Board 8 > Hey guys, I'm a New Atheist and I've just disproved God.

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Modern science dates back to Bacon (who's an absolute genius, by the way"


No he isn't, he didn't even add Mario/Sonic to the database

If you were willing to stretch the definition of "useful" enough, then you could argue that since any idea, belief, or truth can inspire someone to action, anything could be considered useful

No. That's not my definition of useful.

My definition of "useful" would be any map which allows me to navigate its corresponding territory. My definition of "truthful" would be any map which corresponds to the territory, with truthfulness increasing with the accuracy and degree of specificity that the map can reach. Sufficiently accurate maps allow you to predict things in advance, for example, the precise nature of solid state physics allows us to create non-vacuum tube diodes. You can have inaccurate map with useful portions on them, like folk theories about how thermostats work.

"Propaganda" is not a map, The map is the propaganda creator's model of what their target audience's mind is like and that damn well better be accurate.

A map is what people think. A territory is what "kicks back".

I'm not taking back those comments because I believe that science's usefulness is an indicative value of its accuracy. You don't navigate the world with a religious map which says that the world is 2000 years old, because that connects to the part of the territory which says "this is billions of years of evolution running at you and wanting your blood" or "this is a rock which has a half life of 5k years".

And the overwhelming majority of people in modern Western civilization have become intoxicated by its aroma of potential power and pleasure.

I don't understand how this relates to it being a religion. Can you be more specific about what you mean by people "believing" in science, or for that manner any other religion?

Now, I'm not particularly interested in comparing the "memetic influence" of religion against science, on the one hand because it's pointless and subjective,

...What? We can trace the neural pathways that are commonly associated with religion and we could find the genetic basis for believing in religion too. It's not "subjective" in the sense that there's no metric by which to evaluate it.

And I certainly don't believe it's pointless. Religion's ability to spread itself could have massive implications in neuroscience and power dynamics. Any system of beliefs which could hack a human's ability to think carefully about certain subjects is a terrifying system of beliefs. This is our brains we're talking about, a single advantage so great that we have become Nature's singleton. This isn't even mentioning the potential hijacking a brain like religion does could have on... well everything. Can you imagine someone devoted to McD's as much as Christianity? Someone willing to terrorize for Apple as willing as extremists are?

All that's worth mentioning is that science has been successful at memetically implanting itself into the social conscious.

...Isn't this changing your stance? You claimed that we are But yes, your original point about me is true. We live in a highly religious age, and modern science is the new religion. and that you seemed to have moved away from the "much of written history" portion too.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Otherwise, you'll have to be more specific.

If we track the activity of the brain in some way, now or in the future we will find similarities in brain patterns between someone who "believes in science" and "believes in religion"

Even if you could calculate the entire universe according to the "laws of science," and "miracles" (i.e. exceptions) still occurred, then that wouldn't prove a God;

...Why wouldn't it prove a god, if it's a universe where god existed? Why couldn't there be a function or a space for a god? Note that I'm talking about a god.

And I see that Nietzsche made the map/territory distinction gj.

Hint: Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who doesn't contradict himself here, because he recognizes the limits of the human mind at understanding reality. Something you fail to appreciate.

Nietzsche didn't know about Turing machines, tegmarkian universes and Godel's incompleteness theorem. So he already doesn't know what a human mind, a reality or logic is! I sincerely doubt he can teach me more about the limits of the human mind than hours of reading neurosci journals.

No system can be proven more or less "likely" to be true by the fruits it reaps, any more than you can say "Planting this tree here is the correct place to plant it, because it's grown apples for us to harvest." What if you didn't want apples? What would compel you to in the first place?

Fine then, we'll just ignore all this talk about "likely" and just look to the systems which reaps apples.

Or the systems which tell us how we want things.

Or the systems capable of telling us what our wanting things means.

Because that is how we act. Our brains may be very good at deceiving us into believing certain untrue things but it certainly won't let us act in a manner disadvantageous to its survival (usually) so it RATIONALIZES.

