Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 91 of 199 (508156)
05-11-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
05-10-2009 10:12 PM


Re: World view
coyote writes:
Your idea of a world view is influenced by your religious beliefs so that you assume everyone else's world view is based on such beliefs. This is not the case.
Certainly, my world view is not only influenced but formed by my religious beliefs. If I was an Atheist I would form my world view based on that.
Coyote writes:
You should not assume everyone else shares the same mode of world view that you do. For many, their world view is based on verifiable evidence. This is exactly the opposite of a world view based on religion.
And what verifiable evidence would that be? How do you verify what isn't verifiable. Can you verify that the material world is all that there is? You just believe it. You can't verify it, so you take it on faith.
By the way, I don't assume that everyone holds the same world view that I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2009 10:12 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 1:04 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 92 of 199 (508157)
05-11-2009 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rrhain
05-10-2009 10:15 PM


Rrhain writes:
But the question is why you are seeking to make an exception for other areas. Nobody is questioning your faith in god. The question is why you seem to want to ascribe to god things which seem to be capable of happening on their own.
Where else do you see me making an exception? What do you think I believe that is contradicted by empirical evidence?
I could ask you; why is it that you believe that you just happen to exist through completely natural causes, when it could be caused by an intelligent creator?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 10:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2009 3:59 AM GDR has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 199 (508158)
05-11-2009 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by GDR
05-11-2009 12:44 AM


Re: World view
And what verifiable evidence would that be? How do you verify what isn't verifiable. Can you verify that the material world is all that there is? You just believe it. You can't verify it, so you take it on faith.
Correct, but backwards.
We can verify that the natural world exists, and observe a great many of the details concerning it, but there is no evidence of supernatural beings. That one would have to take on faith, not the existence or details of the natural world.
By the way, I don't assume that everyone holds the same world view that I do.
The phrasing of your answers show that you do indeed make assumptions about what those who do not hold your world view must be doing.
You believe that those who have a naturalist world view have to take that on faith; however the reality is just the opposite. We can observe and verify the natural world. What we would have to take on faith is the existence of deities that meddle in worldly affairs, and for those deities there is no evidence.
That is what many of us do not accept on faith, or on someone's "trust me!" (You wouldn't buy a used car from those "Trust me!" folks, why accept their claims about visions, "divine" revelations, and all the rest?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 12:44 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 1:35 AM Coyote has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 94 of 199 (508159)
05-11-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
05-11-2009 1:04 AM


Re: World view
coyote writes:
We can verify that the natural world exists, and observe a great many of the details concerning it, but there is no evidence of supernatural beings. That one would have to take on faith, not the existence or details of the natural world.
There is no evidence that supernatural beings don't exist. I am assuming that your belief is that you exist with all of your emotions due to strictly material causes. Show me the empirical proof for that? If you can't then you take it on faith that you are correct.
coyote writes:
The phrasing of your answers show that you do indeed make assumptions about what those who do not hold your world view must be doing.
And what assumptions do you think I'm making?
coyote writes:
You believe that those who have a naturalist world view have to take that on faith; however the reality is just the opposite. We can observe and verify the natural world.
Sure you can verify the natural world, or at least many aspects of it but you can't verify that the so-called natural world is all that there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 1:04 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 10:43 AM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 95 of 199 (508168)
05-11-2009 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-11-2009 12:50 AM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
Where else do you see me making an exception?
With regard to the origin of life, you seem to want to insist that there had to be a "why" despite allowing so many other things to happen without a "why." From Message 20:
There always has to be a why. Let's go back to abiogenesis then. The first cell had to come about for some reason.
Oh really? Why? Why does there have to be a why? Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Congratulations...you just brought the conversation all the way back around to the beginning. Shall we spin the merry-go-round another time?
quote:
I could ask you; why is it that you believe that you just happen to exist through completely natural causes, when it could be caused by an intelligent creator?
Who said I did? I know I certainly didn't. I keep my religious opinions to myself. Do not pretend you know what they are.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 12:50 AM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 96 of 199 (508191)
05-11-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-10-2009 7:10 PM


