|
|
|
CRe8
New Member
9 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2005 : 22:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I agree with you Siberia. It does not matter what a scientist's beliefs are as long as they let the facts guide their work.
Clearly if you try to mix mythology with scientific work you are going to have big problems. The scientists must simply keep his beliefs seperate from his work.
Agreed. I can accurately solve math problems all day long and dream of fucking Pam Anderson at the same time. The fantasy remains a fantasy and the homework gets done, as long as I know the difference. |
www.realityspoken.com |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 08:04:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Agreed. I can accurately solve math problems all day long and dream of fucking Pam Anderson at the same time. The fantasy remains a fantasy and the homework gets done, as long as I know the difference.
Masturbatorial fantasies about Pam don't have any connection to your math problems though.
What if your fantasy is that the earth is only 6000 years old? Think you can seperate yourself from that and be a good geologist?
Then we got to discussing if belief in god is rational at all (it isn't, since there is no evidence to support the proposition) and if you could be a good scientist while holding an irrational belief about the nature of the universe. Which I personally think may be possible, if what you believe is that there is a god who set up the universe and started it running, but has been totally hands off since then. In that context it should be possible to do good science, simply because the irrational belief doesn't impact on the outcome of observations. If you believe you are discovering how god made the universe work or if you believe that you are discovering how the natural world functions, the end result should be the same.
All in all its a rather interesting thread.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 18:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Astropin
No, "it just is", in not an adequate answer.
I never claimed it was "adequate."quote:
There is a scientific explanation for why blue is your favorite color. The fact that we cannot currently give you the detailed explanation is due simply to our own limitations (ignorance). There is also a scientific (and therefore reasonable) explanation why people "fall in love" with particular individuals and not others.
I'll explain scientism more in a minute.quote:
Even "religious experiences" have been linked to particular areas of the brain being stimulated.
Now this is a pernicious bit of illogic currently overrunning the "False Memory Syndrome" area: just because a particular phenomenon can be induced at will, doesn't mean that every instance of that phenomenon occured through the same method of induction. That we can induce religious experiences by tickling the brain doesn't mean that all such experiences are due to similar brain tickles. It's a hasty generalization to think so.quote:
Your favorite color being blue is completely rational and can be explained....period.
Until it is explained, this answer is based upon a wish, and nothing more.quote:
We have already covered this. Suspending disbelief for the sake of entertainment is not the same as suspending disbelief when referring to objective reality.
It is precisely the same for a hypothetical person who is to act scientifically 100% of the time.quote:
Can you give me an example of a non-scientific epistemology that does not conflict with reasonable assumptions?
An interesting question. Given that H. seems to be defining "reasonable" by way of a particular epistemology (and you might be doing the same), it appears to be unanswerable in the positive. However, "a non-scientific epistemology that does not conflict with reasonable assumptions" was not what I was talking about. I was saying that it is possible to reason using epistemologies which aren't science. You may not get the same answers as science does, but reasoning is always based upon some set of assumptions and some set of rules. Claiming that only science can be used to reason is sort of like saying "paintings can only be done with arcrylics."quote:
And I would disagree with you here. Why is it a bad thing? Why is it irrational? It's only a bad thing if you think that "reality" not meeting your expectations is a bad thing. If, and I do say if, Free Will is only an illusion, and the reality is that there is only cause and effect, then I do not consider that to be bad thing, it's simply our reality and nothing more.
Scientism is the idea that science is capable of, and will eventually, answer every question we can pose. Including questions which, right now, seem unanswerable by science, like "what caused the Big Bang" (unanswerable because nobody yet can conceive of a way to see "through" a universe-wide singularity). Our ability to know the universe has limits, and the basic philosophy of science acknowledges that fact. Scientism does not, instead claiming that science will someday even be able to prove its own assumptions, and that's why it is irrational.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Being a rather strict empiricist, I consider it unreasonable to assign a value of "true" to propositions for which no evidence exists.
Yes, it can be unreasonable, but is it so unreasonable as to conflict with reason itself? Or is that what you mean by "unreasonable?"
Because, again, I see at least three classes of things: those that are reasonable, those that are unreasonable, and those that are both unreasonable and conflict with what's reasonable. "The Earth goes around the Sun" is reasonable. "The Earth goes around the Sun, carried on the back of a giant invisible turtle" is unreasonable. "The Earth goes around the Sun, carried on the back of a giant visible turtle" is both unreasonable and conflicts with the available evidence.quote:
quote:
"God exists," given that 'god' is defined as an entity with powers it can use to escape detection, is not subject to verification at all.
Of course it isn't. Which is why it is unreasonable to assign a value of "true" to the proposition as stated.