As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.

I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence.

Excuse me, I was unclear about what I meant about truth:

A map that corresponds well enough to the territory.

And that quote is an example of a map which doesn't correspond to the territory, and in fact was a very poor map.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

wow stupid.

--
Save My Random Character (Day 98) http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/60659063

I sincerely doubt he can teach me more about the limits of the human mind than hours of reading neurosci journals.

What's there to learn from neurosci journals? The human brain is a finite calculator. That is conclusive right there.

Can you imagine someone devoted to McD's as much as Christianity?

No.

Someone willing to terrorize for Apple as willing as extremists are?

Yes.

...Why wouldn't it prove a god, if it's a universe where god existed? Why couldn't there be a function or a space for a god? Note that I'm talking about a god.

In any system where our natural laws describe only probabilities, it's obvious- you can never ever reach certainty. In a deterministic universe, we might be able to, but before we did that, we'd probably revise the theory, no? After all, what proof have we that the theory was correct in the first place? If you find data that contradicts your scientific theory, the normal response is to revise said theory. It doesn't seem possible to have a proven scientific theory with data that directly contradicts it.

--
90s games > 00s games

You think people aren't already as devoted to McDonalds as they are to christianity? This whole nation is filled with fat, greasy idiots. Now I'm not trying to pretend I'm the smartest person in the topic, just the most condescending.

Idiots.

--
http://www.wellhappypeaceful.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nuclear_disaster.jpg

this topic

--
http://img.imgcake.com/mosdefswaggifes.gif

No. That's not my definition of useful.

My definition of "useful" would be any map which allows me to navigate its corresponding territory. My definition of "truthful" would be any map which corresponds to the territory, with truthfulness increasing with the accuracy and degree of specificity that the map can reach. Sufficiently accurate maps allow you to predict things in advance, for example, the precise nature of solid state physics allows us to create non-vacuum tube diodes. You can have inaccurate map with useful portions on them, like folk theories about how thermostats work.

Thanks for the clarification. Let's deconstruct this definition a bit:

a) You didn't specify which "territories" are permitted and which are not, so presumably, everything could potentially have its own roadmap.
b) In any given territory, "truth" is equated with "accuracy and degree of specificity."
c) The quality of a map is determined by how well it can predict things ahead of time.

This is all fine and well, but it falls into the limitations I mapped out earlier: it only values empirical "truth" (the definition you provided being rather unconventional) at the exclusion of other possible interpretations. What makes a scientific account of the world more "true" than, say the poetic account? The religious account?

The short of the long here is that you need to provide a reason why predictability and truth are synonymous.

I don't understand how this relates to it being a religion. Can you be more specific about what you mean by people "believing" in science, or for that manner any other religion?

Sure thing. With religion, people adopt a conception of the world without a rational basis and follow it dogmatically. With modern science (i.e. scientism, not science understood as free thinking), people adopt a conception of the world without a rational basis and follow it dogmatically. There are different shades, certainly: while religious folk make everything purposeful and focus on improving the next life, modern science makes everything quantifiable and focuses on improving this life.

And I certainly don't believe it's pointless. Religion's ability to spread itself could have massive implications in neuroscience and power dynamics. Any system of beliefs which could hack a human's ability to think carefully about certain subjects is a terrifying system of beliefs.

This could be true of plenty of belief systems, not just religion. American democracy. National socialism. Communism. Scientism. While I agree that there's plenty more work to be done in the field of neuroscience, let's not pretend that religion is the only thing that needs inspection. It's not about religion specifically, but belief systems in general.

This is our brains we're talking about, a single advantage so great that we have become Nature's singleton.

So naive.

This isn't even mentioning the potential hijacking a brain like religion does could have on... well everything. Can you imagine someone devoted to McD's as much as Christianity? Someone willing to terrorize for Apple as willing as extremists are?

