G
Guest
Guest
Wow Smo I am overwhelmed. Excellent post!
ask the athiest
- Thread starter dont argue with this guy
- Start date
Smo, don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. 
I'm an atheist too, but let's be fair; science has its shares of F ups and conflicting opinions too.
Heck, we can't even agree whether high fat, low carb diets are better than low fat, high carb diets.
I'm an atheist too, but let's be fair; science has its shares of F ups and conflicting opinions too.
Heck, we can't even agree whether high fat, low carb diets are better than low fat, high carb diets.
Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all things: quite the opposite actually. As Socrates put it: "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." The whole point of science is to question everything in hopes of eliminating falsehoods and moving asymptotically toward the truth. Science is often wrong, and much of what scientific evidence supports will probably be proven false in time. Where science differs from religion, is that it devotes all of its efforts to finding and exposing these falsehoods, and when they are discovered they are acknowledged publicly (at least within the scientific community, the populace at large doesn't seem to care) and current scientific theories are modified to accommodate the new discovery. The only time a theory that has been proven false is kept around is if it works well enough under certain circumstances. For instance Newton's theories (technically they are called laws) of motion have been proven wrong, however they are still taught in schools because for the things one deals with on a day to day basis (big, slow things) they provide answers that are sufficiently accurate for our purposes.
I never said that what was taught in physics (or any other class) for that matter was true beyond any shadow of a doubt. I merely stated that science holds its theories to a higher standard of proof than religion holds its beliefs. Thus you cannot simply promote a religious belief to scientific theory status without doing all the experimentation that makes scientific theories what they are. It would be like promoting someone straight from intern to CEO without having them first climb the "corporate ladder". This does not mean that the intern could never become a CEO, but rather that there are many intermediate steps that you simply cannot skip.
As I said in the post, the best science can give you is a theory. This theory will be, by its very nature, un-provable (it can be falsified, but no amount of proof can make it a law). A theory can be successful in that all experimental testing to date has failed to disprove it, and in all those experiments it has successfully predicted reality, at least within a certain range of accuracy and/or validity (certain theories contain factors of complete randomness, thus limiting accuracy, and some such as Newton’s "Laws" of motion only hold true for certain cases, thus limiting validity). However, in science you can never "know" anything because the better part of knowing anything is knowing that you are correct, and no amount of experimental evidence can ever prove a theory correct. All you will ever have is the best model of the universe to date, not THE model of the universe.
I think Stephen Jay Gould put it best: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
I never said that what was taught in physics (or any other class) for that matter was true beyond any shadow of a doubt. I merely stated that science holds its theories to a higher standard of proof than religion holds its beliefs. Thus you cannot simply promote a religious belief to scientific theory status without doing all the experimentation that makes scientific theories what they are. It would be like promoting someone straight from intern to CEO without having them first climb the "corporate ladder". This does not mean that the intern could never become a CEO, but rather that there are many intermediate steps that you simply cannot skip.
As I said in the post, the best science can give you is a theory. This theory will be, by its very nature, un-provable (it can be falsified, but no amount of proof can make it a law). A theory can be successful in that all experimental testing to date has failed to disprove it, and in all those experiments it has successfully predicted reality, at least within a certain range of accuracy and/or validity (certain theories contain factors of complete randomness, thus limiting accuracy, and some such as Newton’s "Laws" of motion only hold true for certain cases, thus limiting validity). However, in science you can never "know" anything because the better part of knowing anything is knowing that you are correct, and no amount of experimental evidence can ever prove a theory correct. All you will ever have is the best model of the universe to date, not THE model of the universe.
I think Stephen Jay Gould put it best: "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
G
Guest
Guest
DeadCode said:Smo, don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
I'm an atheist too, but let's be fair; science has its shares of F ups and conflicting opinions too.
Heck, we can't even agree whether high fat, low carb diets are better than low fat, high carb diets.
I'm a Mickey - Irish Catholic, a work of science with my share of F ups and conflicting opinions too.
