Sciences vs. Religion

[MorpheusSandman]

The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.

[MorpheusSandman]

When I read the part about "sacred texts", it reminded me of Yudowsky's LessWrong, or perhaps they should be called "MoreWrong", blog posts.

I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself; not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so.

What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong.

Here's RationalWiki's account of Yudkowsky: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).

[MorpheusSandman]

For someone that has so much hate toward textual information, you tend to use it quite a lot as evidence in your arguments.

I have no idea what you're talking about re my hate towards "textual information."

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion.

I think everyone, including atheists and scientists, would agree that science "isn't perfect because of people." However, there are honest and dishonest ways of showing the flaws that exist in science; all of your methods have been dishonest in the extreme, many of them flat-out lies.

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

We make decisions based on the information we have, so while I agree we shouldn't just blindly believe whatever we're told by anyone, the fact is that science, by and large, have the facts, experiments, engineering, technology, etc. to back up their claims. You can doubt that science understands gravity all you want, but you're going to have an awful hard time explaining how we made it to the moon; you can question science's understanding of electricity and binary logic, but you'll have an awful hard time explaining computers. Like I said, our entire modern world is a testament to the proof that science, by and large, knows of what they speak. This doesn't mean there aren't bad scientists, scandals, unanswered questions, etc., but all of these things are like pointing out paint chips in the Sistine Chapel. Religion, in comparison, is a crumbling ruin.

Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim.

Errr, the theory of evolution DOES hold supremacy over creationism in every way one theory can hold supremacy over another. Evolution is just about the most supported theory in the history of science; Creationism is completely unfalsifiable, and its various lies and propaganda have been displayed several times, such as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo...81149B&index=6

I find Krauss' observation of teaching kids about God the equivalent to that of child abuse rather disturbing.

And another lie. Krauss has never said anything about "teaching kids about God" being child abuse, but rather teaching them Creationism over evolution is child abuse. Even though I think his "child abuse" claim is overreaching, his basic point that teaching children such falsities rather than the truth puts them at an intellectual and scholastic disadvantage is actually true. It's not terribly different than parents that are arrested for withholding medical treatment for their children in favor of "faith healing."

But isn't atheism a religion of sorts?

I think it's a religion in the same sense that people say politics are religion or art is a religion or football is a religion. What they mean is it's metaphorically LIKE religion. But religion typically requires supernatural beliefs about the origin of life/the universe, typically accompanied by various rituals, laws, holy texts, etc. While you can point out that atheism has things LIKE those things, they invariably differ in key elements.

[MorpheusSandman]

In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on society’s laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. That’s (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know).

Yeah, Denying the Antecedent: If A, then B; not A, therefor not B. I definitely agree with you that even if we conclude there's no God we shouldn't conclude that any of the conclusions in The Bible about anything (moral or otherwise) are wrong. The key, however, is in not allowing people to justify their morality or philosophy via their religion alone and then having that affect public policy. Issues like same-sex marriage and Creationism in schools are simply modern iterations where people's religious beliefs are in direct conflict with public policy in an obviously negative way. There is no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (even though certain people can couch them in secular terms, they stem from the same place).

[glennr25]

Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories. Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless.

Abraham’s home city of Ur was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley, with surprising evidence of near-luxury.

The customs of Patriarchal times, as described in the Bible, are endorsed by archaeological finds at such places as Ur, Mari, Boghazkoi, and Nineveh. These were written records from that day—not just put down in writing many centuries later. They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morpheus, just because you believe in one theory over another doesn't make it supreme over the other theories.

No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another.

Archaeological evidence keeps popping up that proves accounts written in the bible. But of course that kind of evidence does not fit to your belief system so it is automatically worthless.

Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt).

They bear the marks of eyewitness reporting.

Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.

[glennr25]

No, being rigorously tested and refined for over 100 years without falsification compared to not being testable at all makes one theory supreme over another.

Well, there's that (that it doesn't fit with my belief system), and also that it's fictional and doesn't exist; certainly not for Creationism, at least (that some of the Bible is historical I haven't disputed, but there's no evidence for any of its miraculous claims--Noah's Ark, eg.--and surprisingly none for things like the Jews Exodus from Egypt).

Eye witness resporting is amongst the weakest forms of evidence on its own. Most of the innocent people in prison were put there by mistaken eye witnesses.

Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying. They are the beacon of hope for all of mankind and everything they write is truth. Are you serious?

Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like. Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction. Thanks for admitting that for me. Now let's imagine the tables were turned. What if science was the the one that was discovered before religion and it was written into a book? Would you believe in science less because of that?

"Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.

[The Atheist]

What if....

... I make a really silly hypothesis? Will that make my argument stronger?

Alas, no.

[MorpheusSandman]

Rigorously tested and refined, yup, that's it, because scientists are incapable of lying.

A scientist is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob.

Because it's in a book you believe it to be fiction.

That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction.

"Eye witness reports is amongst the weakest forms of evidence," Even when archaeological finds prove it to be true? Wow.

Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.

[YesNo]

I link to the Yudkowsky articles that I agree with because it saves me the trouble of typing the same thing myself; not because I find his writings "sacred texts." Every time he starts writing about art I have to face palm, and I'm very dubious of his various positions on social matters and politics. I'm also rather clueless about cryonics, or even AI and the technological singularity, so I have no idea of the accuracy of what he says on those matters; but, guess what, neither do any of the non-AI researchers writing Rational Wiki. It would be one thing for an actual AI researcher to engage with Yudkowsky's claims, but it's nonsense that complete non-experts are trying to do so.

What I find nearly flawless in Yudkowsky are his epistemological, linguistic, neurological, and metaphysical philosophies. I link to them because they illuminate many of the problems that people have when these subjects come up. You're free to disagree with them/him, but not once have I ever posted an article that you've actually engaged with. Normally, at best, you pick one sentence and write a whole post that does nothing but demonstrate your lack of comprehension. You've certainly never demonstrated that Yudkowsky is actually wrong.


Yes, I've read it; it's full of lies and half-truths written by people who have clearly not read much of the blog. EG, this statement: "Yudkowsky... is indeed opposed to the scientific method in favor of his interpretation of Bayes' theorem" is a flat-out lie, and almost hilariously wrong for anyone who has actually read a significant portion of his blog. Yudkowsky is constantly praising the values of science and its discoveries. The majority of his epistemological philosophy requires science in order to function. The "citation" that rationalwiki links to is an article where Yudkowsky is discussing one subject where the philosophical approach to science comes in conflict with the philosophical approach to Bayes, and in that instance he stresses why we should listen to Bayes (really, why we should utilize Bayes IN science; he's not actually saying we should reject science altogether, that would be preposterous).

Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.

I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.

[Ecurb]

You accuse me of rhetoric then post such a non-rhetorical post.
.

I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.

[glennr25]

Although I don't agree with Yudkowsky's many worlds view, the RationalWiki article on him sounded to me more irrational than not. I left the article thinking it's a good thing I don't spend much time on the RationalWiki site.

I also agree with you that quoting someone you find expresses your viewpoint is acceptable. I do the same. It does save time.

I think the very moment you name a site "Rational," you lose credibility points from people that know better.

[glennr25]

A scientist is certainly capable of lying; to think that 99.9% of all scientists in biology, medicine, archaeology, etc. are lying is the thinking of a conspiracy theory wackjob.

That's not what I said at all. When it's written in a book in a way that bears remarkable resemblances to writings we know to be fiction (Noah's ark bearing striking resemblances to Gilgamesh's flood, eg), then it's probably fiction. I already said I admit that SOME of the Bible functions as legitimate history, while others are allegory, some fictional, some history mixed with allegory and fiction.

Archaeology hasn't proved any Biblical miracles true, certainly not Creationism.

Did I say 99.9% of scientists were lying? All it takes is one person of authority to sway the opinions of those around him/her. If you don't believe me read this article on the flaws of peer review papers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

OK, fair enough, archaeology hasn't proven any Biblical miracles to be true, I agree. But science hasn't proven them to be false either. Maybe one day they will, but I doubt it since science in it of itself is limited to human thinking.

[The Atheist]

I never "accused (you) of rhetoric", possibly because I know what the word means. I accused you of rhetorical incompetence.

You really are at the bottom of the barrel if the best you can come up with one weak opinion on what constitutes incompetence. (and "rhetoric" for that matter)

I tend more to think of incompetence as failing miserably when trying to attack someone, using erroneous conclusions and assumptions, but that's just me.

Please do carry on ignoring the other points I made.

[The Atheist]

But science hasn't proven them to be false either.

Are you serious?

Science hasn't proven a made up story false?

Tell you what - you propose a mechanism for science to prove Hogwarts does not exist and I'll get it right on to proving Moses did not part the Red Sea, Noah did not float a boat and god did not send 42 she-bears to eat kids who called one of his pals "baldy".