Religion is a powerful motivator, certainly; I'd argue that there are more powerful ones still. McDonalds, not so much. National socialism? Now we're getting somewhere.


Gotta head out; will respond to the rest later.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

If we track the activity of the brain in some way, now or in the future we will find similarities in brain patterns between someone who "believes in science" and "believes in religion"

...Okay? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. We're talking about the relations of ideas rationally, not how the brain happens to comprehend them.

...Why wouldn't it prove a god, if it's a universe where god existed? Why couldn't there be a function or a space for a god? Note that I'm talking about a god.

Because every single erudite religious person will tell you that God transcends empirical existence.

Nietzsche didn't know about Turing machines, tegmarkian universes and Godel's incompleteness theorem. So he already doesn't know what a human mind, a reality or logic is! I sincerely doubt he can teach me more about the limits of the human mind than hours of reading neurosci journals.

This isn't an argument, newbie; it's an arrogant appeal to ignorance. Either you're going to take this seriously, or you should opt out while you're ahead (relatively speaking). I mean hell, I'm giving you the Nietzsche to read; it's not like you have to go out of your way!

Fine then, we'll just ignore all this talk about "likely" and just look to the systems which reaps apples.

Again, going back to my earlier point: you have to establish why "truth" and "predictability" (or in this case, reformulated, "productivity") are synonymous. Give me a rational account.

Because that is how we act. Our brains may be very good at deceiving us into believing certain untrue things but it certainly won't let us act in a manner disadvantageous to its survival (usually) so it RATIONALIZES.

Yes, it does rationalize- often in the way of falsehoods. Which is why I'm not leaning upon the hardwiring of the primal brain as the crux of my argument.

As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.

I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence.

Not too complicated, but I'll try again. Our brain has been hardwired for survival, not truth; accordingly, because not all truth is conductive to survival, our hardwiring contains a mix of truths and falsities.

You remember that big, italicized post a while back? Re-read it if you want to understand what I mean.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

haven't read the topic

which god are we talking about?

--
Connecticut Huskies

from skimming over this and other past topics, Jaffar and newbie have some of the weirder arguments about the nature of the universe. most times it seems like they don't really speak the same language!

I thought this topic wouldn't go over 10 posts. B8 took the bait huh?

--
caps

RELIGION

lol @ people not reading the topic and making judgments

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

BoshStrikesBack is Jaffar? For a while I just assumed it was MWC or someone like that.

--
Connecticut Huskies

From: BoshStrikesBack | #064
lol @ people not reading the topic and making judgments

lol @ thinking people would take another religion topic seriously

--
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/nat_har/GIFS/SNL%20and%20The%20Lonely%20Island%20GIFS/boombox2.gif

Not seriously; just having fun with it! Debating doesn't always have to be confrontational.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

From: DeathChicken | #008
Shall the clay ask of the potter, what maketh thee?

If clay had a mind, it should totally question its potter's history.

From: ExThaNemesis | #006
okokok now I'll do the super smart religious answer


BUT GOD OPERATES OUTSIDE OF REALITY.

He always existed!

It wouldn't be called "God Mode" if it followed the rules.

--
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE] Ace Detective in Sir Charles's Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkOj5DAJu2A

From: Rad Link 5 | #068
followed the rules.

with this model we can determine that Seto Kaiba is god.

'screw the rules' and all that.

I'm pretty okay with this. AND GOD SENT FORTH HIS BLUE EYES ULTIMATE DRAGON TO ENACT VENGEANCE

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

Clearly God was created by Nanomachines.

--
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt37rzo2Jk1r4d7qpo11_r2_400.gif

most times it seems like they don't really speak the same language!

Not really no. Jaffar believes in a diseased discipline, I believe in a method so successful that people like jaffar and redsox would literally prefer to give up everything that the method touches just to make up their own imaginary paradise where it doesn't apply.

a) You didn't specify which "territories" are permitted and which are not, so presumably, everything could potentially have its own roadmap.

