Wow… I was hunting for something about male yandere and found this instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBtcXujRbAA
Not a yandere… but amusing. 
On another note: Prince Charles approves of more women in the military. 
Atheists of the World Unite!!! We are at war.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/d … index.html
For Science!!!
Dawkins is an idiot.
I had to read/discuss a lot of his work in my philosophy program. Such limited imagination and constrained perception always astounded me. But then, such athiesm (not all athiesm, let’s make that clear) is the direct counter-point to the fundamentalist religions out there. Wonder when they’re going to start burning heretics at the stake… (hopefully a joke, crosses his fingers)… I would be the first to go seeing as I betrayed the cause by both doubting science and not giving it much due as a significant force in life.
His little blurb about conscious as an emergent property only highlights the issue… the hard problem of consciousness directly challenges the physicalist conception of a causally closed physical universe… what is funny is the religious stance taken in assuming science is the answer (sounds familiar to the whole “god of the gap” insult flung at spiritual people).
Few notes: “turning the tide” - so that is why most people consider themselves to be spiritual in some sense? Japan, an intensely secularised nation is still deeply spiritual (at least the last time I checked). But it does highlight the ignorance of many athiests: spiritual does not equal religious. One can denounce all religion and remain a spiritual person.
Evolution and ID: he keeps saying intelligent design is stupid, but does he ever actually give a sufficient reason for this belief? I have read enough of his work that I doubt it, but maybe I missed something. Evolution does not eliminate a designer from the equation, in fact many people (including a great deal of scientists) argue that evolution is the greatest indication of an intelligent design.
Lastly: maybe the reason people don’t accept much of these supposed “true” concepts is that the science has not been all that conclusive? Look at the whole climate change debacle… it was supposed to be settled science and now look at the arguments now exploding across the globe.
Just to show a bit on ID: http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/m … cnnSTCText
It was actually linked in the Dawkin’s artice. Just highlights some of the issue with evolution/intelligent design that Dawkin’s claims are settled.
Intelligent design is stupid because it is a lie. It is literally nothing more than a pretext to teach the creationist variant on Bible literal interpretation. This has been proven in court to the point where numerous courts have said ID is a deliberately dishonest attempt to disguise religious belief as if it were scientific, and that therefore, it cannot be taught in government-funded public schools.
If you haven’t, you should read thru it. And the nice thing about court opinions is all the other evidence mentioned is referenced in the footnotes. If you want to look up other court cases cited in the opinion, Google does amazing things, especially for Supreme Court opinions. This particular opinion begins with a summary, then discusses applicable precedent; the actual facts of the matter (which - as this is a binding ruling - is the court’s officially recognized statement of what it believes the facts demonstrate; and not one side’s argument) start around page 18.
Among other things, on page 24, the opinion quotes an expert who says that ID is not a scientific theory at all, but directly parallels a religious argument for the existence of God dating to the 13th century. Specifically note the part where the ID guys conceded this was true under oath.
I never claimed it as a scientific theory. I am quite comfortable leaving ID as a metaphysical theory that transcends the physical world. Especially since nothing in evolution proves that there is not a designer behind the process…
Anyway, calling it a lie is showing a close-minded ignorance since there has been no proof what-so-ever against an intelligent design. To claim this shows the dogmantic religion that much of athiesm has become.
I am tired of such attitudes prevailing in the scientific community. It is only proving that science is no better than fundamental religion. If you are not willing to have an open mind on a subject far from “decided”, don’t bother posting such material. It only invites such ingnorance to be challenged.
No, calling ID a lie is simply stating a fact. ID exists for the sole purpose of teaching creationism in the public schools, which is unconstitutional. To avoid this, the proponents of ID claim it is a competing scientific theory to evolution, which it is not. This is its sole reason for existing, and it is a deliberate falsehood. Therefore, it is a lie. That some parts of it may be metaphysically arguable is irrelevant: it was created for the express purpose of deception, and was in fact so used, therefore it is a lie by definition.
It’s a lie when ad companies say their product is the best in the world. It’s a lie when Christmas cards say “you’re the best son who ever lived”. And it was a lie when Take Two claimed that hackers inserted Hot Coffee into GTA 3, even though every word that came out of their mouths were technically true: a bullshit story is a lie whether or not it’s factually accurate.
BS and you know it. Intelligent Design, while used by some creationist organisations, is simply an over-arching term for the belief that the universe was designed.
Personally, I agree with science that the 6 thousand year Earth as in fundamental creationsim is highly questionable. Granted, it is concievable that an omnipotent being could create a universe such that all the physical evidence creates the illusion of history, yet the universe is actually only 5 minutes old or some such. So even then you cannot say science has disproven anything. It has shown the more “possible” outcome or “fact”, but it has not discounted that metaphysical proposition.
