[video] Sagan brilliance

[MkII]

Why should it be? It is a fallacy to assume that because something is not provable through a method, it must be a unique exception rather than false.

Madness. Already refuted.

 

How convenient. Theory doesn't fit the facts, so rather than assuming that the theory might be wrong and look at alternatives you quickly change it so it does fit the facts, while saying that it was nearly right all along. If a theory makes repeated assertions which are shown to be inconsistent, might it not be worth looking at the alternatives instead of saying that the theory is beyond testing due to its special status?

You should always test. The metaphysical can't be testable by it's own definition.

 

Reasoning from a false premise gives you a false theory, no matter how logically coherent it is. Working from an assumption that a deity exists does not prevent a logically coherent theory, nor does it somehow magically mean the theory must be correct (see several references to the number of other religions which exist).

I don't work from the assumption that $deity exists. Existence is a physical description.

 

And yet you're following, without much in the way of questioning, a religion which those goat herders devised.

 

So you are expected to test your faith, but not question the fundamentals of that same faith? Not really that much of a test.

In your dream maybe. In my reality I test it completely.

 

No - deities are not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method according to religion. Psychology and sociology have plenty of explanations for both deities and religion. The scientific method can quite happily be applied to religion.

You're confusing commenting on the subject and informing the subject.

[localzuk]

Madness. Already refuted.

 

Not is hasn't been. To be brutally honest with you mark, you are providing an awful lot of text but very little actual substance to your arguments.

 

You have continually ignored the most basic of questions, such as the flying teapot question, saying why religion should be excluded from scientific testing, etc...

 

You should always test. The metaphysical can't be testable by it's own definition.

 

Why does that subject get to choose whether things are testable or not? I don't subscribe to metaphysics being a valid subject, so why should I be bound by its internal rules? It'd be like be reading a non-disclosure agreement with a line stating I can't discuss the NDA with anyone. I'm not bound by that rule until I agree to it, and sign that document.

[MkII]

Wow - do you guys never do any work!

 

You've made a fundamental mistake their. Your opinion of a result does not, in any way, affect the validity of the result. There are many, many scientists who have worked to defend or provide evidence for a theory, only to be forced to conclude that it was incorrect. Just because they believe it does not make it true in any way.

Which is why I state that there are equally valid alternatives. In faith there are no certainties. Well only in words

 

You're also evidently unaware of my own value system. You're assuming that I don't value the universe simply because I don't believe in a religion. This is a trap that religious types often fall into, in the same way that they assume there is no way for an athiest to develop an objective moral code. It's like the classic argument that only religion can lead people to altruism, and is just as invalid.

I don't assume that you don't value it. And I'm well aware of the differences in morality derived from naturalism as opposed to those derived from a positive model; and the merits of both. I won't annoy by pointing out the logistics of that.

 

Of course a child's exploration is nonsense. Valuable nonsense, but nonsense. As to the leap of faith comment, we know to some degree what the conditions were at the beginning of your particular religion (others drift further back, or not as far). It is interesting that the only modern religion I'm aware of is a scam through and through. I won't name it in order to avoid being put on a watch list and the potential of legal threats.

It (a childs exploration) clearly isn't nonsense. Your view of religion is jaded and ignores logic. Scientology, like many expressions of religion, demonstrates the propensity of humans to exploit others. This says nothing about religion, but everything about the human condition.

 

You constantly hammer at religion being a valid world view without once revealing a valid reason why. This is my beef.

I've given every reason why you cannot dismiss it out of hand like you do. Again, I'm not here to preach.

[localzuk]

Wow - do you guys never do any work!

 

Summer holiday.

[MkII]

No one's telling you to think differently at all, just disagreeing with your view that one particular religion is correct.

I've said repeatedly that it's only correct for me, as in the individual considering the problem. Please don't say that again. My brain will implode.

 

Why on earth 'we don't know' be a neutral view? It's not a view, it's an open question which allows for an answer to come about. Or allows the questioner to answer it for themselves, to their own satisfaction.

Maybe it was a bad/ the wrong example. I don't know a lot of stuff too. I assume nothing without consideration.

Edited August 4, 2010 by MkII

[MkII]

I think jamesb has quite succinctly covered this - the outcome isn't affected by our views of it.

To a personal question all you have is your personal view.

 

A child learns by doing, and by being taught things - its early experiences will be filled with cause and effect (ie. stick your hand in a flame, and it'll hurt). Those experiences are not nonsense, they are in there most basic, scientific discovery.

Quite.