Sure. x3

The short of the long here is that you need to provide a reason why predictability and truth are synonymous.

To be less wrong in my definition, truth is actually synonymous with explanation. Humans are especially good at self-deception so that their explanations post hoc, so a particularly good way of preventing it is to ask for an explanation beforehand, that's what predictions are: honest attempts at checking the map against the territory.

Of course, predictions in this sense aren't just limited to what you could "bet" on. For example, a good enough knowledge of aerodynamics, materials science and electrons allows someone to "predict" what shapes, designs and compositions would result in a flyable airplane.

What makes a scientific account of the world more "true" than, say the poetic account? The religious account?

I don't even know what accounts those are. What is a poetic account? A religious account?

...Okay? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. We're talking about the relations of ideas rationally, not how the brain happens to comprehend them.

...What? You claimed that science was a It's a very good example of a high effective and contagious meme and then you're not going to look at what the meme does to the brain? What does it even mean to "talk about the relations of ideas"? Because I have no idea. what you are referring to.

While I agree that there's plenty more work to be done in the field of neuroscience, let's not pretend that religion is the only thing that needs inspection. It's not about religion specifically, but belief systems in general.

Religion is exceptional in its contagiousness and has an entire set of reasons for why it would be evolutionarily advantageous, and although evangelical religions have had comparatively short lifetimes (~2000 years) there still should be some evidence selective pressures acting to promote them. I suspect that you should find some increase in religious genes where religion has been operating for a long time.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Religion is a powerful motivator, certainly; I'd argue that there are more powerful ones still. McDonalds, not so much. National socialism? Now we're getting somewhere.

The Nazis lasted less than 50 years as a highly influential organization, was incapable of surviving a single war and now pretty much exists as a purely fringe movement.

The Catholic and orthodox churches have lasted something on the order of ten times longer and have managed to survive massive scandals, people in dominant political positions maneuvering actively against them, countless wars and continue to hold sway over a significant number of people in the modern world, be it through indirect or direct means.

Can you explain how National Socialism is a stronger meme again?

Because every single erudite religious person will tell you that God transcends empirical existence.

Then I presume every single one of those erudite religious people will also tell me that there is no need to have any empirical reminders of God's existence, such as holy books, priests, institutions, other believers, am I correct? Why do we need erudite religious people to tell me, via photons or the vibrations of air that I empirically verify with my own eyes and ears, that God exists and that he has this property called "transcends empirical existence"...?

Actually, can you even tell me what it means to transcend empirical existence, without using any synonyms?

This isn't an argument, newbie; it's an arrogant appeal to ignorance.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html I'm not sure how this relates. And also, I don't know what you mean by "limits of the human mind" when you don't want to look at the human mind.

Our brain has been hardwired for survival, not truth; accordingly, because not all truth is conductive to survival, our hardwiring contains a mix of truths and falsities.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything about truth itself, which is the ability for any sentient mind to draw maps. Nietzsche most likely didn't guess at the existence of computers, or about how minds are not confined to mere carbon hardware merely because it is all we have seen. At the very most, it proves that CERTAIN minds similar to ours would not be optimized for truth. And it doesn't exclude us from being able to think about the truth either.

Yes, it does rationalize- often in the way of falsehoods. Which is why I'm not leaning upon the hardwiring of the primal brain as the crux of my argument.

I don't even know what this is in reply to.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Not really no. Jaffar believes in a diseased discipline, I believe in a method so successful that people like jaffar and redsox would literally prefer to give up everything that the method touches just to make up their own imaginary paradise where it doesn't apply.

Will respond to the rest tomorrow, but I find this very entertaining. For someone who pretends to care so much about being "rational," you sure do throw away all convictions of reason at the very thought of productivity.