Heck , I can't even agree whether a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey with chocolate sauce and whipped cream is better than garlic bread with a ton of extra lite mozzarella cheese followed with a pan of peanut fudge for dessert is healthier!
Can't tell I am grasping at straws to make a comment but I need to look really busy right now so the kids next door will go home. It's not working so I guess I better head for the store before it closes! LOL
Smo,
I completely agree with most of what you said; I wasn't suggesting that those who are religious and those who seek scientific fact both participate in critical thought.
More to my point was people who believe in an all-powerful deity may very well be wrong; however, it is impossible to prove so. Scientific beliefs however--as you said yourself--are often proven wrong some years later.
So I suppose my question is, why believe something the scientific community generally agrees upon when, in the end, it could be just as fallible as a belief in God?
P.S. Of course, I'm simplying playing Devil's advocate here (sorry for the incorporation of a religous figure), as I typically believe what's commonly accepted as scientific fact.
I completely agree with most of what you said; I wasn't suggesting that those who are religious and those who seek scientific fact both participate in critical thought.
More to my point was people who believe in an all-powerful deity may very well be wrong; however, it is impossible to prove so. Scientific beliefs however--as you said yourself--are often proven wrong some years later.
So I suppose my question is, why believe something the scientific community generally agrees upon when, in the end, it could be just as fallible as a belief in God?
P.S. Of course, I'm simplying playing Devil's advocate here (sorry for the incorporation of a religous figure
), as I typically believe what's commonly accepted as scientific fact.There was a quote I saw a while ago that explained this perfectly and eloquently and I've been trying to find it all week. However, as I have been unable to find it, I will give you my vastly inferior version.
Okay, take for instance the evolution of the scientific theories regarding the structure of the atom:
Original Theory: Atoms are indivisible, with each atom possessing a different shape that determines its properties.
"Plum Pudding" Model: Atoms are divisible, with electrons evenly distributed throughout a "sea" of positive charge.
"Planetary" Model: Electrons orbit the positively charged nucleus much as planets orbit the sun.
Bohr Model: Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom, which consists of protons and neutrons, in "fixed" orbits, and can only jump from one orbit to the next; they cannot stay anywhere in between.
"Quantum" Model: Electrons act as both a wave and a particle, and are located in "electron density clouds" surrounding the nucleus. The position of an electron can never be determined with absolute certainty; one can only determine the probability that an electron will be located in any given area.
The first 4 of these models have been disproved, however they are not all equally wrong. The fourth at least gets all the known components right, while the first doesn't even recognize the atom as divisible. I think fallibility works in the same way. As scientific theories are tested, and either modified, abandoned, or kept, they gradually move closer to the truth of the matter. Thus the degree to which scientific knowledge as a whole is wrong decreases with time. Thus, even if a scientific theory and a religious belief are equally likely to BE wrong, the scientific theory is probably wrong on fewer counts or to a lesser degree than the religious belief.
Also, scientific theories are required to meet certain standards that religious beliefs are not. These help ensure the progress of science. They must be:
- Consistent (internally and externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
- Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
- Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
(Wikipedia)
This means, for the purposes of fallibility, that:
- If they are wrong, we have ways figuring it out (a theory can’t hide behind the shield of “well, you can’t prove it doesn’t happen”).
- So far as we know, they accurately predict the observable universe (a current theory has not yet been disproved within its range of validity).
- They are based in facts obtained through experimentation, and thus based in reality (However, the interpretation of those facts may be wrong, or the technology required to perform experiments disproving them may not exist yet).
- If new evidence is discovered disproving an existing theory, the scientific community is required to make the necessary changes (unlike the average religious text).
- Each new theory (or modified existing theory), predicts the universe better than its predecessors (The current theory is the best one yet, perhaps not the absolute truth, but the closest we’ve ever had).
“I've got to admit it's getting better
A little better all the time” - The Beatles
Okay, take for instance the evolution of the scientific theories regarding the structure of the atom:
Original Theory: Atoms are indivisible, with each atom possessing a different shape that determines its properties.