ID, among many people, is simply an idea that the such processes as evolution (and physical laws) were mere instruments and tools in designing this universe. If you would read other stuff instead of the dogmatic trite such as Dawkins, one would actually see this vast difference in the picture militant athiest paint of intelligent design and the more commonly held belief. SImply think of this world in terms of a video game: there is a designed program that creates laws, odds, and outcomes based on set principles created by a specific design in order to facilitate a specific experience… the phsycial world and the laws of physics are simply the equivalent to the program created to form this particular “game”. This idea is wholly compatible with evolution. Tying to say that evolution has disproven such a design is absolutely ludicrous and only demonstrates the lack of willingess of the scientific community to actually engage in the search for “truth”.
So, please, don’t start this same tired line that ID is a lie simply because some wack-jobs with a bias have abused the idea. But there is that bias in the scientific community…shouldn’t be surprised since science is run by humans and humans have agendas. To think we actually believed that science sought the “truth”… silly us.
ID is not a science because it lacks mathematical proof and empirical evidence. It’s a philosophical proposal ¬ñ not a new device for scientific method. The problem is when supporters of ID try to claim it’s a science, and should be taught to children as such, when in fact it is not. Furthermore ID still demands the same thing religion does: belief in a higher being.
Such a notion is a religious one, as it brings in some “divine magic” that completely alters the nature of reality itself, to argue that the empirical evidence is wrong because some higher being wanted it to be so. Logical discourse then dictates that this position be unequivocally proven - which of course religion cannot do empirically.
Originally ID rejected all tenants of evolution. It changed itself, because many aspects of evolutionary theory became scientific fact. Best examples can be found in bacterial and viral research, which resulted in incurable illnesses becoming curable.
ID is religion’s latest change to survive, because creation myths have been dealt a SERIOUS blow by discoveries in the last two centuries. While evolution isn’t complete and has a lot of holes, its a lot more plausible than some bearded white guy sitting on a golden throne with thousands of celestial creatures chanting “Holy, Holy, Holy” suddenly got bored and created talking monkeys in his image.
That’s a hypocritical position. I say that because the religious can NEVER accept there’s no higher being. Therefore they will do everything in their power to prove there is a higher being no matter what evidence is provided. I will openly admit that I’m atheist. I don’t agree with Dawkins on a lot of philosophical things, but I don’t believe in a god or gods. The reason being is because I’ve seen no empirical proof to support otherwise.
ID is a philosophy. In its modern rendition it states that the scientific model and empirical proof are true ¬ñ that mathematics is the foundation of the Universe ¬ñ but only because some higher power made it that way. But there’s no way to prove that. The logical challenge is that for ID to be a science, it must PROVE there’s a higher power. It cannot. All this arguing about unnatural order in natural chaos is a red herring ¬ñ there’s actually mathematical proofs that prove order can be predicted out of chaos. We call it Quantum Science, you might of heard of it.
ID is based on the assertion that things in the Universe exist in motion as they do, because a god does it. There still isn’t any proof that said being exists ¬ñ only more philosophical ideology that an ordered universe can’t exist possibly exist, unless there is a god to make it ordered. Thus enter that whole, you must believe thing.
Exit science. Enter religion.
Well because ID was originally fathered by a wack-job with a bias - Phillip Johnson - its been tainted from the start.
And there’s bias in the religious community. You challenge science to accept a god. It can, and it always could, but only when this god can be proofed and quantified… which religion dictates is generally impossible. I’ve read many a paper on ID, but when it comes to the part of proving a god ¬ñ not the philosophy of order in chaos (which again, has several scientific fields without divine intervention) ¬ñ it’s suddenly silent.
How about challenging religion to accept there is no god? Therein lies the hypocrisy, for no religion can make the same demand upon itself, that it asserts upon science, and still remain what it is. If science did accept ID, major change happens, but science is still science so long as empirical truth and the scientific method are unchanged. If religion accepted there is no god, it dies, because religion is founded on the belief of a god (or whatever spiritual creature sustains reality).
Damn it. Was supposed to be an edit… screw it… I’ll use this space with another line of thought.
Since we’re on this notion about ID, I thought I’d also point out that ID doesn’t mean there’s a god as religious people want us to believe. It purely means someone engineered everything.
One day humanity expects to quantify and master EVERYTHING about our Universe: understand all our reality has to offer and can do anything our reality allows us to do. Ultimately we achieve everything that science and mathematics says we can achieve. We’d be able to traverse from one side of the cosmos to another at insane speeds. We’d be able to manipulate the cosmic events like the birth and death of stars. We’d have insane life spans ¬ñ perhaps so long it’s practically immortality. Our technology would be, as Arthur Clarke imagined, indistinguishable from magic. Ultimately when humanity has mastered Science in its entirely, it’s presumed we’d be able to create our own mini universes. See the LHC for our ultra primitive moves towards that notion.