GDR writes:
Scientific evidence is objective although the analysis of the evidence could well be subjective.
Science tries to determine what is true for everyone everywhere throughout the universe. Theories that are subjective, that vary from one individual to the next according to world view, cannot be considered scientific.
There is therefore no similarity between science and your subjective evidence and methods, which is what you claimed in Message 73:
GDR writes in Message 73 writes:
I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
You can use your world view to make personal decisions about what God did and didn't do, but this is your subjective opinion and bears no resemblance to science, because it is not something that is true for everyone, and you don't even have the goal of discovering things that are true for everyone. You're on a journey of exploration for beliefs that seem right to you, as many of us are, and that's fine, but stop comparing it to science. There's no resemblance or similarity whatsoever.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 10:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 97 of 199 (508203)
05-11-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by GDR
05-11-2009 1:35 AM


Re: World view
Sure you can verify the natural world, or at least many aspects of it but you can't verify that the so-called natural world is all that there is.
If that's the best evidence you can come up with for the existence of the supernatural and various deities, then I think my point is made.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 1:35 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 98 of 199 (508204)
05-11-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
05-11-2009 8:57 AM


Percy writes:
Science tries to determine what is true for everyone everywhere throughout the universe. Theories that are subjective, that vary from one individual to the next according to world view, cannot be considered scientific.
There is therefore no similarity between science and your subjective evidence and methods, which is what you claimed in Message 73:
I don't disagree at all. My only point in 73 that I intended, was that science provides theories that are subjective. In most cases they then look for objective evidence to support their subjective theories. (Even then that isn't always the case though. How about Dawkins and his "memes" for example.)
I agree however that religious views are subjective and can never be confirmed objectively. That doesn't mean that they aren't valid.
Percy writes:
You can use your world view to make personal decisions about what God did and didn't do, but this is your subjective opinion and bears no resemblance to science, because it is not something that is true for everyone, and you don't even have the goal of discovering things that are true for everyone.
Only partly. I believe that the basic Christianity is true for everyone although I would agree that everyone has a unique role to play within the Christian framework. That has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and it is not in contradiction with science in any way.
Here is an interesting article that was in the NY Times not long ago.
quote:
The End of Philosophy
By DAVID BROOKS
Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.
One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, Human, is that it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.
Today, many psychologists, cognitive scientists and even philosophers embrace a different view of morality. In this view, moral thinking is more like aesthetics. As we look around the world, we are constantly evaluating what we see. Seeing and evaluating are not two separate processes. They are linked and basically simultaneous.
As Steven Quartz of the California Institute of Technology said during a recent discussion of ethics sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, Our brain is computing value at every fraction of a second. Everything that we look at, we form an implicit preference. Some of those make it into our awareness; some of them remain at the level of our unconscious, but ... what our brain is for, what our brain has evolved for, is to find what is of value in our environment.
Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know.
Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.
In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and ... moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.
The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.
The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition. People are not discrete units coolly formulating moral arguments. They link themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence.
The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution is always about competition, but for humans, as Darwin speculated, competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and altruistic creatures at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations.
The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. Moral intuitions have primacy, Haidt argues, but they are not dictators. There are times, often the most important moments in our lives, when in fact we do use reason to override moral intuitions, and often those reasons along with new intuitions come from our friends.
The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning.
Finally, it should also challenge the very scientists who study morality. They’re good at explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence, patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most people’s moral experiences, but central. The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself.
I think that last sentence is particularly interesting and it represents an example of materialistic scientists taking a subjective view on what makes us the way we are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 05-11-2009 8:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 05-11-2009 11:30 AM GDR has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 99 of 199 (508209)
05-11-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by GDR
05-11-2009 10:53 AM


Hi GDR,
You logic contains a direct contradiction. First I say that scientific theories are not subjective:
Percy writes:
Science tries to determine what is true for everyone everywhere throughout the universe. Theories that are subjective, that vary from one individual to the next according to world view, cannot be considered scientific.
There is therefore no similarity between science and your subjective evidence and methods, which is what you claimed in Message 73:
Then you state the exact opposite:
GDR writes:
My only point in 73 that I intended, was that science provides theories that are subjective.
But you say about my completely opposite claim:
I don't disagree at all.
Care to try again?
Only partly. I believe that the basic Christianity is true for everyone although I would agree that everyone has a unique role to play within the Christian framework. That has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and it is not in contradiction with science in any way.
Then stop claiming your approach bears any similarity to science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 10:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 12:11 AM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 100 of 199 (508280)
05-12-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
05-11-2009 11:30 AM


