Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 46 of 262 (695186)
04-03-2013 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:57 AM


Hi Mike, and welcome to EvC.
I think some here have been overwhelmed by how far off you seem in your initial post, and we're getting very sidetracked, very quickly.
You're using words like "complex" and "scientific" in ways that, frankly, aren't appropriate for what you appear to be trying to convey.
My brain is a stand alone version of the most complex thing in the known universe.
How do you measure "complexity," Mike? What metric do you use? What units? You seem to be using "complexity" as a substitute for something else - a word like "impressive," or "awesome," or "this does stuff that I don't fully understand." The word complexity is not actually a synonym for any of those other terms. Others have provided examples of things that are more "complex" than the brain (at least in terms of having more components, if that's the metric we want to use), but you've dismissed them with insult rather than argument.
It is one of billions that make up humanity. Humanity more or less classes the brain as a computer, and lots of these computers independently and through a myriad of experiences called life come to the conclusion that there is a God. More people - brains - computers come to the answer 'God' than those that come to the answer 'no God'.
The similarity between brains and computers, on top of being extremely imprecise as a comparison in the first place, is also irrelevant.
As has been pointed out, you're using nothing more than a simple appeal to popularity. You're saying "gee, lots of people came to this conclusion - that means that the conclusion is scientific."
The problem is that popularity has little to nothing to do with the accuracy of a belief - the vast majority of people in the world used to believe that the Earth was flat, after all.
And, of course, the lager issue is that none of your argument has anything at all to do with what is scientific.
The term "scientific" denotes something related to science or the scientific method. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory because it meets that definition - it is an explanatory framework of observed natural phenomenon developed from the application of the scientific method: repeated experimentation, observation, and peer review.
"Belief in God" is not, itself, an explanatory framework. It has nothing to do with experimentation, or observation. There are no peer-reviewed published papers in scientific journals regarding the existence of god(s). The closest scientific anything related to "belief in God" would be the many studies on why people believe, or what they believe, and so forth. In effect there are scientific studies about belief in god(s), but the belief in god(s) itself has, so far, nothing to do with science.
That would change if and when a cogent, testable hypothesis regarding the existence of god(S) were to be postulated and tested through experiment and observation. Such a hypothesis could then be supported through validated predictions, repeatable objective evidence, and logically consistent extrapolations thereof. Since there has not been any such cogent, testable hypothesis...belief in god(S) remains a particularly unscientific conclusion.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:57 AM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 262 (695187)
04-03-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:18 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
If it cant be observed it isn't known, therefore not in the known universe.
We have no reason to suppose that other intelligent life in the known universe wouldn't be able to be observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:18 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 262 (695188)
04-03-2013 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2013 3:54 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
CS writes:
The illusion is produced in your brain. Its a good reason for why we can't trust them.
Since I see no movement in the optical illusion you posted, the only thing I can conclude is that your and divermike1974's obeservations of reality cannot be relied upon, whereas mine can be.
Ask me if God exists if you like or if believing in him is scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 4:34 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 49 of 262 (695189)
04-03-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
04-03-2013 4:20 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
Supposing somthing doesn't sound very scientific. And when you say we, who else is doing this supposing with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-03-2013 4:39 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 50 of 262 (695190)
04-03-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:57 AM


Popularity does not make 'right'
My brain is a stand alone version of the most complex thing in the known universe. It is one of billions that make up humanity. Humanity more or less classes the brain as a computer, and lots of these computers independently and through a myriad of experiences called life come to the conclusion that there is a God. More people - brains - computers come to the answer 'God' than those that come to the answer 'no God'.
Popularity in no way makes 'right'. In fact mass human gatherings can have the opposite effect causing downright delusional viewpoints.
In 1917 in Fatima, Portugal, an estimated 30,000 to 100,000 individuals 'saw the sun tear from its position in the sky and come zigzagging and hurtling towards Earth'. Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia
It is patently absurd that this could have happened in reality - for one thing all life on Earth would have been destroyed by such cataclysmic orbital shenanigans. But it is hard to understand how up to 100,000 people were all wrong at the same time - a 100,000 'computers of the most advanced sort in the universe' - all interconnected in Fatima.....and yet all wrong.
Seems like the popular vote isn't reliable after all.....
Scientific Method 1, popular human egotism, 0
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:57 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 262 (695191)
04-03-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:57 PM