So ID also supports the idea that super powerful aliens created the universe. They achieved total mastery over Science billions on billions of years ago, and created their own artificial Universe as a science experiment. That would be our Universe.
It also supports the idea that super advanced humans from the future, having controlled the complications of temporal paradox, went back in time to create our Universe to ensure our existence and thus their own. That would be our Universe.
ID also supports the theory that mutant robot ghost fish from another dimension, created our Universe, because that’s what mutant robot ghost fish from other dimensions like to do.
Basically what I’m getting at: why some divine entity? It could be an alien intelligence or even ourselves from the distant future. ID does not prove God or an afterlife. In fact ID could prove there ISN’T a God to begin with, if that ID’er isn’t a god… unless you consider super advanced technology as a quality that makes you a god. In that case I’m a god, because to a caveman I’d be one.
Here’s a scenario to mull over. I put it in spoiler brackets so I could denote it’s philosophical and conjectural - not raw hard science. 
[spoiler]Let’s imagine that ultra advanced humans in the distant future create ammonium based life form and a world that can support them. I pick ammonium because science points that such an organism can exist, but the exact specifics for it to be naturally sustainable are infinitesimally small. It simply requires too many exact variables with little room for error. Therefore it wouldn’t be surprising if such life forms do not actually exist.
Now after crafting an exact ecosystem for ammonium based life to exist on, we leave the simple cell organisms on this proto-world and move on. Maybe we wanna seriously challenge ourselves and make uranium based life forms or something equally insane. Millions upon millions of years pass on, and the life evolves into a sentient species.
Now when these ammonium creatures lookout into the Universe, they’ll discover things quite disturbing: Planets with stable ammonium environments are so rare, they’re almost non-existent. Furthermore carbon based life is the norm and not ammonium (unless of course, humans were really busy with creating strange life everywhere). There’s oddities with the primordial nature of their world ¬ñ that certain things about it, like their world being perfect for ammonium based life, are just too perfect. Obviously these creatures will argue over evolution and creation at some point. Humanity had “seeded” their world so long ago, it’s impossible for proof of our interference to be around, unless we intentionally leave some sort of marker or evidence somewhere (it seems Monoliths are popular :P).
That is essentially the kind of stuff Intelligent Design proposes. I just took out the religious mumbo jumbo and made humans the higher power.[/spoiler]
I am not disputing that it isn’t science… I believe I actually stated that already.
However, I will gladly state that science is nothing more than a tool and that philosophical propositions are far more significant since science cannot answer many questions. Science will never be able to give us the true origin because the next question will always be “and before that”… science cannot show consciousness as a purely physical “emergent” property… science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical existence.
You may wish to challenge the idea of metaphysics, but you cannot declaim it as a lie or as proven to be false. If you do so, at least have enough integrity and call such an attitude what it is… another type of faith.
Science long overstepped its bounds when it sought to claim “ultimate knowledge”… that was never the point of science, at least by science alone. It was merely a tool that is supposed to be used to observe and predict this world so we can accomplish things. There are too many things beyond the scope of science that easily shatter the pitiful illusion of scientific supremacy.
Philosophy is something that comforts humans, but philosophy in of itself is not a function of necessity or survival in existence. A song or painting could never change the course of an asteroid that will impact the Earth. That would require technology (to get to the asteroid and manipulate it) and mathematics (to alter it properly). Nor do songs or paintings, grow crops or cure a deadly plauge.
People ask a lot of strange questions that have absolutely no bearing on reality or science. What if pigs could fly? What if Narg was married to twins? What if Mc Cain won the presidency instead of Obama?
That’s the realm of philosophy ¬ñ which is where religion lands. Science asks, “what if”, all the time - but it only seriously matters if that question can be answered through the scientific method and empirical evidence. What if humans had green skin, is not something for logical reasoning. The scientific answer is we do not, and reasons why that is. A fanciful wonderland story about humans with green skin is pure fiction ¬ñ Science wants hard fact.
Nope. What I can say is that it’s hasn’t been proven and thus nonexistent until done so. That’s not religious dogma ¬ñ that’s logical discourse.
If someone claims they have a pink dragon in their closet, the automatic answer is not yes or maybe. The automatic answer is no. You must PROVE you have a pink dragon in your closet. The same goes for claiming the discovery of new elemental particles. The automatic answer is not yes or maybe. The automatic answer is no. You must PROVE you’ve discovered new elemental particles. Why should God get a free meal ticket?
You can propose a theory that God exists. But it is only that - a theory. Just like all theories however, it must be proven to be a Science – and more importantly proven to be true. I can have a theory that giant rabbits are the source of energy at the center of the galaxy. That does not make it Science. The more implausible the idea, the more evidence is required to prove it: furthermore that method of proof must be attainable by anyone. Science does not discriminate or play favorites – it gives the same results to everyone.