 

I've not said your world view is invalid, I'm simply asking for you to say why it is a valid world view.

And I've explained. It can't be dismissed on logical grounds, as proven.

 

Why is a religion the way you guide your life? Why must it involve things that we can't see, and can't prove? Why can it not simply be a moral life based on cause and effect? (ie. murder is bad, because the effect of it is to make other people sad etc...).

Because God is perfect and therefore trumps any other model.

 

And to say that living life with many answers being 'we don't know' is neutral? That's nonsense in itself! I look at the universe and think 'wow, this is truly amazing', if I don't know the answer to something, it excites me - because finding out the answer is a fun thing to do. Nothing neutral about it.

I look at in in the same way. I also have another dimension that you say you have no comment on, or withhold comment on.

[localzuk]

And I've explained. It can't be dismissed on logical grounds, as proven.

 

This is where we disagree. I believe it can be dismissed on logical grounds, as nothing has been proven as you say.

[jamesb]

You should always test. The metaphysical can't be testable by it's own definition.

 

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it's probably a duck. If it's invisible like something non-existent, untestable like something non-existent, and non-demonstrable like something non-existent...you know where I'm going here.

 

I don't work from the assumption that $deity exists. Existence is a physical description.

 

Existence is not a physical description, it can also describe abstracts. Unless you can demonstrate some evidence that $deity exists it is a matter of faith, and you are making an assumption.

 

In your dream maybe. In my reality I test it completely.

 

I studied physics at university. Part of that involved testing the most fundamental principles on which physics is grounded, and deriving for myself the theories which arise from those observations.

 

You're confusing commenting on the subject and informing the subject.

 

You've stated before that you accept everything within science. As such, since there is no rule within science which forbids testing religion, science has every right to both comment on, and inform and test, religion.

 

Which is why I state that there are equally valid alternatives. In faith there are no certainties. Well only in words

 

If they are equally valid, how can a particular religion be more consistent, developed, and therefore by implication more valid at the same time?

 

It (a childs exploration) clearly isn't nonsense. Your view of religion is jaded and ignores logic. Scientology, like many expressions of religion, demonstrates the propensity of humans to exploit others. This says nothing about religion, but everything about the human condition.

 

My view of religion is far from jaded. It's a fascinating societal construct which, I personally, believe is explained by the bicameral mind. Of course if more evidence comes to light to refute this (or to support it) then I will naturally change my view.

 

I've given every reason why you cannot dismiss it out of hand like you do. Again, I'm not here to preach.

 

No you haven't. You've just come up with standard statements along the lines of 'it's religion, you can't test it', 'science can't test religion', and so forth. None of those are a reason to someone who does not subscribe to the same belief system as you.

 

Summer holiday.

 

I remember those. Those were good days.

 

I've said repeatedly that it's only correct for me, as in the individual considering the problem. Please don't say that again. My brain will implode.

 

Problem there - if the religion is true, and correct for you then by it's own rules it must also be true and correct for everyone else. If it is not true and correct for everyone else then it is not internally consistent. So make up your mind - is the religion true and valid, and therefore by it's own rules applicable to everyone, or is it purely personal and thus by it's own rules invalid?

[jamesb]

To a personal question all you have is your personal view.

 

Which you should strive to overcome.

 

And I've explained. It can't be dismissed on logical grounds, as proven.

 

Stating that has no logical basis. On logical grounds there are plenty of reasons to dismiss the theory.

 

Because God is perfect and therefore trumps any other model.

 

Evidence? Demonstration? Perfection implies perfection in creation also, to bring up one of the oldest arguments.

 

Besides if we're going down the my god's bigger than your science route I can make a quick conversion and bring lots of gods to the party.

 

I look at in in the same way. I also have another dimension that you say you have no comment on, or withhold comment on.

 

No you don't. We have a disagreement about what that dimension consists of. You think it's a mystical place outside of our understanding. I think it's a side-effect of a bicameral ape brain and a few thousand years of societal complexity ramping up massively and forcing control structures to be put in place as our brains adapted to cope with the massive changes.

 

And to be quite honest, I find my theory of it much more interesting to study.

[ZeroHour]

Right I have just glanced through all this and I do have a few questions I hope will be taken in a nice light. I have no beef with religion but I do question a few things logically.

If men are fallible and the bible was written by men is it not possible it contains mistakes? (bethinking.org - Bible + Jesus - Q. How could fallible men produce an infallible Bible? states that even though men are fallible, they are not always wrong)

If based on that link man got the bible correct how could any error be spotted without someone questioning it? If the bible is supposed to be correct and people take it on a matter of faith to be true why would anyone ever question it to ensure there was no errors (aka blind faith)

How literal do you see the bible in regards to answering our beginnings against the age old evolution question?