"Plum Pudding" Model: Atoms are divisible, with electrons evenly distributed throughout a "sea" of positive charge.
"Planetary" Model: Electrons orbit the positively charged nucleus much as planets orbit the sun.
Bohr Model: Electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom, which consists of protons and neutrons, in "fixed" orbits, and can only jump from one orbit to the next; they cannot stay anywhere in between.
"Quantum" Model: Electrons act as both a wave and a particle, and are located in "electron density clouds" surrounding the nucleus. The position of an electron can never be determined with absolute certainty; one can only determine the probability that an electron will be located in any given area.
The first 4 of these models have been disproved, however they are not all equally wrong. The fourth at least gets all the known components right, while the first doesn't even recognize the atom as divisible. I think fallibility works in the same way. As scientific theories are tested, and either modified, abandoned, or kept, they gradually move closer to the truth of the matter. Thus the degree to which scientific knowledge as a whole is wrong decreases with time. Thus, even if a scientific theory and a religious belief are equally likely to BE wrong, the scientific theory is probably wrong on fewer counts or to a lesser degree than the religious belief.
Also, scientific theories are required to meet certain standards that religious beliefs are not. These help ensure the progress of science. They must be:
- Consistent (internally and externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
- Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
- Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
(Wikipedia)
This means, for the purposes of fallibility, that:
- If they are wrong, we have ways figuring it out (a theory can’t hide behind the shield of “well, you can’t prove it doesn’t happen”).
- So far as we know, they accurately predict the observable universe (a current theory has not yet been disproved within its range of validity).
- They are based in facts obtained through experimentation, and thus based in reality (However, the interpretation of those facts may be wrong, or the technology required to perform experiments disproving them may not exist yet).
- If new evidence is discovered disproving an existing theory, the scientific community is required to make the necessary changes (unlike the average religious text).
- Each new theory (or modified existing theory), predicts the universe better than its predecessors (The current theory is the best one yet, perhaps not the absolute truth, but the closest we’ve ever had).
“I've got to admit it's getting better
A little better all the time” - The Beatles
i agree, you have given me something to mull over at an otherwise dull office get-together.
on a semi-quasi-sort-of-related note, in the movie "donnie darko" (quite a good movie) this lady explains the idea of an 'agnostic' - someone who does not believe in god, because there is no proof, but who does not deny the possibility of god existing. most people i know are agnostics. i hope this hasn't been said already, i just read the last page.
on a semi-quasi-sort-of-related note, in the movie "donnie darko" (quite a good movie) this lady explains the idea of an 'agnostic' - someone who does not believe in god, because there is no proof, but who does not deny the possibility of god existing. most people i know are agnostics. i hope this hasn't been said already, i just read the last page.
Sorry I am passed the point of debating religion. Good luck guys.
ok thanks
- Messages
- 10,914
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 1,628
- Points
- 918
- Location
- Topeka, Kansas
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
wonder if this guy will come back :muching_out:
I've love to have him back just for the name.
- Messages
- 10,914
- Highlights
- 0
- Reaction score
- 1,628
- Points
- 918
- Location
- Topeka, Kansas
- Peak Coin
- 0.000000¢
- DB Transfer
- 0.000000¢
Exactly
Dear Mr. Atheist... do you have a mystical explanation why my ipod touch blew up?
One would assume that an atheist wouldn't have a "mystical" explanation for anything.
---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------
.... or maybe you're trying to incite atheists such as myself to make comments about Apple being Evil, and therefore making a point that we would label things as such despite our beliefs. Or something. Regardless, yes, Apple is evil, and that's probably why your Ipod touch tried to kill you.
---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------
.... or maybe you're trying to incite atheists such as myself to make comments about Apple being Evil, and therefore making a point that we would label things as such despite our beliefs. Or something. Regardless, yes, Apple is evil, and that's probably why your Ipod touch tried to kill you.