Here's a fun mental experiment for you to toy with in the meantime. Suppose that the nature of our universe, properly understood, demanded a choice between truth and scientific advancement (i.e. material wealth, power, greater control over nature; all the principles Bacon originally laid out). Which side would you fall on, and what does that say about you?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

well I have no idea what difference there would be? You'll have to be more specific

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

well I have no idea what difference there would be? You'll have to be more specific

What if the truth of the universe precluded modern-scientific methodology? In other words, what if the scientific conception of the world was wrong? What if everything couldn't really be quantifiable, what if there was an objective morality preventing the inquiry into certain things, what if there was a correct way to live that involved abject poverty and self-contentment? Would you embrace this true way of living, or reject it in favor of personal power and scientific mastery over nature?

Again, hypothetical.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

What if the truth of the universe precluded modern-scientific methodology? In other words, what if the scientific conception of the world was wrong? What if everything couldn't really be quantifiable, what if there was an objective morality preventing the inquiry into certain things, what if there was a correct way to live that involved abject poverty and self-contentment? Would you embrace this true way of living, or reject it in favor of personal power and scientific mastery over nature?

I still don't understand what this is saying: The scientific conception of the universe has always been wrong and always will be wrong, because you cannot have errors arbitrarily close to zero. I'm not even sure that saying that "everything couldn't really be quantifiable" is even possible, simply because math is such a versatile and active modeling tool that I find it difficult to believe that that's even possible. Same with objective morality.

Also, where the HELL does personal power enter into this? Since when have I ever claimed anything involving that? Why the hell is that "against science" when it's so goddamn clear that even poor people simile? That's so irrelevant and dumb I feel violated.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

In my opinion God is the entity that created the big bang.
God has no specific form he just takes any form he pleases and the bibles stories are a bunch of metaphors. Like Adam and Eve, it's a lot like cellular division, God creates Adam and from Adam creates Eve, like a cell would split.
You could probably punch a bunch of holes in my theories though, but whatever, the bible is basically a bunch of moral rules to help keep the population from killing itself.

--
Run, run, run, or you'll be well done!
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

From: Shadowwolf1015 | #077
the bible is basically a bunch of moral rules to help keep the population from killing itself

How did we make it as far as we did if the Bible is preventing us from killing ourselves off? It's only several thousand years old.

Do populations without the Bible die off? That... seems to be contradicted by direct evidence all around you.

--
Connecticut Huskies

Nothing, since God was always there. It's similar to how matter always existed and was never created.

--
Thanks for reinforcing your stupidity, jerks.
Einstein > You

a) You didn't specify which "territories" are permitted and which are not, so presumably, everything could potentially have its own roadmap.

Sure. x3

So is this agreement? Sarcasm? Clarify.

To be less wrong in my definition, truth is actually synonymous with explanation. Humans are especially good at self-deception so that their explanations post hoc, so a particularly good way of preventing it is to ask for an explanation beforehand, that's what predictions are: honest attempts at checking the map against the territory.

So truth and empirical science are synonymous? You're going in circles.

Of course, predictions in this sense aren't just limited to what you could "bet" on. For example, a good enough knowledge of aerodynamics, materials science and electrons allows someone to "predict" what shapes, designs and compositions would result in a flyable airplane.

Yeah, this is empiricism. It's useful. It helps us build planes and make relevant predictions. Is that it? Is that as far as you're willing to go?

I don't even know what accounts those are. What is a poetic account? A religious account?

Let's take a plant as an example. For a religious person, this plant plays a small but essential role in the divine structure of the universe, as ordained by a higher power. For a poetic person, this plant might be symbolic of the bittersweet fleeting beauty of life, one that should give us pause as to our own existence. For a scientific person, this plant is a crude combination of matter and energy organized in a particular fashion.

Which is better? Which is true?

Religion is exceptional in its contagiousness and has an entire set of reasons for why it would be evolutionarily advantageous, and although evangelical religions have had comparatively short lifetimes (~2000 years) there still should be some evidence selective pressures acting to promote them. I suspect that you should find some increase in religious genes where religion has been operating for a long time.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Did you not read that aphorism I posted? Blind faith in mental faculties like deduction and induction is a much more contagious disease. At any rate, this isn't all that relevant, so let's move on.

