International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

acbytesla 15th March 2020 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13020015)
Faith is having trust or confidence in something (including science)

That is one definition of faith. But it's not the way most believers use it. Faith is the excuse people use for belief without evidence. Because if they posessed evidence, they would cite the evidence.

In contrast, I trust science because of its reliability and it is always open to revision. It's based on math, logic and repeatable experiments.

With religion, one is bound by the text and required to accept "just because".

abaddon 15th March 2020 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13020160)
I am not a theist, and, even though I respect science and it’s obvious predictive capacity, I accept that science is susceptible to wishful thinking and flat out errors in POV. There is little to no certainty in this world and that applies to science as well. I would place self-certainty and faith I same basket

When you have a tooth needing extraction would you visit a dentist or use a door and a string?

Explain why.

LarryS 15th March 2020 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13020444)
Wishful thinking and self certainty?

Oh boy! Where do you get this crap from?

Pick up just about every science book

acbytesla 16th March 2020 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13020160)
I am not a theist, and, even though I respect science and it’s obvious predictive capacity, I accept that science is susceptible to wishful thinking and flat out errors in POV. There is little to no certainty in this world and that applies to science as well. I would place self-certainty and faith I same basket

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13021300)
Pick up just about every science book

You and I are not reading the same science books. I don't see wishful thinking in science books. And unlike religions, science is self correcting.

Thor 2 16th March 2020 12:46 PM

I am not familiar with any science books authored by wishful thinkers full of self certainty either. Perhaps LarryS can give us some examples. Not getting this mixed up with Christian Science stuff is he?

Lithrael 17th March 2020 08:40 AM

Pop science maybe. Lots of science-ish stuff on tv. Just watched some discovery channel tripe where a guy with a vested interest in his own theory analyzed a couple of samples of his and other different people’s methods for how well they matched a historical unknown method, with no attempt at or mention of blinding the test. So he looks at his own and goes ‘obviously this is the closest approximation.’ If lay people think real science works like this they are being misled.

Belz... 17th March 2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13020015)
Faith is having trust or confidence in something (including science)

If you want to play word games, don't be surprised when people don't give you the time of day.

Having confidence in evidence-based science and faith in unevidenced nonsense are not the same thing.

JoeMorgue 17th March 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13022773)
Having confidence in evidence-based science and faith in unevidenced nonsense are not the same thing.

Attention. Every Woo slinger/apologist. Read that over and over until you understand it before continue this conversation.

acbytesla 17th March 2020 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13022773)
If you want to play word games, don't be surprised when people don't give you the time of day.

Having confidence in evidence-based science and faith in unevidenced nonsense are not the same thing.

Amen! :thumbsup:

arthwollipot 18th March 2020 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithrael (Post 13022726)
Pop science maybe. Lots of science-ish stuff on tv. Just watched some discovery channel tripe where a guy with a vested interest in his own theory analyzed a couple of samples of his and other different people’s methods for how well they matched a historical unknown method, with no attempt at or mention of blinding the test. So he looks at his own and goes ‘obviously this is the closest approximation.’ If lay people think real science works like this they are being misled.

Exactly. There's a lot of this kind of thing about. Much of psychology, for example, is based on one small study on white male college students and hasn't been replicated. That's not reliable, though it went through the process of science.

LarryS 18th March 2020 04:32 PM

If someone were to ask me what is the age of the universe I would answer "13.77 billion years give or take" - - that's the best answer to the question - - - but I doubt that answer is even close.
If someone were to ask me how long ago was the Big Bang I would answer "13.77 billion years give or take" - - that's the best answer to the question - - - and that answer may be close, but it could be way off.
I think there's much faith in these answers.
If an answer thought to be reasonable turns out to be wrong, then that answer had a higher quotient of faith then what one thought.
BTW, I am not defining 'faith' as misplaced trust . . . but trust.

Thor 2 18th March 2020 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13024339)
If someone were to ask me what is the age of the universe I would answer "13.77 billion years give or take" - - that's the best answer to the question - - - but I doubt that answer is even close.
If someone were to ask me how long ago was the Big Bang I would answer "13.77 billion years give or take" - - that's the best answer to the question - - - and that answer may be close, but it could be way off.
I think there's much faith in these answers.
If an answer thought to be reasonable turns out to be wrong, then that answer had a higher quotient of faith then what one thought.
BTW, I am not defining 'faith' as misplaced trust . . . but trust.


What a desperate attempt to attain credibility.

The above is so silly it's hard to find something to post an answer to.

Pixel42 18th March 2020 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13024216)
Exactly. There's a lot of this kind of thing about. Much of psychology, for example, is based on one small study on white male college students and hasn't been replicated. That's not reliable, though it went through the process of science.