That’s a loaded statement. What is your definition of faith?
Belief without evidence? Trust in an outcome? Being persuaded of the truth?
In your interpretation of faith, what is the difference between truth and belief?
Answer me with a solid reply on this, I promise I will give you a solid response.
How can Science overstep something that was the goal of Science all along? Science seeks total understanding of the empirical and logical. That has always been its intention. Therefore Science is the means to achieve ultimate knowledge of the empirical and logic.
What the religious claim is not empirical or logical by their own admission. Therefore religion will never be a Science. Demanding that Science reject empirical data and logic, turns it into something other than Science.
That is why religion (and intelligent design) is not a Science. It does not provide worthy empirical data and fails multiple logical tests.
Pitiful as it may be, Science as delivered on more of its promises than any Religion… and with less bloodshed, lies, treachery, duplicity, and prejudice.
Seriously what if Narg really was married to twins? Either both females, one of each or hermaphrodites? (Sorry I just had to.)
Both Catgirls and Such are different from furries are they not. (I believe they are different.)
Materialism/physicalism: the belief that only the physical exists. Seeing as that is your stance, with no proof and no hope of proof… yeah, that is a faith in itself.
Science is the task of understanding the empirical world: good for science, my point still stands seeing as how so many questions escape the purview of the physical world. And these questions will always escape science. Science can never hope to leave the land of beliefs and theories when it comes to the origin of existence, consciousness, and many skeptic principles. Hell, if this life was nothing more than a video game science could never tell us otherwise… it only sees the rules of this particular “game”.
Science helps us understand a certain subsect of our existence. It cannot touch every aspect of our existence and to claim otherwise is nothing more than another type of religious belief. Scientism is as much a religion as Christianity. It commits the same fallacies of religion… and it does have it’s violent crusades as well, but instead of simply killing its opponents it seeks to destroy thier lives by other methods. Just look at the BS happnening with “man made global warming”: slander, dismissal, ridicule, and career assassinations. Yes, scientism has been so much more civil. It’s okay to basically destroy someone’s life as long as they still breath…
You didn’t answer my question: only make another accusation. Such a pity. You might have liked the answer, depending on what you weighed the definition of faith upon, as it could have ironically strengthened your position from a certain juxtaposition of how Science works, but since you refuse to be forthcoming, I rescind the gesture and obligation of providing my personal answer to the original question you raise. All I wanted was an honest reply of what your perception of the statement was.
In any event your accusation is false. I’ll point out temporal mechanics as one example. This is a fundamental cornerstone of Science that has no physical or material to it. There’s no such thing as time particles. It is purely a conjectural perception, much like faith in a god. However temporal mechanics can obviously be quantified ¬ñ indeed its entire nature is quantity. Your argument fails because Science can and does accept that which has no substance. What Science does not accept, is that which cannot be proven. That’s it. Pure and simple. No smoke and mirrors like Religion.
My point still stands that religion could be nothing more than make believe nonsense: that belief in a god is no more realistic than belief in invisible unicorns. Under your assertion, what right does someone have to claim that the word of someone like Jesus Christ and Mohammed is any more valid than the word of John Smith and Ron Hubbard – or the likes of Charles Manson and David Koresh?
And this is where you’re wrong. Science does not claim it can touch every aspect of our existence. Religious makes that claim ¬ñ that is what Religion is. The absolute promise that it can provide an answer to the unanswerable, no matter how absurd. That is why Science is not a Religion.
The GOAL of Science is to totally understand the observable Universe. No more. No less. The end result of that, will be unimagined mastery over mechanics of the Universe, as our pathetically limited knowledge has already achieved many a wondrous thing. You’re right: Science may never explain what came before the Universe. Science accepts the notion of limitation. Religion on the other hand, does not. It KNOWS everything and/or will provide the answer to everything. Real or Fake. Truth or False. Science or Belief. Science DOES have boundaries to what it can/will/could achieve; Religion claims it will never have such limitations.
Don’t use a word if you don’t know how to use it: know what a fallacy is. Science cannot be a fallacy, because Science uses logic to disprove every fallacy before it becomes a Truth. You cannot have a fallacy, if there is nothing left but logical truth. That is the aim of every scientific theory: to be a Truth. Few of them ever achieve that honor, because of the scrutiny placed upon them. 1+1=2 is a Truth, because no emperical evidence or logical reasoning can disprove it. You have to make up fantasy stuff that doesn’t exist – like invisible unicorns.
Religion is fallacious because it repetitiously fails logical argument. Science is not fallacious because it rejects anything that repetitiously fails logical argument.