How accurate do you see the bible yourself?

[teejay]

Right I have just glanced through all this and I do have a few questions I hope will be taken in a nice light. I have no beef with religion but I do question a few things logically.

If men are fallible and the bible was written by men is it not possible it contains mistakes? (bethinking.org - Bible + Jesus - Q. How could fallible men produce an infallible Bible? states that even though men are fallible, they are not always wrong)

If based on that link man got the bible correct how could any error be spotted without someone questioning it? If the bible is supposed to be correct and people take it on a matter of faith to be true why would anyone ever question it to ensure there was no errors (aka blind faith)

How literal do you see the bible in regards to answering our beginnings against the age old evolution question?

How accurate do you see the bible yourself?

 

Not all Christians believe the Bible to be infallible, it's mainly Evangelical Christians who believe this. It's something I have a problem with, as I can't see this being the case as a lot of it was handed down through verbal re-telling, plus it's been translated and different interpretations put on it.

[MkII]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it's probably a duck. If it's invisible like something non-existent, untestable like something non-existent, and non-demonstrable like something non-existent...you know where I'm going here.

Around in circles?

 

Existence is not a physical description, it can also describe abstracts. Unless you can demonstrate some evidence that $deity exists it is a matter of faith, and you are making an assumption.

I know I'm making an assumption based on faith.

 

I studied physics at university. Part of that involved testing the most fundamental principles on which physics is grounded, and deriving for myself the theories which arise from those observations.

It would appear an education in this instance stopped you thinking.

 

You've stated before that you accept everything within science. As such, since there is no rule within science which forbids testing religion, science has every right to both comment on, and inform and test, religion.

And what science either proves or disproves is not religion.

 

If they are equally valid, how can a particular religion be more consistent, developed, and therefore by implication more valid at the same time?

They are equally valid subjectively.

 

My view of religion is far from jaded. It's a fascinating societal construct which, I personally, believe is explained by the bicameral mind. Of course if more evidence comes to light to refute this (or to support it) then I will naturally change my view.

So evidence of the metaphysical would convince you of it's reality. How absurd.

 

No you haven't. You've just come up with standard statements along the lines of 'it's religion, you can't test it', 'science can't test religion', and so forth. None of those are a reason to someone who does not subscribe to the same belief system as you.

Logical fallacies that you insist on tying yourself to. I don't agree that a scientifically philosophical world view is intellectually defensible, but I understand your reasoning for it. You refuse to accept the logical points against your world view, but fail to challenge them.

 

 

Problem there - if the religion is true, and correct for you then by it's own rules it must also be true and correct for everyone else. If it is not true and correct for everyone else then it is not internally consistent. So make up your mind - is the religion true and valid, and therefore by it's own rules applicable to everyone, or is it purely personal and thus by it's own rules invalid?

Unfortunately for you that is the conditional of the religion. I'm impressed that you think you can sweep away a long held fact where no one else has succeeded. I look forward to one logical proposition from yourself. So far we've had nothing but arm waving.

[MkII]

Which you should strive to overcome.

We should strive to be without personalities?

 

Stating that has no logical basis. On logical grounds there are plenty of reasons to dismiss the theory.

Then please provide a response.

 

Evidence? Demonstration? Perfection implies perfection in creation also, to bring up one of the oldest arguments.

I'm using the standard Mainstream Christian definition of God. It's a logically coherent model if you wish to test it. you might want to do some background research. May I suggest the Summa as a starting point.

 

No you don't. We have a disagreement about what that dimension consists of. You think it's a mystical place outside of our understanding. I think it's a side-effect of a bicameral ape brain and a few thousand years of societal complexity ramping up massively and forcing control structures to be put in place as our brains adapted to cope with the massive changes.

 

And to be quite honest, I find my theory of it much more interesting to study.

Precisely. You dismiss the dimension with some spurious logic.

[MkII]

If based on that link man got the bible correct how could any error be spotted without someone questioning it? If the bible is supposed to be correct and people take it on a matter of faith to be true why would anyone ever question it to ensure there was no errors (aka blind faith)

 

Christians would say that the bible is potentially errant. Well most would, as would I. A council in the 4th century put together the books we currently accept as being the bible, and it is still recognised as correct even though some parts are a little shaky. New source texts were discovered which went into the formation of the New International Version (NIV), for example, that weren't available at the time of writing of the King James Version (KJV). Hence the NIV contains slightly different text to the KJV and the meanings are slightly different.

