Religion is Atheism

[Prince_James]

Although SamCDKey and I rarely agree on most matters, it is here that I will throw in my lot with her:

Scientists of today are woefully underprepared to deal with questions of religion or philosophy.

When they do try to, they show themselves to be undereducated and underappreciative.

On the other hand, there are scientists like Stephen Hawkings who is intimately interested in bringing philosophers back to the forefront of discussion, and to himself delve into issues of philosophy of science.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the other hand, there are scientists like Stephen Hawkings that is intimately interested in bringing philosophers back to the forefront of discussion, and to himself delve into issues of philosophy of science.

I agree with this.

 

[cato]

you have not cited a thing, and continually dodge the only thing I am arguing about, namely your blanket statements that can't possibly be known for sure. all you have to say to end this argument is say that you cannot know if the majority of scientists are as you say they are. you can still say that many are, or that most of the ones you have encountered are, and stop making blanket statements that you cannot back up.

I am not even disagreeing with your statements in the event you replace most with many.

 

[S.A.M.]

you have not cited a thing, and continually dodge the only thing I am arguing about, namely your blanket statements that can't possibly be known for sure. all you have to say to end this argument is say that you cannot know if the majority of scientists are as you say they are. you can still say that many are, or that most of the ones you have encountered are, and stop making blanket statements that you cannot back up.

How many scientists do you know who have studied philosophy?

Of all the scientists I worked with or have met (and I've met thousands) only two had.

Do you think that was a fluke?

 

[Prince_James]

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Hawkings. His willingness to seriously investigate matters, instead of touting a "party line", imply a great courage and is a credit also to his tremendous intellect.

Dawkins, on the other hand, ends up being laughable more often than not.

 

[cato]

Do you think that was a fluke?

probably not, but I cannot say for sure.

thank you. thats all I wanted. a correct statement at last! most you have met.

I agree with you, by the way. but I am not sure how much damage is really done by their lack of philosophical training.

 

[S.A.M.]

probably not, but I cannot say for sure.

thank you. thats all I wanted. a correct statement at last! most you have met.

I agree with you, by the way. but I am not sure how much damage is really done by their lack of philosophical training.

How do you measure what you don't know?

Here is a nice write up on it:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/scientific-method.html

 

[cato]

ok, moving on
Open Issues:

--should we use my definition of religion?
--what are we debating? science-(VS)-religion-(VS)-Atheism?
--different degrees of faith? necessary to live VS feels good?
--Faith in absolute truth VS faith that our model.
(please respond to my statements, not the condensed list I have shown above. click here)

edit:interesting article, I agree with much of it.

 

[nig]

Mathematics.

cannot explain consciousness, color, and a bunch of other things dude.

 

[cato]

don't be so sure nig, just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them. also, color is easily explained by math nu=C/lambda.

 

[nig]

don't be so sure nig, just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them. also, color is easily explained by math nu=C/lambda.

you don't be so sure, buddy. is color a surface property, a brain state, something in the air, certain neural transductions? what is it? fill me in. with math.

you just strike me as a cocky tart. i, frankly, dont like discussing anything with those types.

 

[nig]

religion, as i think of it, is an any ontology based on fancy ideas and latched on to for psychological, sense-making reasons. it need not have a 'god' as such. people are attracted to science for many of the same reasons people are attracted to religions. they both involve faith.

furthermore, you guys totally ignored my question about epistemological belief regression analysis. should we require a 'true belief' foundation and what would that be? should it not require a foundation and rather strive for internal coherence, or should the regression go on infinitely? this is fundamental to the 'do we know anything' question and was willfully ignored by everyone.

 

[nig]

just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them

how is this blind faith different than religious faith? you do have some type of faith when you say that do you not?

 

[one_raven]

I like the definition of religion I offered in the thread I started with the purpose of finding a definition of religion.

Religion - A codified philosophical system that asserts a belief in the existence of at least one transcendental state or plane of existence beyond that which can be materially verified, and attempts to ascertain or teach the ideology that will assist the practitioner in transcending beyond this material existence to the other state(s) or plane(s).

 

[S.A.M.]

I like the definition of religion I offered in the thread I started with the purpose of finding a definition of religion.

Sounds like yoga.

 

[one_raven]

Sounds like yoga.

Yoga is a method. One that can most certainly be used in Religious practices and often is.

 

[cato]

you don't be so sure, buddy. is color a surface property, a brain state, something in the air, certain neural transductions? what is it? fill me in. with math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Light
(see derivation) (though you probably don't know multi-variable calculus, so I don't see the point)

you just strike me as a cocky tart. i, frankly, don't like discussing anything with those types.

I am sorry you feel that way, you just make so many false statements that it is frustrating.(example below)

just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them

how is this blind faith different than religious faith? you do have some type of faith when you say that do you not?

first of all, I was only challenging your faith that math "cannot" everything. I do not know if it can or if it cannot, so I try avoid making statements that I cannot back up, I would like it if others would do the same. (see my argument with sam above)

secondly, math can explain, at least part, of everything i can think of, and would love to hear of something that cannot be partially describe in mathematical terms.

 

[nig]

cato
you seem to be weakening your stance. "I do not know if it can or if it cannot" --- if you think wikipedia can tell us why we see redness, for example, you are wrong. where does the qualitative sensation of redness come from? that's what color is correct? a qualitative sensation and not just some wavelenths with no observer? color is redness, blueness, yellowness. it involves a brain doesn't it?

raven
did you steal that from foucault or derrida?

 

[one_raven]

raven
did you steal that from foucault or derrida?

No.
If I had, I would have credited the source.
I wrote it.

 

[iceaura]

Somewhere along in here someone ought to point out that there are atheistic religions. Buddhism, Taoism, come to mind.

Anda lot of the "gods" in the polytheistic religions, if examined closely, end up looking a lot like explanatory forces or ghosts or mythological figures or other mysterious coherent entities - not the same thing as a deity, IMHO. I know that some Navajos, for example, deny that they have a religion at all, based on the fact that their "gods" aren't deities in the sense they discover Western Europeans mean.

Dawkins gets bashed a lot, but reading his stuff without reference to his social role doesn't turn up anything particularly objectionable that I can see.

I saw a survey once of the prevalence of atheism in the Roman Catholic priesthood - my memory supplies 9% as the number. It was a long way from 0, anyway.