You’re not making any sense here. Global Warming is not Science’s fault, anymore than food shortages are mathematics’ fault or nuclear war can be pinned on chemistry and physics. Your examples are because people use the fruits of Science without restraint, destructively, or for selfish reasons. Science itself is purely knowledge ¬ñ it is neither good nor evil. It does not even bother to explain what good and evil are, because that’s philosophical. Science is simply information: what is true and what is false. It’s no more good or evil that a dictionary or calculator.
Religion? It KNOWS what is good and evil, will tell you what is good and evil, then instruct you how to destroy evil and spread good. Why? Because it KNOWS everything. Furthermore Religion doesn’t have to prove a single thing it says it KNOWS: not a single one. You only have to BELIEVE and it is RIGHT. There again is another difference between Religion and Science: the lack of need for proof.
Religion is hypocritical of the accusation it makes. You can go to any world leading scientist and ask him or her, “If I gave you unquestionable empirical proof that God exists, would you believe in God?” The answer is yes. Oh they might joke at you when you first hand over the empirical evidence, but they’d have no choice but to accept it, because the evidence states a Truth. People laughed at quantum mechanics - Einstein refused to accept it to his death - but all the proof was there and reality shows it does work. Now you’re considered a moron if you don’t believe in it (because one of the key components of computer technology). Science CAN believe in a God.
Not the same for the religious. I can go to the Pope and ask him (and it can only be a him), “If I gave you unquestionable metaphysical argument that God does not exist, would you stop believing in God?” The only answer he will ever give is no. WARS have been started for daring to suggest such a thing, and people have been thrown out the Church for even hinting it. Why? Because Religion CANNOT exist without a God. It’s the unforgivable sin (and only unforgivable sin).
Yet again another difference: the absolute need for a higher power.
Speaking of Einstein, pretty much the whole reason that he couldn’t accept quantum mechanics was the uncertainty built in to it. Einstein couldn’t believe that the god he believed in would create a universe this way. In a letter, he plainly stated, “I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice.” It is quite a shame that such a brilliant man as Einstein had his science limited by his religious beliefs. Just think of how many more brilliant discoveries he might have come up with if he hadn’t been hampered in such a way!
On a totally different note, an article I found about porn, Japan, and 3rd generation wireless ISP.
tl;dr - p0rn 0wnz 1nternetz
Narg: … sorry, but I know full well what fallacy means. You assume science is free of the same human corruption that religion has endured from day one. It isn’t. Like any other human endeavour, it falls to the same pitfalls, limitations, and corruptions that religion and politics have. To say otherwise only proves the arrogance of scientism.
As to your faith question: belief in something primarily. This can range from believing against the overwhelming evidence for something in the absence of any evidence either way.
Also you are twisting my argument. I am not trumpeting the virtues of religion. You are making the exact same mistake that Dawkins does in equating faith/spirituality/mysiticism with religion only. Although faith is inherently necessary in religion, that does not hold in the opposite direction. I have the same issues with religion that I have with science… and also many of the same issues you have with religion.
As I have stated before: I am perfectly comfortable in leaving science its exploration of the purely physical aspects of this existence and leaving the mysticism and faith for dealing with the spiritual nature of existence.
I see how you still fail to see the religous dogma behind the materialist theory. And here you are, trying so hard to denounce such religious attitudes, all while fallig prey to the same things you decried. I could use a rather famous religious allegory, but that would just be cruel .
Then if you do, then you know that actual Science is devoid of it. To be devoid of fallacy is the point of Science. Calling Science fallacious is like calling Math numberless or a language expressionless.
I don’t assume science is free of corruption and mistakes. It very much does have such problems. However science has foundations which [u]ARE[/u] free of corruption and mistakes. They are the Laws of Science, of which to date only 18 unequivocally exist (though thousands have been proposed). Laws become obsolete or replaced by a better Law as greater knowledge is achieved, but the Laws themselves are infallible until proven otherwise. It’s not faith or belief ¬ñ it’s the absolute truth. No amount of hoping or praying will change the facts of a Law. The Gravitational Constant is the Gravitational Constant, because it is the Gravitational Constant. Now numbers can be wrong, because people miscalculated or wrongly observed an event ¬ñ however the underlying concept and cornerstone of a Law is absolute. [u]EVERYTHING[/u] our technology has achieved, is in some shape or fashion, verifying the proof of a Scientific Law. Denying them is denying reality, common sense, and the obvious.
Naturally false Laws can be espoused for the wrong reasons (lies, greed, mistakes, etc) - however a true Law is never wrong because it is unquestionable fact. The ultimate goal of Science is to unlock and record every true Law that exists, therefore knowing every empirical thing about the Universe.
Belief in something DOES NOT make it true, no matter how much a person believes in it. Bob can believe his wife is faithful. He can believe it with every ounce of belief in his body, to the point of deluding himself no matter what evidence is laid before him. That doesn’t change the reality that his wife is banging the cable guy every Friday afternoon, when he’s out of state for a company meeting. Therefore his wife IS cheating on him, only he’s made it his faith that she isn’t. Therefore the truth of reality and what he believes are at odds. One is real, the other a complete fantasy.