The Nazis lasted less than 50 years as a highly influential organization, was incapable of surviving a single war and now pretty much exists as a purely fringe movement.

True, but the ideas behind national socialism remain. Again, I'm not seeing your point: what's the relation between memetic effectiveness and the truth of something?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

Then I presume every single one of those erudite religious people will also tell me that there is no need to have any empirical reminders of God's existence, such as holy books, priests, institutions, other believers, am I correct?

They would probably argue that these "empirical reminders," while a way for us to come closer to and celebrate God, only have meaning in the light of a higher faculty, i.e. nous or religious understanding. Strictly empirically? No need.

Why do we need erudite religious people to tell me, via photons or the vibrations of air that I empirically verify with my own eyes and ears, that God exists and that he has this property called "transcends empirical existence"...?

They don't "need" to tell you anything. Again, you're suggesting that "empirical verification" is all you need to understand the world as it is. If this is your position, then come out and say it: modern science alone is the pathway to truth, and anything else is rubbish because it does not conform to this conception of the world.

Actually, can you even tell me what it means to transcend empirical existence, without using any synonyms?

Sure. There's empirical existence- the slice of the natural world the human mind has access to, or could ever have access to- and then there's something beyond this. For the religious folk among us, this "beyond" is constituted by a divine authority. If you want to reject this, as I do, then be consistent: human beings only have access to a very thin slice of existence.

And also, I don't know what you mean by "limits of the human mind" when you don't want to look at the human mind.

I'll ask again: do you or don't you believe that the human mind has access to the truth of existence in its entirety? This question has nothing to do with how the brain is wired.

Yes, but that doesn't prove anything about truth itself, which is the ability for any sentient mind to draw maps. Nietzsche most likely didn't guess at the existence of computers, or about how minds are not confined to mere carbon hardware merely because it is all we have seen. At the very most, it proves that CERTAIN minds similar to ours would not be optimized for truth. And it doesn't exclude us from being able to think about the truth either.

This is why I was calling you out earlier: despite all of your talk of empirical truth and the rejection of a religious basis for rationality, you continue to persist in your belief in "truth," which is something you have not sufficiently defined.

Interestingly, "the ability for any sentient mind to draw maps" sounds a lot like Nietzsche's perspectivism: everything is a value judgment, seen from but one perspective among many. The difference is that science is just one of these judgments, yet you reject all others.

I don't even know what this is in reply to.

It's in reply to your faith that human hardwiring is geared only towards truth, when- as byproducts of a survival-driven process- falsity plays an equal, if not greater, role.

Here's a specific example: suppose the world is, as Nietzsche conceived, a chaotic flux without order or reason. A creature who could see the world in this way would hardly be fit for survival, as he could not identify patterns or distinguish classes, something that, while arbitrary, has appeared to have played a tremendous role in the development of mankind.


Fun fun fun!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

So is this agreement? Sarcasm? Clarify.

I agree although I see potential disagreement in what we define as "everything".

So truth and empirical science are synonymous? You're going in circles.

No it's not. Empirical science can be wrong and in fact can contradict itself. Note that when Darwin published his Origin of Species, the most modern, precise and accurate accounts of thermodynamics, which has been experimentally confirmed instead of post hoc fitted to observations like Darwin did said that one of Darwin's assumptions was false: That is, the timescales needed for Evolution to take place could not exist, because there was no known source of fuel that could keep the Earth's core liquid for that period of time. The final arbiter is whether or not the model actually conforms to reality. In thermodynamics's case, it conformed perfectly to reality but could not predict the existence of the weak nuclear force. In evolution's case... I half want to say it's just because Darwin is one of the most amazing Scientists ever and it's a goddamn pity more physicists or chemists appreciate just how ahead of the time he was.