It's that sort of stuff, rather than the pseudoscience of paranormal investigators, that Richard Feynman talks about most in the commencement address in which he coined the term cargo cult science.

JoeMorgue 19th March 2020 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13024216)
There's a lot of this kind of thing about. Much of psychology, for example, is based on one small study on white male college students and hasn't been replicated.

Or, like the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, ground zero for the "Human are Bastards" mentality that pretty much literally never happened even once.

Gord_in_Toronto 20th March 2020 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13024353)
What a desperate attempt to attain credibility.

The above is so silly it's hard to find something to post an answer to.

I thought of trying to reply but, given the obvious lack of understanding of science as a process, what's the use? Science is like doing a jigsaw puzzle -- you put the pieces together until a picture emerges. Sometimes a piece doesn't fit so you replace it. Simple really. :cool:

Belz... 20th March 2020 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13024339)
I think there's much faith in these answers.

That's because you don't know what you're talking about.

LarryS 20th March 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13026272)
That's because you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course there is faith in these numbers (ie age of universe) and if you thought it through and were willing to be skeptical re 'science', and see the numerous assumptions taken for granted, you could see it.

Belz... 20th March 2020 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13026324)
Of course there is faith in these numbers (ie age of universe)

Only because you insist on playing word games.

Faith and confidence are two different things. Stop trying to equivocate. No one here will fall for it.

JoeMorgue 20th March 2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13020999)
That is one definition of faith. But it's not the way most believers use it. Faith is the excuse people use for belief without evidence. Because if they posessed evidence, they would cite the evidence. .

That last line is especially important.

If tomorrow the news breaks that some definitive evidence of a religious event or belief was found; say they found a literal giant wooden ship wedged with the side of mountain with two corpses of every animal in it not one person who currently "believes" in the Noahian Deluge Mythology would be all "This changes nothing, I already believed."

This is yet another reason why "Faith is all I need" is absolute, across the board nonsense because it's provably wrong.

It's why apologetics is a thing. People have to pretend, to craft the most outlandish fantasies possible, to live in a world where their beliefs make logical sense which is the antithesis to "belief."

arthwollipot 22nd March 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13026324)
Of course there is faith in these numbers (ie age of universe) and if you thought it through and were willing to be skeptical re 'science', and see the numerous assumptions taken for granted, you could see it.

There is no faith in these numbers. You don't have to have faith in something that has been demonstrated by science. You don't have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You know it will, because the physical systems that produce the illusion of the sun rising above the horizon are well-known, very thoroughly tested, and would require extraordinary circumstances to suddenly change in such a way that the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. That requires no faith at all. As Belz says, we have confidence in our knowledge of the age of the universe, because those numbers have been derived in a very reliable way.

Thor 2 22nd March 2020 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13029008)
There is no faith in these numbers. You don't have to have faith in something that has been demonstrated by science. You don't have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You know it will, because the physical systems that produce the illusion of the sun rising above the horizon are well-known, very thoroughly tested, and would require extraordinary circumstances to suddenly change in such a way that the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. That requires no faith at all. As Belz says, we have confidence in our knowledge of the age of the universe, because those numbers have been derived in a very reliable way.


Indeed, and if someone comes up with more information suggesting a different universe age, then the scientifically minded will look at the information and form an opinion, perhaps at variance with that held before.

This is in stark contrast with the approach of the theist, clutching his sacred text, who will resist any contradiction to that written therein.

Faith? ......... BS!

gigmaster 25th March 2020 03:41 AM

In my opinion, usually around the time of its inception...:)

Thor 2 26th March 2020 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigmaster (Post 13031960)
In my opinion, usually around the time of its inception...:)


:confused:

Oh, you mean religion becomes silly at the time of its inception ...... got it. :)

arthwollipot 26th March 2020 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13033160)
:confused:

Oh, you mean religion becomes silly at the time of its inception ...... got it. :)

A sentiment first articulated in this thread by ynot in post #28

Nakani 30th March 2020 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13026343)
That last line is especially important.

If tomorrow the news breaks that some definitive evidence of a religious event or belief was found; say they found a literal giant wooden ship wedged with the side of mountain with two corpses of every animal in it not one person who currently "believes" in the Noahian Deluge Mythology would be all "This changes nothing, I already believed..snip."

Two corpses of every animal on board, would change quite a lot actually.

LarryS 30th March 2020 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13029008)
There is no faith in these numbers. You don't have to have faith in something that has been demonstrated by science. You don't have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You know it will, because the physical systems that produce the illusion of the sun rising above the horizon are well-known, very thoroughly tested, and would require extraordinary circumstances to suddenly change in such a way that the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. That requires no faith at all. As Belz says, we have confidence in our knowledge of the age of the universe, because those numbers have been derived in a very reliable way.

the sun does not come up in the morning . . . I know you know this but I raise it to indicate that we have been (culturally and by habit) programmed to see the world a certain way, and we make assumptions and believe models as if they are real. We are all susecptible.