I didn't say that, i said 'to believe in God' is scientific because more people believe than don't.
And more people believe that Christianity is bunk than don't. So is that scientific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:57 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 262 (695192)
04-03-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:36 PM


divermike1974 writes:
Once again Christianity comes up. Where did i mention any religion?
Well, now you're just being evasive, and I see you've posted a few other dismissive one-line messages. We can't have much of a discussion if your responses are just dismissals and evasions. Let's try again, shall we?
First, you claim that whatever has the majority consensus is true.
Second, these statistics show that the majority consensus is belief in a god:
Atheists2.3%
Agnostics16%
Belief in a god81.7%
Third, we know you're a Christian.
Fourth, these statistics show that the majority consensus is belief in a non-Christian god:
Christians33%
Non-Christians67%
So your logic leads to the conclusion that the true god is a non-Christian god. Do you support that conclusion?
The obvious point here is that you've chosen a criteria (majority belief wins out) because it lends support to something you believe, namely that God god exists. But it also lends support to something you don't believe, namely that the true god is a non-Christian god. It also lends support to other things you probably don't accept, such as gay marriage.
And about this from your Message 38:
divermike1974 in Message 38 writes:
I said 'to believe in God' is scientific because more people believe than don't.
A theory becomes scientifically accepted when a consensus of scientists becomes convinced by scientific evidence and reasoning. Most people believe in God for spiritual reasons of faith, not science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:36 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 04-03-2013 4:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM Percy has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 262 (695193)
04-03-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by petrophysics1
04-03-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
Since I see no movement in the optical illusion you posted,
Then there's something wrong with you.
Hell, even cats can see it:
the only thing I can conclude is that your and divermike1974's obeservations of reality cannot be relied upon, whereas mine can be.
Non sequitur.
In fact, your inability to see the optical illusion suggests something is wrong with your brain.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by petrophysics1, posted 04-03-2013 4:26 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ooh-child, posted 04-03-2013 5:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 54 of 262 (695194)
04-03-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rahvin
04-03-2013 4:18 PM


Hi thanks for the reply, i will read in full and give a detailed reply later. Can i just ask how much of the science that you take for granted and wont think outside of can you actually do yourself and understand within your own mind with absolute certainty? This is not meant to insult you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2013 4:18 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2013 5:02 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 55 of 262 (695195)
04-03-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
04-03-2013 4:32 PM


First, you claim that whatever has the majority consensus is true.
It's semantics, but it seems like he is saying that since it has majority consensus, that makes it scientific, not true. This is a far mroe egregious claim, but we shouldn't misattribute his wrong notions.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 04-03-2013 4:32 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 56 of 262 (695196)
04-03-2013 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
04-03-2013 4:30 PM


Why are you asking me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2013 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2013 4:52 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 262 (695197)
04-03-2013 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:27 PM


Re: Your brain gets too much wrong
Supposing somthing doesn't sound very scientific.
Something has an 'e' in it. And you don't know what "scientific" means so whatever.
But you're right, and that's partly why I said that we shouldn't suppose what you did suppose.
And when you say we, who else is doing this supposing with you?
The proverbial "we"... but I said we don't have a reason to suppose what you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:27 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 58 of 262 (695198)
04-03-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 2:54 PM


quote:
How much more Paul? Being a scientific man i don't think you would of just assumed that? You must be memory quoting from a United Nations survey or something similar you have read?
I think that it is generally known that religious experiences are relatively uncommon, and usually happen to people who are already believers. If you have real evidence to contradict that then I'm ready to look at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 2:54 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4003 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 59 of 262 (695199)
04-03-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
04-03-2013 4:32 PM


I don't claim the majority consensus is true. I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
It has nothing to do with who believes in what only in the fact that scientists ignore the very real answers being given by billions of people, people who also happen to be very very powerful natural computers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 04-03-2013 4:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 04-03-2013 4:53 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 04-03-2013 4:55 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 65 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2013 5:04 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 04-03-2013 6:18 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 04-03-2013 10:31 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 101 by Stile, posted 04-04-2013 11:50 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 262 (695200)
04-03-2013 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:39 PM


Why are you asking me?
Your OP is based on the idea that the argumentum ad populum is scientific. I am trying to establish whether it is always scientific, or just when you want it to be.
If the latter, then your original criterion for when something is scientific needs some alteration, since you should have instead explained in the OP that something is scientific if a majority of people believe it and if you personally are one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:39 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024