Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

LIGHTBEING said:
and how do you propose to enforce that requirement short of surveying 7 billion people?
Click to expand...

It seems you, and others, don't understand what I said.

My criterion is -

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.


Let's take feudalism or capitalism, for example: these are theories according to which a large percentage of the population is miserable:
For capitalism to work, a certain percentage of the able workforce must be unemployed, or the capitalist approach to business doesn't work, doesn't pay off.
For feudalism to work, a certain percentage of the population must live in very meagre conditions, or feudalism doesn't work.
According to feudalism or capitalism, it is not even theoretically possible that everyone would be happy, ever, as these two systems rely on some people exploiting others.

A good theory is one where this doesn't happen. In a good theory, everyone has the chance for true happiness, at least eventually.
In capitalism, the happiness of some people comes at the cost of misery for others.
In a good theory, nobody's happiness relies on diminishing the happiness of others.

An example of such a good theory is Buddhism. Buddhism explains things in such a way that everyone has, at least theoretically, the chance for true happiness.



I can certainly see something is wrong with that interpretation and worldview. But I also know that my feelings can't and don't falsify a theory. It seems like you are projecting an internal conflict and struggle onto the scientific method.
Click to expand...

It's not simply about feelings, or simply about rejecting a theory because it doesn't make one feel good.

A good worldview or theory or philosophy of life is one which at least theoretically foresees the possibility of a happy life for all people, and not just for some, and gives specific explanations and instructions on how to act so that everyone can be happy.

A repugnant worldview or theory or philosophy of life is one according to which one just has to accept that a percentage of the population is waste.
 
wynn said:
It seems you, and others, don't understand what I said.

My criterion is -

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.


Let's take feudalism or capitalism, for example: these are theories according to which a large percentage of the population is miserable:
For capitalism to work, a certain percentage of the able workforce must be unemployed, or the capitalist approach to business doesn't work, doesn't pay off.
For feudalism to work, a certain percentage of the population must live in very meagre conditions, or feudalism doesn't work.
According to feudalism or capitalism, it is not even theoretically possible that everyone would be happy, ever, as these two systems rely on some people exploiting others.

A good theory is one where this doesn't happen. In a good theory, everyone has the chance for true happiness, at least eventually.
In capitalism, the happiness of some people comes at the cost of misery for others.
In a good theory, nobody's happiness relies on diminishing the happiness of others.

An example of such a good theory is Buddhism. Buddhism explains things in such a way that everyone has, at least theoretically, the chance for true happiness.

It's not simply about feelings, or simply about rejecting a theory because it doesn't make one feel good.

A good worldview or theory or philosophy of life is one which at least theoretically foresees the possibility of a happy life for all people, and not just for some, and gives specific explanations and instructions on how to act so that everyone can be happy.

A repugnant worldview or theory or philosophy of life is one according to which one just has to accept that a percentage of the population is waste.
Click to expand...
Feudalism, capitalism, buddhism - none of these are scientific theories. :bugeye:

And a scientific theory is not a philosophy of life. Non-sequitor much? :shrug:
 
wynn said:
No, you just invented a very stupid caricature of what you thought I was talking about, and then took for granted that that caricature of yours is what I really think.


:bugeye:
Click to expand...

Aww, you explain to him what a strawman is. In a good mood, were you wynn?
Btw, capitalism is not a theory, its a policy. We are talking scientific theories, right?

A repugnant worldview or theory or philosophy of life is one according to which one just has to accept that a percentage of the population is waste.
Click to expand...

Well, too bad if it bursts our bubbles, but if thats what it is, that what it is. Why? Because denying it or constructing elaborate myths to side-track it [for eg. religions, new age, etc] is possibly the most irresponsible thing to do, especially now that we have much more capacity for change and betterment, which will only come if people accept the likely truth - the worldview of and described by science.
 
wynn

It seems you, and others, don't understand what I said.

My criterion is -

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.
Click to expand...

It seems everyone BUT you understands that what you said is utter non-sense. Your feelings about reality don't mean a thing, the best theories tell you the truth about reality, whether that makes you happy or not. It seems you don't even know what a theory is as you are trying to use it as a synonym for a philosophy and it is not(and if you replace the word theory in your statement with the word philosophy it starts to make a little bit of sense). A theory is a coherent explanation for a group of facts which has predictive power and is not falsified. Notice that I said nothing about how you feel about those facts? That's because how you feel about a theory is irrelivant. And a theory designed to make you happy will likely be one that ignores reality altogether and will likely get you killed. One of the worst such theories is that a god will protect and care for you. Tell that to the bear about to eat you and you will see just how ineffective that is(for a short while, anyway, then you won't care as you will be dead).

Grumpy:cool:
 
Wynn -

This might be where the disconnect is. We are speaking about scientific theories as it pertains to the OP. Not economic systems or policies. I would agree that an economic system worth pursuing is one that makes everyone eventually happy. But what does this have to do with the evidence of god?
 