RedStapler 30th March 2020 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13038512)
that we have been (culturally and by habit) programmed to see the world a certain way, and we make assumptions and believe models as if they are real. We are all susecptible.

Yes, some of us were programmed to believe in (and publicly defend) some form of invisible sky daddy without ever having a single piece of evidence.

Don't you find that disappointing?

arthwollipot 30th March 2020 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13038512)
the sun does not come up in the morning . . . I know you know this but I raise it to indicate that we have been (culturally and by habit) programmed to see the world a certain way, and we make assumptions and believe models as if they are real. We are all susecptible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13029008)
There is no faith in these numbers. You don't have to have faith in something that has been demonstrated by science. You don't have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You know it will, because the physical systems that produce the illusion of the sun rising above the horizon are well-known, very thoroughly tested, and would require extraordinary circumstances to suddenly change in such a way that the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. That requires no faith at all. As Belz says, we have confidence in our knowledge of the age of the universe, because those numbers have been derived in a very reliable way.

Saying that the sun "comes up" is a convenient verbal shortcut and common in the modern idiom. I could just as well criticise your use of the word "programmed" because human brains are not computers.

LarryS 31st March 2020 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13038872)
Saying that the sun "comes up" is a convenient verbal shortcut and common in the modern idiom. I could just as well criticise your use of the word "programmed" because human brains are not computers.

Now we are getting somewhere . . . When does science become just silly?
Because there are scientists and many on this forum who claim to love and be scientists, who do claim the brain is a computer(1).
Also, there are scientists who claim the brain is sufficient to explain and produce consciousness(2). I am not questioning the correctness of this claim, but that the production of consciousness has never been observed,(consciousness has never been observed), nor is there any idea how the brain could produce consciousness.
The above 2 claims are scientists just being silly.

arthwollipot 31st March 2020 07:29 PM

Sounds to me like you are questioning the correctness of that claim.

abaddon 31st March 2020 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040103)
Now we are getting somewhere . . . When does science become just silly?
Because there are scientists and many on this forum who claim to love and be scientists, who do claim the brain is a computer(1).
Also, there are scientists who claim the brain is sufficient to explain and produce consciousness(2). I am not questioning the correctness of this claim, but that the production of consciousness has never been observed,(consciousness has never been observed), nor is there any idea how the brain could produce consciousness.
The above 2 claims are scientists just being silly.

As for 1. The brain is analogous to a computer. ANALOGUOS.

As for 2. The production of consciousness is observed all the time.When the brain stops, consciousness stops. Got any examples of post mortem consciousness survival? Of course you don't.

acbytesla 31st March 2020 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040103)
Now we are getting somewhere . . . When does science become just silly?
Because there are scientists and many on this forum who claim to love and be scientists, who do claim the brain is a computer(1).
Also, there are scientists who claim the brain is sufficient to explain and produce consciousness(2). I am not questioning the correctness of this claim, but that the production of consciousness has never been observed,(consciousness has never been observed), nor is there any idea how the brain could produce consciousness.
The above 2 claims are scientists just being silly.

I've read some stupid posts in this forum. This one is right up there. When does science become just silly? Seriously?

There's a difference between people saying things that may or may not be silly and science. Even if those people are scientists or claim to be. Science is a methodology to obtain knowledge

What this post actually demonstrates is desperation. I can't defend religion so lets attack the one thing that has advanced the quality of our lives more than any other.

arthwollipot 31st March 2020 08:01 PM

This bears repeating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Novella
What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?


acbytesla 31st March 2020 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13040322)
This bears repeating.

Yes it does.

Nothing...absolutely nothing annoys me more than when morons attack science. It demonstrates ignorance and stupidity.

Thor 2 31st March 2020 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040103)
Now we are getting somewhere . . . When does science become just silly?
Because there are scientists and many on this forum who claim to love and be scientists, who do claim the brain is a computer(1).
Also, there are scientists who claim the brain is sufficient to explain and produce consciousness(2). I am not questioning the correctness of this claim, but that the production of consciousness has never been observed,(consciousness has never been observed), nor is there any idea how the brain could produce consciousness.
The above 2 claims are scientists just being silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13040318)
I've read some stupid posts in this forum. This one is right up there. When does science become just silly? Seriously?

You're telling me! I can hardly believe someone could put something like this together. :shocked:

The thrust of the "argument" I suppose, is that some who claim to be scientists can have silly ideas so science, or the scientific method, must be silly as well.

