Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:49 PM
28 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,180 Year: 12,216/19,786 Month: 1,997/2,641 Week: 506/708 Day: 65/135 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 23 of 262 (695161)
04-03-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 2:18 PM


Your brain gets too much wrong
divermike1974 writes:

Well it seems that some of you have a problem with my stand alone brain/computer.

A bit, yes. But it's not really the bad part.

The bad part is that the human brain gets things wrong. A lot. That's what's led to things like "Never Leave a Child Behind" and "Trickle Down Economics."
Science, however, gets things right. A lot. That's what's led to things like modern medicine and modern transportation.

How is calling the brain the most complex thing in the KNOWN universe an un evidenced assertion?

It doesn't really matter if the brain is complex or not.

The brain gets things wrong a lot. Regardless of how complex it is.
Science gets things right a lot. Regardless of how complex it is.

That's why science is better than your brain.
That's why "belief in God" is not scientific. It didn't follow the method of science that results in getting things right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 2:18 PM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:31 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 101 of 262 (695294)
04-04-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 4:48 PM


Programming for your Brain
divermike1974 writes:

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.

Okay.

We do know that computers aren't always right.
Powerful computers can be strictly programmed to do things in a rigorous manner... confidently leading to correct results.
Powerful computers can also be programmed to do things in a poor manner... leading to unreliable results.
We know this from the past experience of human history.

Science is a strict method of programming our brains in order to confidently lead us to correct results.
Belief is a different method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results.
Again, we know this from the past experience of human history.

"Belief in God is scientific" is a Belief (obviously). Therefore, it uses the method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results.
Therefore, the statement is unreliable.

Using the method of belief, our human brains have led us to many, many unreliable results like "Apollo pulls the sun around the Earth" or "the entire planet was covered in a worldwide flood that killed most of mankind."

Using the method of science, our human brains have led us to many, many correct results like "the Earth actually orbits the Sun" or "there's never been a worldwide flood during the history of mankind."

I agree that the human brain is kind of like a powerful computer.
However, you still need to program computers correctly in order to be confident in the reliability of your results.

How do you program your brain?

Science tells me that the only evidence that should be "classed as scientific evidence" for the existence of anything (including God) would be the sort of evidence that results after using the method of science.

Using the method of Belief in order to classify anything as "scientific evidence" doesn't even make linguistic sense. Let alone common sense or practical sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 4:48 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Larni, posted 04-05-2013 10:39 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 102 of 262 (695295)
04-04-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by divermike1974
04-04-2013 2:34 AM


Didn't see this
divermike1974 writes:

Yeah i do admit I am wrong it was never my intention to say I was right and everyone wrong

Nice! You've edited your programming! Good job

its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief can't be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you can't

Sort of.

Belief can easily be factored into the scientific method, and it has many, many times.
It's just that the result, after going through the scientific method, is unreliable and inconclusive. Therefore the scientific method tells us that Belief does not lead us to reliable results.

There are no "science police" in the same way there are no "playing tag" police.

You're either doing science, by following the method of science, or you're not.
You're either playing tag, by following the method of playing tag, or you're not.
No one really cares unless you start telling people that you are doing a thing, but it's clear that you're not following the method of that thing.

Keep looking, and questioning. Maybe you just don't like science. There's lots of other stuff to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by divermike1974, posted 04-04-2013 2:34 AM divermike1974 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 209 of 262 (695852)
04-09-2013 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


Unreliable Causes Apathy
divermike1974 writes:

Its just the simple fact that 80 odd percent of the worlds population believe in some form of higher intelligence not of this universe that has God like qualities.

Right.

However... we also know that when people use their brains, they generally get things wrong.
As I said in Message 101.

You need to program your brain correctly in order to use it correctly to be confident that your results are right.
If you program your brain using other methods... then your brain only gives unreliable results.

Science is a strict method of programming our brains in order to confidently lead us to correct results.
Belief is a different method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results.