So, given the same constraints, "God doesn't exist" is equally as unreasonable, yes?quote:
Speaking for myself only; Yes, you can hypothetically posit that such a being exist. You can also posit, hypothetically, that I am such a being and am just here to mess with your head. You can, for the sake of argument, hypothetically posit anything you can imagine. But so what? Reality doesn't give a shit what you can imagine.
When we're discussing whether or not religion conflicts with reality, the above will be relevant.quote:
And yes, there is definitely a range for "true". Based on how good our evidence is.
So you're now equating "reasonable" with "true"?quote:
Yes, of course. Everything (and I mean everything) rests upon two basic assumptions. External objective reality exists and we can detect it.
Every statement about the universe ever made, from atheist scientists to hardcore religious fundies, assumes at a minimum those two things.
Baloney. "The only thing which exists in this universe is |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 21:10:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, given the same constraints, "God doesn't exist" is equally as unreasonable, yes?
Such statements are meaning-free, and unreasonable, yes. The reason that specific statement is meaning-free is that there is no positive statement which, if proven, would assign a value of true to "god doesn't exist".
quote:
So you're now equating "reasonable" with "true"?
Forgive me if I in any way suggested or implied that context wasn't relevant. But to answer your question: Not exactly. Within the context of what we are discussing, however, yes. "True" statements are reasonable. "Untrue" statements are not. But yes, the word "reasonable" is not limited to this context and usage alone. You could certainly reach a "reasonable" conclusion based on untrue premise... but that is a discussion about basic argumentation.
quote:
Baloney. "The only thing which exists in this universe is my mind, and everything I see, hear, taste or touch is an illusion" actively denies both assumptions.
Nope. You have merely redefined the scope and content of objective reality. And it does not deny that you can detect reality (in the re-defined context) either. You can't even begin to make a statement about basic reality unless you are able in some way to detect it, regardless of how you define it.
quote:
But what about the person who claims that God is not necessarily objectively detectable, but is only known by a "spiritual" presence which defies measurement? Again, this denies one of your "required" assumptions about "everything."
How, exactly, does that defy the statement "Objective reality exists and I can detect it." Was there someplace that I said we were detecting all of objective reality?
And really... "spiritual presence" doesn't defy measurement. It defies precise measurement. In addition, it doesn't establish any causal link between the detection of this "presence" and a deity. Which lands it firmly in the unreasonable proposition junk-pile. Anyway...
quote:
Really, if you want to define "reasonable" as that which is in agreement - either actually or hypothetically - with scientific knowledge, that's up to you. But you'll need to do a better job of showing me why that definition should be preferred if you want to convince me you're right. You seem to be using that definition to prove that definition, which is simply circular.
Context, context, context.....
Seriously... give me an example of a reasonable statement about a specific aspect of the universe which contradicts established scientific knowledge.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2005 : 21:45:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Nope. You have merely redefined the scope and content of objective reality.
How, exactly, does saying that reality is entirely subjective say or redefine anything about objective reality? An objective reality requires that more than one person can agree upon it. When no other people exist, an objective reality is a myth within that epistemology.quote:
Seriously... give me an example of a reasonable statement about a specific aspect of the universe which contradicts established scientific knowledge.
But that's precisely my point: just how do you - specifically you, Dude, and perhaps H. - get to the point where you can declare that a god who is defined apart from what we know of the universe is a "specific aspect" of this universe? Similarly for statements about what caused the Big Bang, or statements regarding the existence of other universes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 00:31:39 [Permalink]
|
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I must admit that part of the reason was because some issues were rehashed that I thought I had addressed. I'll try harder to be clearer this go around.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is "I am the king of France" a statement of fact subject to the SFN's mission statement? Does altering the sentence to "I believe I am the king of France" qualitatively change the meaning to such a degree that it isn't any longer?
No, but we can always ask the French, "hey, is this guy your King?" As soon as you both (A) identify a god, and (B) identify some group capable of confirming or denying that what you've identified is god, then you'll have an analogous situation. Both "I am the King of France" and "I believe I am the King of France" are subject to verification. "God exists," given that 'god' is defined as an entity with powers it can use to escape detection, is not subject to verification at all.
I realize that. The example was intended to determine whether a belief, if it concerned objective reality, could even be questioned. Earlier you had said beliefs cannot be subject to scrutiny if the person holding them has no desire to logically hold them. My contention was that beliefs are either reasonable to unreasonable based upon what they actually claim, regardless of whether the believer actually cares about that or not.
