we can ask questions and perform experiments to see if the universe seems to follow the patterns of our reasoning.
Pythagoras was a great mathematician, his mathematical genius advanced science, but he was not an honest scientist (or even mathematician), if the story about his followers drowning a disciple who proved the existence of irrational numbers is true. Aristosthenes, who may have been a lesser mathematical genius than Pythagoras or Euclid was a far better scientist. He used geometry to measure the circumference of a spherical earth, and his calculation was quite accurate.
Sorry, I mis-spelled it: Eratosthenes.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
It's embarrassing to see such equivocation on the word faith. If you consider the assumptions of empirical inquiry exactly the same as the credulity that feeds religious belief, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree with you more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Religion only employs reason to formulate rational-sounding excuses for beliefs that weren't arrived at through reason.Quote:
It would be an error to say that science is based on reason while religion is not. Both employ reason. The real difference is the attitude towards experiment, checking our reason against what is.
Regards,
Istvan
Your faith in the scope and efficacy of reason is staggering. Do feelings count for nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I read this post, and while andave_ya has seemingly left the discussion, I still feel I should address this. There are several factors that influence aggression--neurobiology, hormones, environmental factors, etc. Take the case of Charles Whitman, a mass-murderer of the 1960s. After killing several people, he off-ed himself; the autopsy revealed a tumor in his amygdala. What do scientists gather from this? Maybe the amygdala has something to do with aggression...Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
(There's more proof behind that, by the way)
Whether you're evolutionist or creationist, everyone should be REQUIRED to learn a thing or two about the biology of human behavior. It certainly cleared a few things up for me.
Feelings are just as material as rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I have very strong feelings about my family, music, literature, and many other things. However, when we're talking about explanations for natural phenomena like species diversity, it's true, feelings count for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Regards,
Istvan
I wasn't equivocating and my comments about faith, reason, and experiment in religion and science were reasonable. Your response doesn't address the points I made. Please read my comments and tell me where you think they are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
You are right to a considerable point and not after that. For what we know thru science today is phenomena on a micro level and beyond that the universe remains a mystery. This length and breadth of this cosmos is immeasurable and what time is something indefinable and we have no instruments to gauge all this. There are zillions of galaxies and all with uncountable numbers of stars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli
Of course we keep on exploring into the depths of the cosmos and will indeed do something more than what today we have like the Internet, Cellphones and the likes of them.
I of course science thru ages have done something our ancestors could not dream of even and which could not come to their wildest imaginations. But all this does not indicate the world can be fully explored. The deeper the explorations will go the vaster the cosmos may appear to us and we kind of will completely remain in the same state of unknowability or mystery as we are now even after a thousand years.
If think science can explore the fathoms or the mystery of the universe and I may think science cannot and this debate will go eternally and there is no midpoint at which we can meet and agree.