For a religious person, this plant plays a small but essential role in the divine structure of the universe, as ordained by a higher power. For a poetic person, this plant might be symbolic of the bittersweet fleeting beauty of life, one that should give us pause as to our own existence. For a scientific person, this plant is a crude combination of matter and energy organized in a particular fashion. Which is better? Which is true?

..."Crude combination"...? What.

The religious person is wrong or confused flat out. His map don't actually correspond to any aspect of the territory. Sure he's using words that roughly fit grammatical structure, but what aspect of reality does his map actually correspond to? How can he check whether it actually IS, even in theory?

Your example of the poetic account is confused. Because the poet's thoughts are not actually ABOUT the plant, but ABOUT the relationship between the plant and the person. It wouldn't matter if the plant was really immortal, or deathly poisonous or repulsive to every person other than the poet UNTIL the poet or the poet's audience is aware of those facts. You can't have a bittersweet account of life when you don't have minds which can comprehend what "bittersweet" and "life" mean.

The scientist's model is correct insofar as he accurately reports what he sees and what what plant actually is. In other words, it's only true if his map is precise and accurate. Describing a plant as a "crude combination of matter and energy" is not how a scientist would think or talk about a plant, because it offers no information. He would talk about specific aspects of the plant or things that would lead up tyh

It's in reply to your faith that human hardwiring is geared only towards truth, when- as byproducts of a survival-driven process- falsity plays an equal, if not greater, role. Where did I say that human hardwiring is geared toward truth?

I don't believe it and I don't think you can honestly say that I believe it in it considering what I know of the heuristics and biases programs. The closest that I can recall is saying that intelligent agents do not have to be wired for survivability and that merely because our brains are wired for survivability does not mean it excludes the ability to seek truth.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Blind faith in mental faculties like deduction and induction is a much more contagious disease.

What? Are you also going to claim that thinking Fruits taste good, that our eyes give us information about the world and that someone believing that my posts exist are also "contagious memes"...? (I'm relatively certain that if someone sees my posts they will believe that my posts exist.) I don't understand what separates something from being an article of blind faith and... not being an article.

Again, I'm not seeing your point: what's the relation between memetic effectiveness and the truth of something?

I don't believe I made any claim that truth has any direct correlation between memetic effectiveness and something's truth. I invite you to tell me where I did so I can correct myself.

They would probably argue that these "empirical reminders," while a way for us to come closer to and celebrate God, only have meaning in the light of a higher faculty, i.e. nous or religious understanding. Strictly empirically? No need.

Why would those things be a way to come closer and celebrate god when ONLY a completely faithbased approach works as you claim?

It's in reply to your faith that human hardwiring is geared only towards truth, when- as byproducts of a survival-driven process- falsity plays an equal, if not greater, role.

Let's try to parse this out. What does it mean for falsity to play a role? How much of a role do you think truth plays? Do you think that falsity benefits humans when, say, a lion ran toward them or when they thought that a stone was hard?

There's empirical existence- the slice of the natural world the human mind has access to, or could ever have access to- and then there's something beyond this. For the religious folk among us, this "beyond" is constituted by a divine authority.

Wait, so how does a religious person have access to the natural world that the human mind doesn't have access to? Are you saying they don't have human minds or what? also dumb nitpick you used the word beyond again tehehehehe

If this is your position, then come out and say it: modern science alone is the pathway to truth, and anything else is rubbish because it does not conform to this conception of the world.

My position is that you cannot have any understanding of the world without having empiricism as the first step. That you only know things because information of some sort has been conveyed from the rest of the universe to your brain. I deny that modern science as a social institution is the only pathway. I affirm that the scientific method is, if not one of the best methods, a tremendously powerful one for finding truth.

Here's a specific example: suppose the world is, as Nietzsche conceived, a chaotic flux without order or reason.