This is why science rejects belief without evidence. Fantasy cannot exist within the context of science, or it will no longer be science.
Do you accept that things can be utter make believe? Do you think David Koresh was a messiah? Why or why not? How did you come to that decision? There were people who most certainly believed he was a messiah. Those believers would say we didn’t have proof that David Koresh wasn’t the messiah. So does that make him a messiah? Should science automatically accept him as a messiah, because it can’t disprove it? Of course not. He was insane and the people who followed him were deluded. David Koresh wasn’t a messiah, because there was no proof he was. Ironically to other spiritual believers, he had to prove he was to them as well. Amazing how people will cherry pick logical discourse when they need it to support their own beliefs, but suddenly abandon it when it denies them.
Under what you’ve been saying, it would be hypocritical for you, I, or anyone else to dare claim David Koresh wasn’t a messiah, because people BELIEVED he was one, and logical thinking would be totally irrelevant in arguing that. How is that not completely bonkers?
Very well. I will layoff specific religions, unless the line of discussion becomes about specific religions.
And what is the spiritual nature? Who is the guiding authority? What dictates which matters of spiritual nature are wrong and right?
Science is universal. It works everywhere and for everyone without distinction or prejudice. Though the results may be interpreted differently, they are always the same exact results when analyzed without bias or mistakes, using the exact same steps and measurements. Empirical data and logic define the right and wrong. The ultimate authority is reality, for something that cannot happen, will not happen.
So where does spirituality draw it’s foundation of worthwhile and worthless. A child starts to worship his bed sheets as the fabric of the afterlife itself. Why is he wrong? How is he wrong? Who defines the people with information about true spirituality? What limits are there to spirituality? Why is brutal human sacrifice wrong, if the gods demand it? Who sets those limits? Why do such limits exist?
What is considered absolute ludicrous fantasy in spirituality? Invisible unicorns? Ghosts? Human souls? The God of Pink Shoes Worn on Thursdays? (…blessed be thy name…) Under what guidelines are those made upon? Under what jurisdiction do they have to dictate these claims? Who tells me what is spiritually real and what is spiritually fake? How do they know?
Science is neither good or evil. The same information that gives you radioactive therapy to cure cancers, is the same information that gives you terrifying atomic weapons. It’s what people do with the information, that dictates good and evil.
Is spirituality devoid of good and evil? If so, how and why? If I summon evil spirtuality to save good people, does that make it an evil act? Does it make it a good act? If I refuse to follow good gods, why do I get punished if I’ve never done anything wrong? How is that fair?
Science is not a religion. It’s funny how you keep claiming that, because religion is belief (and that is the key word) in a god, spiritual power, or knowing the ultimate truth to existence. That is what makes something a religion (science SEEKS ultimate knowledge of the empirical, not all aspects of existence). Nor does science have dogma, it has Laws. However Laws and dogma are NOT the same, because dogma is a belief or teaching without need of evidence or proof. The very word dogma originates from the word, to imagine. Science NEEDS proof, therefore Science CANNOT have dogma. Science has Laws. Please get that right. It’s incorrect usage of the word.
You’re absolutely nuts if you deny the Laws of Thermodynamics exists. Anyone and everyone can test it anywhere and anytime. They will get the same results in the same conditions. The Laws of Thermodynamics work. The Laws of Thermodynamics are proven. The Laws of Thermodynamics are absolute. The only way you could change the results, is by doing it wrong or lying about the results. That’s not dogma - that’s reality. Prove it wrong if you can. You can’t. No natural force in the Universe can. That’s why it’s a Law. Just how 1+1=2
The closest you could get with calling something scientific as a dogma, is a theory some scientist makes and keeps claim is real without proof. Saying there’s intelligent life in the Universe off our planet would be a good example. There’s no proof of that. Anyone who keeps preaching that civilizations exist off Earth, is having a faith that aliens are out there. But that is not Science ¬ñ that’s the belief a scientist has. Science currently dictates there is no intelligent life off planet Earth, until proven otherwise, as current data even suggests it’s terrifyingly quiet and quite deadly for complex life to exist. The same accusation science makes against the existence of gods. Once the proof is found, Science accepts it, like it does everything else.
NASA and SETI spending millions in search of life for aliens is okay (within reason): that’s seeking evidence. Science likes proof. NASA and SETI telling millions that aliens are out there - without proof - is not okay and a perversion of everything science stands for. People searching for proof of spiritual meaning? Science is all for that. Search away and let it know. People claiming they’ve found spiritual meaning without measures to prove it? Goes in the same bin as invisible unicorn discoveries without proof to prove it.