Grumpy said:
wynn



It seems everyone BUT you understands that what you said is utter non-sense. Your feelings about reality don't mean a thing, the best theories tell you the truth about reality, whether that makes you happy or not. It seems you don't even know what a theory is as you are trying to use it as a synonym for a philosophy and it is not(and if you replace the word theory in your statement with the word philosophy it starts to make a little bit of sense). A theory is a coherent explanation for a group of facts which has predictive power and is not falsified. Notice that I said nothing about how you feel about those facts? That's because how you feel about a theory is irrelivant. And a theory designed to make you happy will likely be one that ignores reality altogether and will likely get you killed. One of the worst such theories is that a god will protect and care for you. Tell that to the bear about to eat you and you will see just how ineffective that is(for a short while, anyway, then you won't care as you will be dead).

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...


I think maybe what wynn is trying to comvey is that regardless of the outcome, there is a level of satisfaction due to the understanding of the connection one gieens from the info. Though it may go against everything you believed, you now have a new understanding. IOW, understanding equals satisfaction equals happiness.

You are satisfied with the outcome because it removes the need for God, hence it increases the notion that God does not exist, or at the very least, not necessary. But that, IMO, due to the fact that science is dominated by atheism (not letting a divine foot in the door and so on), which includes specific premises.

jan.
 
spidergoat said:
There is nothing about science that would work to exclude genuine evidence of God.
Click to expand...

Science isn't the issue, who has the power, is.
The tenets of ''satanism'' is the controling factor in the west, atheism, whilie
it may not be ''satanism'', it certainly agrees with it tenets.
Wouldn't you agree?

jan.
 
What are you talking about? Satanists would seem to acknowledge the mythical figures of Christianity in a way that atheists would not.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I think maybe what wynn is trying to comvey is that regardless of the outcome, there is a level of satisfaction due to the understanding of the connection one gieens from the info. Though it may go against everything you believed, you now have a new understanding. IOW, understanding equals satisfaction equals happiness.
Click to expand...

This kind of satisfaction due to a new understanding is one factor I am pointing at.

The other is that it is repugnant to endorse theories/explanations/worldviews/philosophies according to which there is not even a theoretical chance for everyone to be happy.

This is what is so problematic about scientific theories as we are used to them in modern times. According to those theories, a percentage of the population - in practice, this means quite large numbers - are waste, fodder for evolution, with nothing more to their lives.

This should make us stop and reconsider whether to give the usual scientific theories the credence we are often expected to give them.

How can one be happy in this world while believing it is allright that millions of beings just like oneself are living in misery, and that this is just what life is, and that's it? One can't.
 
Science says nothing about the comparative worth of human beings. And why do you think people are so miserable? Maybe they have unrealistic expectations caused by wishful mythologies.
 
Grumpy said:
It seems everyone BUT you understands that what you said is utter non-sense. Your feelings about reality don't mean a thing, the best theories tell you the truth about reality, whether that makes you happy or not. It seems you don't even know what a theory is as you are trying to use it as a synonym for a philosophy and it is not(and if you replace the word theory in your statement with the word philosophy it starts to make a little bit of sense). A theory is a coherent explanation for a group of facts which has predictive power and is not falsified. Notice that I said nothing about how you feel about those facts? That's because how you feel about a theory is irrelivant. And a theory designed to make you happy will likely be one that ignores reality altogether and will likely get you killed. One of the worst such theories is that a god will protect and care for you. Tell that to the bear about to eat you and you will see just how ineffective that is(for a short while, anyway, then you won't care as you will be dead).
Click to expand...

Fortunately, straw isn't very strong, and burns fast.
 
wynn said:
This is what is so problematic about scientific theories as we are used to them in modern times. According to those theories, a percentage of the population - in practice, this means quite large numbers - are waste, fodder for evolution, with nothing more to their lives.
Click to expand...
Why are you looking for meaning in the mechanics of how life works? This is like trying to appreciate Mozart by learning how a piano is made. :shrug:
 
spidergoat said:
Science says nothing about the comparative worth of human beings. And why do you think people are so miserable? Maybe they have unrealistic expectations caused by wishful mythologies.
Click to expand...

Unless those "wishful mythologies" came to people from outer space somehow, or from a Higher Power,
they are still merely the product of evolution, and must play some evolutionary role.
That is for you to explain, if you support TOE.
 
wynn said:
Unless those "wishful mythologies" came to people from outer space somehow, or from a Higher Power,
they are still merely the product of evolution, and must play some evolutionary role.
That is for you to explain, if you support TOE.
Click to expand...

The ability to fantasize is an evolutionary trait, specific ones are rather arbitrary. Not everything we do comes from evolution, much of it comes from culture.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Well, too bad if it bursts our bubbles, but if thats what it is, that what it is. Why? Because denying it or constructing elaborate myths to side-track it [for eg. religions, new age, etc] is possibly the most irresponsible thing to do, especially now that we have much more capacity for change and betterment, which will only come if people accept the likely truth - the worldview of and described by science.
Click to expand...

I think you grossly underestimate what religions have to offer.
 
LIGHTBEING said:
This might be where the disconnect is. We are speaking about scientific theories as it pertains to the OP. Not economic systems or policies. I would agree that an economic system worth pursuing is one that makes everyone eventually happy. But what does this have to do with the evidence of god?
Click to expand...

Economic, social, educational etc. systems and policies are still based on scientific theories, or at least aspire to be, or people try to make them that way in retrospect.
For all practical intents and purposes, we can equate theories, worldviews and philosophies of life, as in practice, they are generally considered the same way.

In post 103, it was pointed out that there is a problem in how we explain things such as war, famine etc. and whether a theory like the TOE can set our mind at ease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top