Not so.The various permutations of quantum weirdness are based on predictions that derive from observed phenomena. Moreover, they're testable in principle, and - increasingly - in practice. The important point is that they aren't plucked out of thin air, and are not self-supporting. They're a part of the best - most predictively reliable, most metaphysically parsimonious, most efficient - currently available synthesis of the way the world seems to work.
There's a world of difference between the two accounts.
(There's a world of difference between the two accounts.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 12:38,
archived)
If I may quote the sunday school teacher from The Simpsons;"Is a little blind-faith too much to ask for?"
I gave up arguing against blind faith years ago.
(I gave up arguing against blind faith years ago.
Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf,
Mon 24 May 2010, 12:44,
archived)
they're just different language being used to explain the unknown.one could equally credit oneself for predicting god's work.
The issue is that the two are two very different questions: science asks "How?", and religion asks "Why?"
(The issue is that the two are two very different questions: science asks "How?", and religion asks "Why?"
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:01,
archived)
There's two things going on here, though.One is that they simply are not different language to explain the unknown: religious claims make no predictions, are not independently testable, and introduce not just new entities, but whole new kinds of being to the story.
As for the how/ why distinction - well, that might be true. But, to that extent, religion and science are simply incommensurable; moreover, there's no reason to suppose that there's a "why" anyway - it's probably a non-question.
(As for the how/ why distinction - well, that might be true. But, to that extent, religion and science are simply incommensurable; moreover, there's no reason to suppose that there's a "why" anyway - it's probably a non-question.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:05,
archived)
So we've got down to it being a matter of proabability, and one of intellectual taste.Sounds like a belief system to me.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:11,
archived)
It's unclear what you mean by "belief system" here. Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:15,
archived)
You believe god doesn't exist (though it has not yet been disproved)Religiousists believe god does exist.
Fight.
I say that we can't say one way or another at the moment, because we don't know. This is not to say we can't know, but that we don't at the moment.
(Fight.
I say that we can't say one way or another at the moment, because we don't know. This is not to say we can't know, but that we don't at the moment.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:20,
archived)
So which of all the made up religions in the earth's history will be true when this scientific god is discovered?
Well, we need to do more experiements, first, so we can't really say. Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:27,
archived)
But what would possibly count as an experiment here?And, correlatively, what would count as a falsification of a believer's claim?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:31,
archived)
Precisely the intellectual cul-de-sac that anyone who claims to think "correctly" and to have "intellectual good taste" finds themself in. Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:33,
archived)
Huh?How does my questioning your claim mean that I'm in a cul-de-sac?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:46,
archived)
Because you don't know how to answer it. You're unable to confront it.Because you have made the claim to be right (ie science), you must then prove yourself to be.
I'm just claiming not to know, which I believe is all anyone can do over the matter of god, precisely because the concept itself is by definition unprovable.
(I'm just claiming not to know, which I believe is all anyone can do over the matter of god, precisely because the concept itself is by definition unprovable.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:49,
archived)
But that's just the pointI don't believe that god doesn't exist. I think that there's no evidence for his existence, and I don't think that there could be; but I have no positive claim on the matter either way.
I'm sympathetic to Jonathan Miller here: he refuses to call himself an atheist for the same reason that he refuses to call himself an a-unicornist - for him, there's just nothing worth saying in the label, because the god-hypothesis is so obviously without foundation that there's no real point wasting energy fighting it.
There seems to be a lot of wisdom in that attitude.
(I'm sympathetic to Jonathan Miller here: he refuses to call himself an atheist for the same reason that he refuses to call himself an a-unicornist - for him, there's just nothing worth saying in the label, because the god-hypothesis is so obviously without foundation that there's no real point wasting energy fighting it.
There seems to be a lot of wisdom in that attitude.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:27,
archived)
But ... but ... but in your profile musings on the subject of god, you claim that the atheists are right, and that agnostics need to grow up and are intellectually barren!Now I don't know where you stand on the matter!
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:31,
archived)
Ha!Well, you might have me on that...
