|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
In the context of believing in God, bolder-dash stated the following as a valid argument Message 268:
"...I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically, in terms of reconciling the randomness of their mutations, and being able to develop and subsist life and all its complexities in this environment and so forth, so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things..." When it was noticed that the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian gravitation, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"? When it was found that an electric current could deflect a compass, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"? When it was found that radium could fog a photographic plate, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"? If you think there are large holes in any theory, then you develop a new theory which explains to better degree what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages. "Is it science?" I guess...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread copied here from the At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I guess that if you have virtually no hypothesis to test you could reasonably look for a non materialistic explanation for the purposes of reducing confusion.
What I mean by this is when one dose not understand something (say thunder)one can feel anxious and by giving an explanation (any explanation will do) that we can cleave to (even if it is not a hypothesis that would stand up to the rigours of the scientific method- such as lightning is ) we can reduce our anxiety. When I was a kid thunder was explained as god moving his furniture. To my unsophisticated mind this worked for me, at the time. When something is unknown it is scary but when you can give a name to it it becomes less so; even if in the real world of adults it makes no sense. An illusion? Certainly; but one that works for many people who feel anxious about uncertainty. So when should we look for non material explanations? When we don't know the answer and we are scared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Larni writes: So when should we look for non material explanations? When we don't know the answer and we are scared. I agree. We should look for a non-materialistic explanation as soon as "understanding the truth" is no longer our highest priority. Factors affecting this are emotions or time-management or other restricting concerns. Once we turn to non-materialistic explanations, there is no way to confirm if our provided explanation is right, wrong, real, imagined, or even has anything to do with the phenomenon at all. Therefore, "understanding the truth" is an impossibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Cavediver writes: If you think there are large holes in any theory, then you develop a new theory which explains to better degree what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages. Abso-friggin-lutely!! I don't understand how anyone can think that the god of the gaps argument holds any rational water at all. Nor can I comprehend why anyone would willfully revel in such dead end ignorance rather than seek a method of valid investigation.
Cavediver writes: At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation? At the point that you decide to abandon any hope of ascertaining the nature of reality and simply wish to have an answer regardless of reliability. Perhaps for emotional or personal reasons. But ultimately an answer for answers sake. If you are going to accept untestable irrefutable supernatural answers then anything goes. There is no more evidential reason to think god (whatever that means) created the universe than there is to think it was hatched from an ethereal egg laid by an immaterial celestial chicken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
How much genome DNA complexity does it take before we look for a non-materialistic explanation for life?
Only a small portion of a creature's DNA is protein-coding genes (around 1.5% in humans). In the 1970s, evolutionists began calling the rest of it "junk DNA", saying this collection of useless evolutionary debris showed there was no intelligent design involved. Decades later, researchers are finding that the "junk" does vital work. Some of this DNA plays a role in turning genes on and off at the right moments in a developing embryo22. Other bits separate coding and regulating sections, like punctuation marks in writing, so that DNA is not a long run-on sentence23. Other bits called Alu elements, found only in primates, can be spliced in or out during RNA processing to make different versions of the same gene.24 The "junk" label discouraged research into this part of the genome for many years; who would want to waste their time studying it? Scientists have found that the number of genes a creature has is not a good measure of how complex it is. For example, the human genome is 23 times larger than the fruit fly genome (3.2 billion base pairs versus 137 million), yet humans have only about 2 times the number of protein coding genes (almost 25,000 versus 13,000 according to Human Genome Project Information). Yeast has about 6,000 genes BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
cavediver writes: At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation? Maybe when bubble chamber pictures start looking like this? But seriously, I think the answer is "never". By definition, we can never find a non-materialistic explanation, let alone prove we have found it. We can only make them up, and that's where science and fantasy part ways. Edited by Parasomnium, : if -> when "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
We can measure and test the immaterium reliably. And not before.
I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Huntard writes: We can measure and test the immaterium reliably. And not before. Yes, that was my first thought. But isn't the definition of a "material thing" something that can be measured and tested? So I thought that once a non-material thing becomes testable and measureable... then it is no longer a non-material thing, and we're still not dealing with considering non-material answers... we're just finding new material things that we didn't know existed before. But that's just semantics, and I may even be getting them wrong. Anyway, I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
How much genome DNA complexity does it take before we look for a non-materialistic explanation for life? Excellent question. And the answer is...???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4942 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Larni
What I mean by this is when one dose not understand something (say thunder)one can feel anxious and by giving an explanation (any explanation will do) that we can cleave to (even if it is not a hypothesis that would stand up to the rigours of the scientific method- such as lightning is ) we can reduce our anxiety. That sounds fair enough until you consider the problems you might have later when people have become so convinced by their made up explanation that they find difficulty in accepting a newly discovered materialistic explanation. I'm sure we can all think of at least one example where that has happened!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Obviously, Buz' answer is "when you start feeding exclusively on creationist pap." Such as the source that he quoted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: How much genome DNA complexity does it take before we look for a non-materialistic explanation for life? Dropping one grain of sand on another makes two grains of sand. Dropping another makes it three. Keeping on dropping grains of sand eventually makes a heap of sand. Some people look at that heap and think it is something fundamentally different than accumulated grains of sand. For some purposes it pays to look at it that way, but you must keep in mind that it came about by simply dropping one grain of sand after another. What you mistake for non-materialistically created complexity is really materialistically accumulated simplicity. In fact, DNA is a prime example of finding materialistic explanations for previously baffling phenomena, where seemingly only non-materialistic explanations would suffice. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I've no idea of the point you are trying to make, here.
Please clarify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I'm sure we can all think of at least one example where that has happened! No idea what you mean but I'll strive to work it out (if god wills it).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024