 

People aren't supposed to blindly accept any of it to be true. That is an explicit requirement stated in the text, and is a common misconception. Those knowledgeable in the subject have a responsibility to accurately represent it. We can't know everything, or always have an answer. Not questioning is never an option though. Without doubt, there cannot be faith. If we knew anything for certain, then faith would become superfluous.

 

How literal do you see the bible in regards to answering our beginnings against the age old evolution question?

Not literal at all. It's an entirely different subject. I think it'd intellectually dishonest to argue any other way.

 

George Coyne spoke with Richard Dawkins about the idea and I'm in total agreement with him. The interview is about an hour length in total

 

 

How accurate do you see the bible yourself?

I think it's a book about God and observations about him and his nature. In that respect I regard it as totally accurate.

[localzuk]

I don't think we're ever going to overcome the issues in this discussion - from my point of view, I simply can't understand a need 'metaphysics' or anything like that - it has no point in my mind as it has no way of helping us as a species, other than perpetuating religion.

 

All the positive parts of religion, such as leading a moral life, can be gained outside of religion and without any need to engage in rituals or follow religious dogma. In fact, religion is holding back many aspects of morality such as equal rights for women, rights for homosexuals, contraception and the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy (and also, therefore, overcrowding) etc...

 

IMO, the sooner we can unshackle ourselves from this old ideas, the sooner we will overcome the inconsistencies in our world.

 

But then, that's just me (and a large number of other atheists).

[jsnetman]

This sort of discussion belongs in the pub on a Friday night, and you all know where it will lead to

[teejay]

The problem with your argument there is that it's not religion causing those problems, it's the human species. You can direct the same issues towards many governments, tribes and individuals whether atheist or religious.

For instance, your comment about 'the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy' I presume is about the Catholic stance on the use of condoms and Africa? Well, the main problem is not the contraception, it's the way women are mistreated and abused, quite often with tacit support of government and tribal leaders. In many areas, it is mission charities which are providing the education and support to help prevent this, often facing great hostility.

 

'IMO, the sooner we can unshackle ourselves from this old ideas, the sooner we will overcome the inconsistencies in our world'

Unless you believe in creationism, atheism came before religion, so atheism is the old idea ;-)

[teejay]

This sort of discussion belongs in the pub on a Friday night, and you all know where it will lead to

 

Yep, only one way to settle this......FIGHT!!!!

[localzuk]

The problem with your argument there is that it's not religion causing those problems, it's the human species. You can direct the same issues towards many governments, tribes and individuals whether atheist or religious.

For instance, your comment about 'the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy' I presume is about the Catholic stance on the use of condoms and Africa? Well, the main problem is not the contraception, it's the way women are mistreated and abused, quite often with tacit support of government and tribal leaders. In many areas, it is mission charities which are providing the education and support to help prevent this, often facing great hostility.

 

'IMO, the sooner we can unshackle ourselves from this old ideas, the sooner we will overcome the inconsistencies in our world'

Unless you believe in creationism, atheism came before religion, so atheism is the old idea ;-)

 

Considering I see religion as a human construct, my point still stands.

[localzuk]

Yep, only one way to settle this......FIGHT!!!!

 

Nah, the correct outcome would be drunken singing and saying 'i love you' to everyone. Fighting is not my thing.

[teejay]

Considering I see religion as a human construct, my point still stands.

 

No, it's blaming religion for the problems that's irrelevant, your argument was that if we were all atheist then the world would be a better place. What I'm saying is that the problems are caused by a lack of respect for fellow human beings, this happens with religious people or atheists.

[teejay]

Nah, the correct outcome would be drunken singing and saying 'i love you' to everyone. Fighting is not my thing.

 

True

[localzuk]

No, it's blaming religion for the problems that's irrelevant, your argument was that if we were all atheist then the world would be a better place. What I'm saying is that the problems are caused by a lack of respect for fellow human beings, this happens with religious people or atheists.

 

True, but without such a handy excuse as hundreds of years of religious dogma, it'd make the intolerant work harder at least.

[MkII]

Cheers guys

[teejay]

True, but without such a handy excuse as hundreds of years of religious dogma, it'd make the intolerant work harder at least.

 

Depends on your definition of dogma, if you mean it as the fundamental core of faith, for example the Nicene Creed, then I disagree. If you mean it as the drivel spouted by extreme religious nutters, then I agree :-)