Now, I provided an example that was easily verifiable just so the above could be established. However, I do not see why verfiability is in and of itself the criteria by which the reasonableness of a claim should be judged. If you admit that beliefs are subject to logical scrutiny, then there are a range of criteria by which we may judge them. There is no reason to restrict judgement to only those that we can or cannot prove absolutely. They can be assigned a rational probability, and it is on that basis that we can determine the reasonableness of a belief.
quote:
Here's a question for you, H.: can we even posit, for the sake of argument, that such a being exists, and not conflict with reason?
To posit? Yes. To believe in? No.
quote:
If yes, then I would point out that "belief" is not a binary attribute in reality, but more of a continuum, and where does one draw the line between reasonable and not given a sliding scale from "solidly evidenced" to "blind faith?"
Fine, belief can be a continuum. But you are saying even "blind faith" does not qualify as unreasonable. That's the bottom of the scale. It doesn't get any lower than that unless you get into claims that are provably untrue. But I would not classify claims on the order of "I am the King of France" to be merely "unreasonable," they would just be wrong.
quote:
quote:
The arguments of theists might be immune to science, but are they also immune from logic and critical thinking? If a theist relies upon such evidence as personal emotions, alternative explanations for the origin of those emotions can be provided--far more reasonable explanations that do not involve invoking spirit beings.
A theist who goes looking for a scientific explanation for their beliefs is, yes, likely to be disappointed.
So would a guy "looking" for a scientific explanation that he is the King of France (KoF). Irrevelant. Science doesn't have to be involved with assigning a truth value to a claim. You must remember--I'm positing that it is a conflict for a scientist to be a theist, not that science itself rules out theism.
quote:
quote:
That's why theism conflicts with reason, because in every conceivable circumstance it involves rejecting the more reasonable explanation.
What about the situation in which the theists just doesn't go looking for explanations?
This goes right back to the KoF claim. The manner in which one pursues the truth of a claim before holding it does not affect our ability to objectively evaluate it.
quote:
In my own head, there are two categories of "stuff": (A) things for which I am aware of the explanation, and/or would know where to go looking for an explanation, and (B) everything else. Why is blue my favorite color? Hell if I know, and I'm fairly certain nobody would be able to present anything but speculation on the matter. So, how much critical thought should we apply to "blue is my favorite color" until we decide that "it just is"?
This is a subject I thought we covered. We agreed that subjective tastes are not subject to logical scrutiny, only claims (or beliefs) about objective reality.
quote:
quote:
On this I agree. To be completely fair, a strict adherence to everything I've said would mean that "God either exists or he does not" could be the only reasonable conclusion. It would be impossible to reach a determination either way. However, that isn't pragmatic, since to be consistent one must say the same for any idea ever conceived that has no evidence or logical inference in support of it (like Storm's energy). But thankfully we can logically use Occam's razor to select the answer that assumes the least postulates. Therefore, it can be reasonable to conclude that "god does not exist" barring positive evidence.
Basically I'm saying that either atheism or "I don't know" are reasonable options, but not theism.
And I think you're getting more and more into basic epistemologies, since to the solipsist there is no solid evidence upon which to base logical inferences or "pragmatic" ideas. I mean, I will grant that a belief in god is in conflict with a scientific viewpoint, but expecting scientists to be scientific 100% of the time is unrealistic, as they would be incapable of "suspending disbelief" for the sak |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 20:39:23 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 00:50:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But that's precisely my point: just how do you - specifically you, Dude, and perhaps H. - get to the point where you can declare that a god who is defined apart from what we know of the universe is a "specific aspect" of this universe? Similarly for statements about what caused the Big Bang, or statements regarding the existence of other universes?
How many men can you name who have a set in stone, cannot be reasoned with or talked out of belief about what caused the Big Bang that is not religious in nature?
Like Dude said, saying "I believe in X" is assigning X a value of "true." It isn't something they equivocate about. It isn't a "maybe" or "it could be so" or an "I'll entertain for the purposes of this discussion"; but a "this thing exists in the same way rocks exist. I believe it exists in the same way I believe my child exists. It is a real thing."
Name one other concept that a thinking person would go out on such a limb for. Name one other belief which is held so strongly on so little evidence, and then tell me whether holding such a belief is consistent with reason or whether it would be an anathema to reason.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 01:23:54 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 14:25:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But that's precisely my point: just how do you - specifically you, Dude, and perhaps H. - get to the point where you can declare that a god who is defined apart from what we know of the universe is a "specific aspect" of this universe? Similarly for statements about what caused the Big Bang, or statements regarding the existence of other universes?
^^^ What H.H. said.
Plus: Nobody defines god in such a way. Such a definition is inherently meaningless, as it neither says not implies anything about the universe we live in, which is the entire point of believing in any deity.