It’s not materialism - it’s common sense. Otherwise I’m chasing after EVERYTHING that EVERYONE proposes is real, and saying it’s real because some thinks it is. Don’t you agree that would be insanity? But without a means to distinct real spirituality from fake spirituality, because neither have proof, who can tell the difference? Is it voting contest? If so does that mean spirituality comes true if more people believe in it, than those who do?
At least science can makes sense of itself, and it doesn’t matter what people think, because belief does not automatically equate into truth. Science dictates what things are, not how they should be.
Science has had plently of fallacies in its history. Like any search for knowledge, it should be open to that simple fact that it has certain theories (beliefs, yes science has its beliefs) that have been shown to be false. To say science has been free of fallacies shows a distinct lack of historical research.
Also, we assume the these “concrete” physical laws are universal and absolute. However, not only do we have little experience in the universe to make such an arrogant claim on its undeniable laws, but to even suggest that such escaping a perceptual stand-point to arrive at “The Truth” is almost laughable… also such claims would still be nothing more than colliding head on with the problem of induction. The laws may be that way now, but they may not remain so. Also, on another note, we cannot be sure they have always operated thus since every observation is percieved through the narrowed lens of our present state. So again, science is making a leap of faith in regards to supposed facts. We cannot know the Truth of the universe because every aspect of the universe is filtered through our perception. We cannot know if something lies outside that perception, only assume. So the Truth is ever allusive.
On faith: Faith can be proven wrong just as science has been wrong through-out history. It is the process of being willing to analyse the mistake, learn, and let the ideas than grow from there. It is just as bad to hold onto “bad” faith as it is to hold onto “bad” science.
David Koresh Example: just because there is no proof does not mean something is false. It just means that there is no proof.
On proof: A divisve point between us, I do not believe proof is exclusive to the physical world. The simple exercise of having a belief is proof in itself. It cannot be seen, felt, tasted, or heard… or pointed at in any physical way, yet it is a known fact that “I believe” (I think therefore I am). But this is essentially the the hard problem of consciousness at its core: the act of qualitative experiencing, of being does not supercede on the physical.
On Spiritual Authority: I do not believe in an objective existence that is true in every aspect across every individual. While certain aspects at least seem similar, based on interaction, there others that seem to wholly rely on individual experience. Maybe no religions are true, maybe all of them are. I only know what is true for me… and that is probably the rub with science: there are things that are simply true. No proof, no evidence… just the undeniable knowledge in the individual. And maybe that is the truest of faith… to know something without reserve, despite the inability to ever prove it to others.
I greatly appreciate your honesty and candor on this subject. Thank you. Been awhile since I’ve had a good talk on spirituality VS science like this.
The search for science has made mistakes: science itself has not made a mistake. That is why science is not fallacious. 0+0 has always equaled 0. We know this is to be so, even from the dawn of the Universe. You may think it wasn’t 0+0=0 at the dawn of the Universe, but it was. There’s endless empirical evidence and data to prove it.
There was a time when civilizations didn’t have a concept of zero. They had a multitude of complex mathematics that worked without zero and so could refuse that zero was real. The fallacies and mistake was not mathematics ¬ñ the mistake was their inability to accept or conceive the concept of zero. It was not the math that was wrong: it was the people who used it. Zero had always existed, irrespective of what they thought.
Your claim that science is wrong, is a complete misunderstanding of what science is. People are wrong about science, but science is not wrong. Science is the right information: the correct answer. Whatever is false or wrong is not science. It can be mistaken for science for a time, but ultimately it is not science, because science is purely the truth. We don’t make up science: we discover science. Things we discover have always existed. However things cannot exist without proof, because one must be able to distinguish what is fake. Proof is not intended to discredit something - it’s intended to know if it’s real.
You are correct, we assume these physical laws are universal and absolute, but only because the empirical dictates that. The evidence and proof all point that our Laws DO work across the cosmos. That does not mean however, there may be instances where the Laws do not apply. We’ve known this for decades: the event horizon of a black hole for example. However there are reasons for this which can be observed and inevitably explained. The Law is unchanged - something has distorted it.
Is it because they believe it is laughable - or do they have an empirical counter argument? We do not know everything about the Universe, but we know a surprising lot. Our science may not be able to compose a grand symphony of reality, but it can read the sheet music. We know certain Truths, but they ARE indeed Truths. It’s only 18 of them ¬ñ quite obviously a pathetic number ¬ñ but they have been justified an innumerable number of times. The fact that we can communicate in this fashion proves many of them so.
In many respects, we know more about science than our technology can achieve ¬ñ the two go hand in hand, but are not always equal. We know how to completely hide an object from radar, but we do not have the complete means of producing the materials and devices that achieve it. We have the mathematics for the perfect superconductor, we just don’t have the means to build it. Conversely we have math and knowledge that are perceived as absolutely useless, but because no one knows what to do with it.