LarryS 1st April 2020 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 13040413)
You're telling me! I can hardly believe someone could put something like this together. :shocked:

The thrust of the "argument" I suppose, is that some who claim to be scientists can have silly ideas so science, or the scientific method, must be silly as well.

This is my point, science, both as a methodology and in practice has become the new religion . . . infallable and beyond reproach, and anyone who questions science is sub-human and a moron. Yes, the High Priests of Science have spoken.
Having said the above - I take advantage of all the benefits of science / technology, and,yes, I view the science of climate change and theory of evolution as facts . . . However, sciece as a methodology and practice can over extend it's boundaries and become silly - science is not the new sacred.
--
And no, no one has ever observed consciousness being produced in the brain. Specific conscious events have been correlated with specific brain states.

JoeMorgue 1st April 2020 08:19 AM

That's some high quality nonsense.

acbytesla 1st April 2020 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040835)
This is my point, science, both as a methodology and in practice has become the new religion . . . infallable and beyond reproach, and anyone who questions science is sub-human and a moron. Yes, the High Priests of Science have spoken.
Having said the above - I take advantage of all the benefits of science / technology, and,yes, I view the science of climate change and theory of evolution as facts . . . However, sciece as a methodology and practice can over extend it's boundaries and become silly - science is not the new sacred.
--
And no, no one has ever observed consciousness being produced in the brain. Specific conscious events have been correlated with specific brain states.

This again demonstrates desperation. Science is not a religion. It isn't about absolute truth. It's a methodological approach to discover the best explanations to fit the available data. Can you think of a better approach to understanding than the scientific method?

Here's a few facts for you. Religion produces nothing but crap. And the scientific method has provided you with pretty much everything. Without it, you'd be walking to work, crapping in a hole in the ground and probably not living past 40. But hey, science is bad.:rolleyes:

Science is not infallible. But unlike religion, science is self correcting. Newton wasn't a priest who pronounced the laws of the universe from on high. LaPlace corrected Newton and Einstein corrected them both. And Bohr corrected Einstein and so on. You absolutely can question their results as well. Physicists are constantly challenging the established explanations. So challenge away.

But yes people in the modern age enjoying all the amazing benefits that science has provided attacking science makes them morons.

Thor 2 1st April 2020 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040835)
This is my point, science, both as a methodology and in practice has become the new religion . . . infallable and beyond reproach, and anyone who questions science is sub-human and a moron. Yes, the High Priests of Science have spoken.
Having said the above - I take advantage of all the benefits of science / technology, and,yes, I view the science of climate change and theory of evolution as facts . . . However, sciece as a methodology and practice can over extend it's boundaries and become silly - science is not the new sacred.
--
And no, no one has ever observed consciousness being produced in the brain. Specific conscious events have been correlated with specific brain states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13040843)
That's some high quality nonsense.


Hear, hear to that Joe.

Science a religion?

At least it's a switch from the old line that atheism is a religion. This stupid assertion was dealt with most effectively by Bill Mayer some years ago in the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6zG...eature=related

Atheism is a religion in the same way that abstinence is a sex position! :D

arthwollipot 1st April 2020 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS (Post 13040835)
This is my point, science, both as a methodology and in practice has become the new religion . . . infallable and beyond reproach, and anyone who questions science is sub-human and a moron. Yes, the High Priests of Science have spoken.
Having said the above - I take advantage of all the benefits of science / technology, and,yes, I view the science of climate change and theory of evolution as facts . . . However, sciece as a methodology and practice can over extend it's boundaries and become silly - science is not the new sacred.
--
And no, no one has ever observed consciousness being produced in the brain. Specific conscious events have been correlated with specific brain states.

This bears repeating... again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13040322)
This bears repeating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Novella
What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?


Science is a method, not a religion. There are no high priests. It is not sacred. Science is a tremendously successful method of determining what is real, and what is not.

Furthermore, you're focusing too heavily on an irrelevant idea - that no-one has observed consciousness being produced in the brain. For a start, it's factually wrong. We've been imaging brain processes in steadily increasing detail for decades. Second, one of the things that we have found is that consciousness is not one phenomenon. Consciousness is simply the result of a brain doing its thing. All brains that are complex enough to justify the name result in some form of consciousness, from the rudimentary consciousness of simpler organisms to the complex consciousness that we as humans have with our own multilobed, compartmentalised brains. There is no single central location within the brain where consciousness is "produced", and so it's not an event that we would expect to observe directly. Consciousness emerges as a result of the complex interactions of many distinct brain regions.

Seems to me, LarryS, that your understanding of brains and consciousness is at least forty years out of date. Next thing, you'll probably be saying "oh, we know almost nothing about how brains work". We know tons about how brains work.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.