Even those theists who would define god as just the creator or the first cause, and who believe god has been totally hands off since then, don't consider their deity as something wholly separate from this universe.
quote:
How, exactly, does saying that reality is entirely subjective say or redefine anything about objective reality? An objective reality requires that more than one person can agree upon it. When no other people exist, an objective reality is a myth within that epistemology.
Why does objective reality require more than one person? What if I were the last living/sentient organism in the universe... would that somehow mean that objective reality ceased to exist when the second to last died? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Besides, if reality were entirely subjective, and you were the only person capable of detecting it or the only person within it, then the subjectivity of reality is your objective reality.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 14:40:00 [Permalink]
|
I have some questions:
How do you come to a decision about whether a given statement is objective or subjective?
Why is the statement, "There is a God." a statement about objective reality, but the statement, "I can make a difference." only a personal goal or hope?
If science and religion must neccessarily conflict, then is it also true that subjective statements and objective statements must nesseccarily conflict?
Is it possible for a scientist to be religious and not have his scientific work hampered in any way by his religion?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 15:11:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I have some questions:
How do you come to a decision about whether a given statement is objective or subjective?
Why is the statement, "There is a God." a statement about objective reality, but the statement, "I can make a difference." only a personal goal or hope?
The concern was not only whether statements concern objective or subjective reality, but the claims made in those statements.
The first statement is non-conditional. It doesn't say "There might be a god." It says "There is." There are no facts to support that statement about our reality.
The second is conditional. It says "I can," as in "I might." Also, the word "difference" is incredibly vague. What sort of difference? How big of a difference? There are ways to change it into a unsupportportable statement about reality, however. For instance, "I will make a difference in every single person's life" is now an unsupportable and unreasonable claim.
quote:
If science and religion must neccessarily conflict, then is it also true that subjective statements and objective statements must nesseccarily conflict?
Of course not. It depends what is claimed in those statements.
quote:
Is it possible for a scientist to be religious and not have his scientific work hampered in any way by his religion?
Yes, a scientist can be religious and not have his work hampered by his religion, but his epistemological assumptions will conflict, which may cause some mental anguish depending upon the temperment of the individual.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 15:12:16 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 16:04:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I have some questions:
How do you come to a decision about whether a given statement is objective or subjective?
Why is the statement, "There is a God." a statement about objective reality, but the statement, "I can make a difference." only a personal goal or hope?
The concern was not only whether statements concern objective or subjective reality, but the claims made in those statements.
True, but before we can evaluate a statement we must decide whether to evaluate it objectively or subjectively. The methods of evaluation are profoundly different so it's an important question.quote:
The first statement is non-conditional. It doesn't say "There might be a god." It says "There is." There are no facts to support that statement about our reality.
You are absolutely correct. From an objective standpoint the statement is unreasonable. But what prompted you to evaluate the statement objectively rather than subjectively?quote:
The second is conditional. It says "I can," as in "I might."
I think the intended meaning is "I am capable of making a difference." not "I might make a difference."quote:
Also, the word "difference" is incredibly vague. What sort of difference? How big of a difference?
True, it is a cue that the statement is not meant to be considered objectively, but if it were considered objectively the vagueness of the statement would not be a point in its favor.quote:
There are ways to change it into a unsupportportable statement about reality, however. For instance, "I will make a difference in every single person's life" is now an unsupportable and unreasonable claim.
From a strictly objective viewpoint there is no need to change it to make it unreasonable. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof that in any given situation I am capable of making a difference. The value of the statement is entirely subjective. Essentialy it means that in any given negative situation it is better to assume that I am capable of changing the situation for the better than it is to assume that I can't.quote:
quote:
If science and religion must nessessarily conflict, then is it also true that subjective statements and objective statements must nesseccarily conflict?
Of course not. It depends what is claimed in those statements.
It would seem to follow then that science and religion also do not nessessarily have to conflict. It would depend on the particualar claims of science and religion.quote:
quote:
Is it possible for a scientist to be religious and not have his scientific work hampered in any way by his religion?
Yes, a scientist can be religious and not have his work hampered by his religion, but his epistemological assumptions will conflict, which may cause some mental anguish depending upon the temperment of the individual.
My own opinion here is that it need not cause any mantal anguish whatsoever as long as the scientist does not waste energy trying to unify the two. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 18:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The first statement is non-conditional. It doesn't say "There might be a god." It says "There is." There are no facts to support that statement about our reality.
You are absolutely correct. From an objective standpoint the statement is unreasonable. But what prompted you to evaluate the statement objectively rather than subjectively?