And we know this, because science can predict itself. A great example is the proposed heat death of the Universe, when all thermodynamics – one of the Laws of the Universe – could cease to exist.
We may never be 100% sure, but we can be 99.9% sure: gravitational time dilation and the whole basis of time-space being the major reasons. We can see the entirety of the Universe from all points of time – we simply are grasping an understanding of how to do it correctly.
Perception is irrelevant to science. It’s very helpful to us because we survive on sensory input, but it is not needed in any capacity for science itself. A fun experiment an astrologer I knew once pulled, was asking his students what color the Sun was and proving it. You get all sorts of neat answers: yellow and orange being the most common (red from those trying to be funny). People perceive the color of the Sun differently (those who are color blind especially). Yet you see the Sun doesn’t have a color. That’s a sensory perception: not the truth. The Sun is actually ALL colors (white for the sake of clarity and simplicity), and the scope of explaining it would take pages of posts, but rest assured that is what it is. The proof is found in the equations on wavelengths and radiation, as well as unbiased observations from satellites and machines.
If we based our science entirely on perception, or made perception paramount in understanding it, we would be wrong about the color of our Sun ¬ñ and thus much of what we’ve gathered on radiation and wavelengths would have been marred by our wrong assessment. Fortunately that is not the case. When someone claimed the Sun was a yellow star, there was a need PROVE it was a yellow star. In the end, all that proof was irrespective of what we saw, and the truth came out. There was a time when scientists did think the Sun was yellow - but they were wrong. Science proved the Sun is not yellow. It only appears to be yellow.
Not so, as I have shown in the example above.
By its intrinsic nature, science cannot be wrong: science is how the universe works. It cannot be wrong, because the universe is not wrong. The mistake would be our interpretation of what we thought was science. Science is empirical truth. If something is empirically false, then it is not science: it was a fantasy made in trying to achieve reality. The process of reaching the truth can be wrong, as can the actions of people using science, but science of itself cannot be wrong.
So using that reasoning: because it’s impossible to truly disclaim that Koresh wasn’t the messiah, he could have been the messiah. That is a very dangerous line of thinking to me. You’re right: just because I don’t have proof you’re human, doesn’t mean you’re human. So I would use logical reasoning to determine that you’re human (from observation and natural common sense). However that could espouse the reversal of, “just because there’s proof of something doesn’t make it true”. So just because I have proof you’re human, doesn’t mean you’re human.
It’s circular thinking that explains absolutely nothing. So how do you define what is real and what is not?
Just because I don’t have proof you didn’t commit a crime, doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime. Just because you have proof you’re innocent, doesn’t mean you’re innocent. Therefore you are guilty.
It’s not that I can’t believe in stuff like gods or ghosts, it’s that such things have no evidence to exist and it’s illogical to suddenly claim with total certainty that they do. I can believe in something, but that doesn’t make it real. I can have faith in a situation, but that doesn’t make it come true. I don’t know if intelligent alien life exists out there, but I suppose it could exist. That doesn’t mean alien life is out there. We may very well be on the only planet with complex life. For me to argue with full certainty that aliens are out there is not science ¬ñ it would be a faith in extraterrestrial life UNLESS that belief is validated with evidence.
If I accept that something like ghosts exist without proof or evidence, how do I reject something fanciful such as dragons and unicorns? How can I seriously challenge someone else for a belief they have, if my own belief has just as little proof as theirs? Science can’t disprove that the molecules in my body won’t suddenly unbind themselves and reform into a coffee table. I’m sure we can both agree that will not happen. But why is that? There’s no proof it won’t happen. Maybe someone actually believes it can happen. How do you dictate real and fake in spirituality, if there’s no need for proof or evidence?
Proof is needed to sustain believability. You and I don’t believe I’m God, even though there’s no proof I’m not God. I cannot believe the entire world is based purely off perception, and nothing can deny that perception. A man tumbling naked out of a plane will not fly under his own power not matter how much you, he or I wish it to be so. That’s simply the reality of things.
Hmmm… I really don’t know how to answer that. It’s rather ¬ñ and I mean no disrespect to you - confounding to me. Everyone can’t be right, if their views conflict. If there is one true god, there can’t be an infinite number of gods. If there is no afterlife, there can’t be an afterlife.
It’s like one massive cancellation effect. Being the interpretation of the human experience, spirituality has to have a right and wrong ¬ñ or a true and false. There can’t be a Pink God of Purple Shoes on Thursday, simply because some thinks there is. If something does not exist, it simply does not exist. If something exists, it must exist.
You said yourself that spirituality has been wrong: how do you prove that without proof? How can anything be wrong, so long as someone thinks it right? Since the opinions of others don’t matter, does that mean it’s wrong if you want it to be wrong and right if you want it to be right?
That’s what I call a road to insanity.
A society cannot function like that. It’s self destructive.