"Belief in God is scientific" is a Belief (obviously). Therefore, it uses the method of programming our brains that leads us to unreliable results.
Therefore, the statement is unreliable.

Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.

The idea that belief is a good way to accurately gain knowledge about the supernatural.
That is also wrong.
So is your idea that because 80% of the population believes in God, then God exists.

They are wrong ideas because they use belief to lead to the answer. That makes the answer unreliable.
They are wrong ideas because science has been used to test the answers. And science has shown that the answers are unreliable (inconclusive at best, but likely wrong).

Nobody cares about unreliable ideas. Why should they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 216 of 262 (695918)
04-10-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by divermike1974
04-10-2013 4:00 AM


Re: No need for scripture.
divermike1974 writes:

Coupling this with the modern understanding of the physiological complexity of the human brain within the evolution of the universe how can belief not be classed as a scientific quantity?

It is.
Belief is classed as a scientific quantity all the time.
The result has been tested and verified many, many times.
The result, on every scientific test, is that "belief" is a very unreliable way to use your brain in order to learn facts about the world.

In fact, this was one of the very first scientific observations.
It's what caused people to wonder "what then, is a good, confident method to use our brains to learn facts about the world?"
The answer to that question is: The Scientific Method.

But yes, belief is classified as a scientific quantity all the time. It's simply classified as a negative, unreliable method.

You don't seem to want to accept this answer, however.
You seem to think that if you keep asking the same question, then the answer will change?

Again, that's not how science works.
The results of science... the result that "belief" is an unreliable, negative tool for finding knowledge... do not change just because you ask the same question over and over.
The results cannot be "worn down" in this manner. It is simply irrelevant.

The results will only ever change if "belief" gets scientifically tested and shows positive, confident results.
So far, this has never been possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 4:00 AM divermike1974 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 1:11 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 234 of 262 (695950)
04-10-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by divermike1974
04-10-2013 1:11 PM


Belief is a good thing, it's just not a scientific thing
Hi divermike1974,

I think you're ideas about belief and science and good/bad things are a bit too strict.

Belief is certainly a good thing. A very good and powerful thing.
It's just not a scientific thing.
Scientifically speaking... belief is negative and unreliable.

But science isn't everything.
Science is a tool for us to use to learn facts about the world. To make use of those facts and build technology.

Belief is a tool for us to use to help us feel better. To provide hope or a sense of motivation. It is very powerful.

Neither is "better than the other" all the time.
Neither is "always bad".

The trick is to identify the situation and use whichever method is appropriate.

When doing science, it's just kinda obvious that the Scientific Method is preferred over Belief.

divermike1974 writes:

Humanity would have failed long ago it it didn't believe 'it could do it'

I don't know about "failed." But, yes, I agree things would be different.

Belief is integral to human success. Once we believed we could sail round the world and we did, once we believed we could land on the moon and we did, at the moment we believe we can land man on Mars and we probably will.

Correct. But remember to try and separate the ideas.
Belief is integral to human success because it allows us to use our imagination and think of ideas not otherwise obvious.
However... it's not belief that built sailboats. Science did that.
It's also not belief that built rockets that take us to the moon... science did that too.

They are separate ideas, try to identify when they are to be used separately.

Believing we can do it motivates us to overcome those obstacles and to procure the requirements and skills to do it.

Exactly.
Belief is for motivation.
Science is for "the requirements and the skills to do it."

Separate ideas for separate tasks.

This very day there are probably hundreds of science students studying for degrees who will spend their whole careers imagining, believing and planning to send man to Mars.

Yes. They will use their belief to motivate themselves.
But, they will use science to build the spaceship.

I have two cars.
One built by science.
One built by a guy who "believes it will keep you safe."

Which one will you drive?

the statement at the top ("The result, on every scientific test, is that "belief" is a very unreliable way to use your brain in order to learn facts about the world.") only makes sense if it is the propaganda of an idiot.

The statement makes sense if you can identify that Belief and Science are two separate ideas that help us with separate tasks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by divermike1974, posted 04-10-2013 1:11 PM divermike1974 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019