Hmmmm...
I think that the atheists are right to the extent that they don't invoke - and are resistant to invoking - the supernatural. That seems like obviously the correct strategy.
And - oh, all right then: whether or not I would class myself as an atheist or reject even that label is something about which I'm not wholly decided. In most situations, the two descriptions amount to the same, though...
(Hmmmm...
I think that the atheists are right to the extent that they don't invoke - and are resistant to invoking - the supernatural. That seems like obviously the correct strategy.
And - oh, all right then: whether or not I would class myself as an atheist or reject even that label is something about which I'm not wholly decided. In most situations, the two descriptions amount to the same, though...
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:43,
archived)
Goedel's Theorem:nature can't be a complete and consistent system.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Mon 24 May 2010, 14:27,
archived)
Interesting how you used the idea of scientific theories to rationalise religion.But now state how different they are when being called up on it. What was the original point again?
(,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:10,
archived)
That the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.While I accept that the scientific method requires an atheistic approach, atheism is not an answer in itself.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:12,
archived)
That phrase is plain stupid. It reminds me of something the Sphinx would say in Mystery Men.It has no weight to it. I'd love someone to use that in court and for it to be taken seriously. Maybe we could lock up more innocent people that way.
(,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:19,
archived)
Good riposte. I stand down. Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:21,
archived)
Actually... it's a tenet often used in courtThank goodness.
The commonest way I can think it comes up is, for example, "The fact that we didn't find semen on her pants doesn't mean the rape never happened, it just means there's no semen on her pants".
You would then discuss other possible/likely explanations based on your experience and expertise. And unless you're a numpty, you would include "the rape never happened" as one of the possible explanations.
(The commonest way I can think it comes up is, for example, "The fact that we didn't find semen on her pants doesn't mean the rape never happened, it just means there's no semen on her pants".
You would then discuss other possible/likely explanations based on your experience and expertise. And unless you're a numpty, you would include "the rape never happened" as one of the possible explanations.
Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE,
Mon 24 May 2010, 16:41,
archived)
The scientific method neither requires an atheistic approach nor a religious approachIt requires the ability to make an observation of a system -- of whatever form, be it mathematical or of nature around us or of an experiment -- formulate an explanation and then, and this is the most important part, make predictions for the behaviour in other situations.
That's it. That's the whole lot. You can do that while believing in lares and penates, you can do that while believing in Allah and you can do that while believing we all live in the belly of Gharak the Great White Wale if you like, just so long as that's what you do and you don't cloud it with your personal beliefs.
If you view that as an "atheistic approach" then fair enough -- but religion doesn't actually enter into it. It's in the *interpretation* that it comes in, but already the interpretation of some theory is veering into philosophy. At its heart, the "scientific method" and "science" are literally just ways of building algorithms. We make an observation, we make a model, then we put in different initial data and predict what will come out, then we compare that prediction with reality. That's science. Everything else is philosophy.
Edit: Of course, this is all just my belief.
(That's it. That's the whole lot. You can do that while believing in lares and penates, you can do that while believing in Allah and you can do that while believing we all live in the belly of Gharak the Great White Wale if you like, just so long as that's what you do and you don't cloud it with your personal beliefs.
If you view that as an "atheistic approach" then fair enough -- but religion doesn't actually enter into it. It's in the *interpretation* that it comes in, but already the interpretation of some theory is veering into philosophy. At its heart, the "scientific method" and "science" are literally just ways of building algorithms. We make an observation, we make a model, then we put in different initial data and predict what will come out, then we compare that prediction with reality. That's science. Everything else is philosophy.
Edit: Of course, this is all just my belief.
boris the spider,
Mon 24 May 2010, 14:03,
archived)
Indeed.Hence my point about science and religion being two different questions.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 24 May 2010, 14:20,
archived)
I totally agreeBut everyone else was saying stuff so I wanted a part of it :) (Also it's an old hobby horse of mine.)
( boris the spider,
Mon 24 May 2010, 14:22,
archived)