I honestly don't understand what you mean. How is it even possible for god to simultaneously exist and not exist? A subjective statement means it is only true for that person, but also that it can be untrue for another without conflict. It is possible for you to believe you can make a difference while I do not. Since we are both speculating an on objective that will be decided at some future point, there is no contradiction between views.
Now, you believe there is a god right now and I don't right now. That's a clear contradiction between two claims about objective reality. Only one can be correct.
quote:
From a strictly objective viewpoint there is no need to change it to make it unreasonable. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof that in any given situation I am capable of making a difference. The value of the statement is entirely subjective.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was a subjective statement that didn't need to be supported.
quote:
It would seem to follow then that science and religion also do not nessessarily have to conflict. It would depend on the particualar claims of science and religion.
Right, that's why we've focused on the basic claim "god exists" to keep things simple.
quote:
My own opinion here is that it need not cause any mantal anguish whatsoever as long as the scientist does not waste energy trying to unify the two.
Yes, no mental anguish can occur if one simply chooses to not think about things. That's why I said it depends upon the individual. Not everyone finds themselves able to go through life never acknowledging that their belief systems are incompatible.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 18:42:12 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 19:44:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I honestly don't understand what you mean.
The point I was trying to make is that you are not evaluating the two statements in the same way. You are evaluating, "There is a God." objectively and, "I can make a difference." subjectively. It is possible, at least for some people, to find value in the statement, "There is a God." if it is evaluated subjectively.quote:
How is it even possible for god to simultaneously exist and not exist?
It's not.quote:
A subjective statement means it is only true for that person, but also that it can be untrue for another without conflict. It is possible for you to believe you can make a difference while I do not.
Of course, but it's also possible for one person to believe in God while another does not.quote:
Since we are both speculating an on objective that will be decided at some future point, there is no contradiction between views.
Sure there is. In a given instance, assuming all the relevant data had been collected, one of us would be proven wrong and the other right. How could it be otherwise?quote:
Now, you believe there is a god right now and I don't right now. That's a clear contradiction between two claims about objective reality. Only one can be correct.
Absolutely, but only from an objective standpoint. From a subjective viewpoint neither of us would be particularily concerned with the objective truth value of the statement. We would be more concerned with things like whether there is benefit to believing there is a God.quote:
quote:
From a strictly objective viewpoint there is no need to change it to make it unreasonable. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof that in any given situation I am capable of making a difference. The value of the statement is entirely subjective.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was a subjective statement that didn't need to be supported.
Right, so likewise if we analyse the statement "There is a God." subjectively then there is no need to support it with evidence.quote:
quote:
My own opinion here is that it need not cause any mental anguish whatsoever as long as the scientist does not waste energy trying to unify the two.
Yes, no mental anguish can occur if one simply chooses to not think about things. That's why I said it depends upon the individual. Not everyone finds themselves able to go through life never acknowledging that their belief systems are incompatible.
I'm not advocating ignorance here. I'm merely suggesting that the two approaches are fundamentally different ways of thinking. In an ideal situation there is no conflict between the two since there is no common ground on which a conflict could occur. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 20:19:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Right, so likewise if we analyse the statement "There is a God." subjectively then there is no need to support it with evidence.
I fail to see how "There is a god" can be a subjective opinion in the same manner I fail to see how "I am the King of France" can be a subjective opinion.
Neither is an "opinion" in any sense of the word. They are statements about objective reality and they must be weighed as such. Subjective means you can like Suzie instead of Debra. Objective would be claiming that Suzie does not exist. One is a statement of personal tastes. One is a statement about the state of reality.
quote:
It's also possible for one person to believe in God while another does not.
But not without someone being wrong right now. One must be wrong. So, one of those views cannot be logically held at the present time. Reason dictates that you evaluate the claims to find the most reasonable. If you decide to believe "god exists," you've done so by chucking out the scientific world-view. Liking Suzie instead of Debra does not require such a compromise of interests. It forces no such choice. The difference between the two examples are so clear to me that I'm having trouble understanding how you can see them differently.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 20:34:46 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2005 : 20:41:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I'm not advocating ignorance here. I'm merely suggesting that the two approaches are fundamentally different ways of thinking. In an ideal situation there is no conflict between the two since there is no common ground on which a conflict could occur.
I'm saying using two different ways of thinking is the conflict. Often when they are trained upon the same subject, they do not agree. That means one is wrong. You need to make a choice about which one you will employ in your life.
Saying the two different ways of thinking suddenly no longer conflict when we simply prevent them from focusing upon the same subject is totally disingenuous. The conflict is there whether one decides to personally address it or not.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/11/2005 20:50:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