Percy writes:
Then stop claiming your approach bears any similarity to science.
I'm not claiming that my approach to theology is similar to science. It is subjective but, but I will also say that what often passes for sceintific theory, such as Dawkins and his case for non-theistic evolution and memes, is subjective in that he has taken his world view and then created pseudo-scientific theory to fit that world view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 05-11-2009 11:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2009 3:33 AM GDR has replied
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 8:19 AM GDR has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 101 of 199 (508291)
05-12-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
05-12-2009 12:11 AM


GDR writes:
quote:
I will also say that what often passes for sceintific theory, such as Dawkins and his case for non-theistic evolution and memes, is subjective in that he has taken his world view and then created pseudo-scientific theory to fit that world view.
First, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, not a scientific treatise. You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Look in the literature and you will not find mentions of his "memes" or anything else.
Second, the reason why we claim "non-theistic evolution" is because we have evidence for it. We're back to the question nobody ever answers:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Where is your evidence that evolution was "guided" in any way? Does evolution happen on its own?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 12:11 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 1:55 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 102 of 199 (508297)
05-12-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
05-12-2009 12:11 AM


GDR writes:
It is subjective but, but I will also say that what often passes for sceintific theory, such as Dawkins and his case for non-theistic evolution and memes, is subjective in that he has taken his world view and then created pseudo-scientific theory to fit that world view.
You're confusing what are primarily scientific speculations in the popular press with true science. The soft sciences like psychology, sociology and some parts of economics can also have subjective components, the most famous perhaps being Freud's theory of the id, ego and superego. These fields are often subdivided into bodies of thought because the subjective components makes broad consensus impossible. I think there are legitimate comparisons that can be drawn between your thinking and these areas (the popular scientific press and the soft sciences), but only to a point. For instance, psychology is one of the most mathematical of the sciences, and large segments of it are rigorously scientific.
So if you want to claim that theories developed with your approach would be similar to Dawkins' memes in having a subjective component then it really wouldn't be worth arguing about. Dawkins is far more structured, logical and insightful in his thinking (he surpasses all of us in this regard, obviously), but so what. At heart both your ideas lack the necessary scientific underpinning. In other words, by drawing such comparisons you're only making our point for us.
That's why Rrhain and I have been careful to present examples with no subjective components, because a central goal of science is to exclude subjectivity and thereby any theories that are true for some people and not for others.
In a sense the true scientific pursuit is similar to tacking against the wind when sailing. How is it that one can sail into the wind? Seems contradictory and impossible. In the same way one can ask how is it that subjective creatures like human beings can arrive at objective conclusions, but that's what the scientific process makes possible. Science tacks into the wind of subjectivity in order to establish objective realities. Your approach does not do this, and it has no similarity to science whatsoever. For this reason, any claims you make of establishing something that is true of reality are fatally flawed.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Chose a better word at one place in the text.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 12:11 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 1:53 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 103 of 199 (508315)
05-12-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
05-12-2009 8:19 AM


I actually think we are in agreement Percy. I do not confuse my faith and my interest in science. The only thing that I'll repeat in that regard is that I don't find them in opposition to each other, and personally I find them complimentary. I would agree that is a subjective view as well. Once again though, because a view is subjective does not mean that it's wrong.
Edited by GDR, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 8:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 3:10 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 104 of 199 (508317)
05-12-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rrhain
05-12-2009 3:33 AM


Rrhain writes:
First, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, not a scientific treatise. You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Look in the literature and you will not find mentions of his "memes" or anything else.
Why then in the book store is "The Selfish Gene" sold in the science section?
Rrhain writes:
Second, the reason why we claim "non-theistic evolution" is because we have evidence for it.
And what evidence would that be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2009 3:33 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 05-12-2009 2:17 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 05-12-2009 9:52 PM GDR has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 105 of 199 (508319)
05-12-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by GDR
05-12-2009 1:55 PM


quote:
Why then in the book store is "The Selfish Gene" sold in the science section?
Now you are just getting silly.
This is what he said.
Rrhain writes:
First, Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a popular press book, not a scientific treatise. You seem to be ignorant of this fact. Look in the literature and you will not find mentions of his "memes" or anything else.
There are a lot of popular press books sold in the science section of book stores. As a matter of fact the vast majority of them will popular press.
Treatise : a formal and systematic exposition in writing of the principles of a subject, generally longer and more detailed than an essay.
The type of thing you will find in journals and university libraries.
This is a ridiculous argument.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 05-12-2009 1:55 PM GDR 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