How is this a specific example? I can't conceive how such a world would operate, I can't think of any way to describe this to a computer or construct a model out of it. There are words there sure, but I have no idea what they're referring to.

And your next line is highly confused, because "chaotic flux" can only exist in relation to MINDS not to UNIVERSES. The universe does not have little labels saying "this is chaotic" or "this is orderly". Those are characteristics that only exist when minds do, so I have no idea how you can talk about universes without order or reason instead of minds incapable of dealing with universes.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

hello I'm a fraud and I've just given up

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

fun fun fun only applies to when you think you're winning the argument

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

What a stupid ****ing topic.

hold that L in yo chest

hey igloo I'm curious (and this is not code for "passive aggressively offended") what you think of my and jaffar's views

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

hey igloo I'm curious (and this is not code for "passive aggressively offended") what you think of my and jaffar's views

I mostly disagree with Jaffar, though there are some parts of his argument that I have no opinion on because I'm not sure I fully grasp them. for instance

Here's a fun mental experiment for you to toy with in the meantime. Suppose that the nature of our universe, properly understood, demanded a choice between truth and scientific advancement (i.e. material wealth, power, greater control over nature; all the principles Bacon originally laid out). Which side would you fall on, and what does that say about you?

this doesn't make much sense to me. either he is making an argument beyond my comprehension or it's just kind of silly.

Is there any facet of my argument that is unclear or you would like to hear more about (lol)?

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Here's a fun mental experiment for you to toy with in the meantime. Suppose that the nature of our universe, properly understood, demanded a choice between truth and scientific advancement (i.e. material wealth, power, greater control over nature; all the principles Bacon originally laid out). Which side would you fall on, and what does that say about you?

I'd go with truth.

--
90s games > 00s games

The scientist's model is correct insofar as he accurately reports what he sees and what what plant actually is.

The scientist can only report what he observes. So his knowledge of the plant is also really a knowledge of the relationship between himself and the plant.

--
90s games > 00s games

From: red sox 777 | #093
The scientist's model is correct insofar as he accurately reports what he sees and what what plant actually is.

The scientist can only report what he observes. So his knowledge of the plant is also really a knowledge of the relationship between himself and the plant.

No. You're confusing the scientist's map with the referent of the map.

The scientist HAS a map, which of course references something we presume to be a flower. The poet has a map of the flower too, but he ALSO needs a map of his audience. The scientist attempts to match his map to the territory of the flower. A poet attempts to match his map to the flower maps his audience has, which is his territory.

An idealized scientist has a good map of the flower. An idealized poet has a good map of other people's maps of flowers.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

What is a flower to a scientist but the sum total of information it projects into the universe? A flower in a black hole may as well not exist.

--
90s games > 00s games

From: red sox 777 | #095
What is a flower to a scientist but the sum total of information it projects into the universe? A flower in a black hole may as well not exist.

can you explain to me how a flower can be anything more than its sum total of information, including the information from the flower which influences a person's evaluation of it

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Well, that's what non-scientific accounts of the world purport to explain.

--
90s games > 00s games

I've only read the first post, but a few points:

1) The "disproving" of any deity's existence isn't a part of New Atheism.
2) What is the point of this topic? Pointing out how stupid the "what created God" question is? Religious people often ridicule the big bang theory ("oh so the universe just came out of NOTHING? roflxd"), so it's not entirely unfair to counter this by saying "oh so God just came out of NOTHING? roflxd."

--
Full rap metal jacket ~ Method Man

From: red sox 777 | #097
Well, that's what non-scientific accounts of the world purport to explain.

What are those accounts and how do they explain it.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

None of those accounts could satisfy you, just as Jaffar can reasonably say that the empirical account does not satisfy him. You're really arguing in circles here- something is true if it can be shown empirically, which is why the empirical account matches truth best. Too bad, there's really no easy way out on this one- we cannot handwaive away truth by appealing to common sense, usefulness, or anything like that.

--
90s games > 00s games