|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I still don't get it. What "criteria" did you use to arrive at the truth? How exactly did you determine which supernatural views are true, when ALL of the religions have their own holy books, their own prophets, and their own miracle claims? All of them are in fundamental conflict to one degree or another..and they all have precisely the same amount of physical evidence to justify their claims (0.00). What reason do you have to BELIEVE any of it? |
There's the thing though... they aren't really in conflict with one another. Sure there are bits and pieces that are; however, there is far more that is similar (even the same) then there is different. In fact, if you really examin them one could reasonably conclude that the deity each holds to is one and the same with the differences being largely due to the maner of revalation and to whom the revalation was made (of course one could also argue the opposite way that the differences are reflective in the differences of the cultures that created the religions). I hold to the consistancies. That said, ultimately, I know nothing and fully expect that what I believe is not accurate. I believe what I believe through reason and by choice. As I said earlier, I don't try to convince anyone and what led me to where I am probably wouldn't leed many others to the same place. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| I don't doubt you worked out your beliefs through a long process..and probably pulled together the best bits of many different religions to come to a consensus about what they all ultimately believe in...but I'm still doubting the whole "reason" thing. The fact that a bunch of people believe something similar is still no justification for accepting any of it as true..but it isn't hurting anything in your case and you seem to find it helpful, so whatever tickles your pickle. ;) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't doubt you worked out your beliefs through a long process..and probably pulled together the best bits of many different religions to come to a consensus about what they all ultimately believe in...but I'm still doubting the whole "reason" thing. The fact that a bunch of people believe something similar is still no justification for accepting any of it as true..but it isn't hurting anything in your case and you seem to find it helpful, so whatever tickles your pickle. ;) |
I agree, the fact that a bunch of people believe something is no reason one should also believe it; however, if one studies something, reflects on it at length, critiques it, and ultimately reaches a conclusion regarding it then it is reasonable that one would trust in their conclusion, no? I can appreciate that you don't believe someone can come to a position of faith through reason, logic and deduction; however, I disagree and I suspect that on any question other then faith you would respect a position arrived at by such means as having some validity (even if you disagreed). |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I agree, the fact that a bunch of people believe something is no reason one should also believe it; however, if one studies something, reflects on it at length, critiques it, and ultimately reaches a conclusion regarding it then it is reasonable that one would trust in their conclusion, no? |
No. The trouble is that you're basing your research and conclusions on a questionable source. Think about it for a second. Kismet probably studied something, reflected on it at length, critiqued it and ultimately reached a conclusion that yes indeed, everything is a conspiracy, jews and/or dubya did 9/11, the Goverment is poisoning you with chemtrails... Now according to the evidence he studied his conclusions are probably right, but the problem here is his evidence are videos on youtube posted by people that are bat insane. You cant reach a meaningful and a correct conclusion on evidence that is flawed and questionable at best and completely made up at worst. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
No. The trouble is that you're basing your research and conclusions on a questionable source. Think about it for a second. Kismet probably studied something, reflected on it at length, critiqued it and ultimately reached a conclusion that yes indeed, everything is a conspiracy, jews and/or dubya did 9/11, the Goverment is poisoning you with chemtrails... Now according to the evidence he studied his conclusions are probably right, but the problem here is his evidence are videos on youtube posted by people that are bat insane. You cant reach a meaningful and a correct conclusion on evidence that is flawed and questionable at best and completely made up at worst. |
Ah, but evidence is something that must be weighed by the trier of fact. You may believe that the evidence I used is invalid; however, most do not. While you may view it as questionable at best, I ascribe more weight to much of it. What I find most interesting; however, is how so many are willing to write it off as invalid without having actually examined it at length... really; how much time have you spent studying the Vedas and Upanishads that you can dismiss them as invalid? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
really; how much time have you spent studying the Vedas and Upanishads that you can dismiss them as invalid? |
It doesn't matter how consistent the stories and accounts of old books are Moral. There has NEVER been a scientifically verified observation of any magic/miracle/paranormal activity, etc..and these types of claims are the basis for nearly every modern religion.
Have you heard of Sri Sathya Sai Baba? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
He is a living spiritual leader. In terms of popularity, he absolutely dwarfs what Jesus achieved in his lifetime. Around 10 million people currently follow/worship him around the world. They believe he is a messenger from God. Tens of thousands of LIVING BREATHING PEOPLE have testified to first hand accounts of his miracles (proofs of divinity)..yet we hear NOTHING at all about this in the western press. We hear no reports of this amazing person and the events surrounding him. Why not? Isn't it curious?
Can't you see moral...If this were 2000 years ago, he would be another Jesus or Muhammad. He would be a God-like figure..the fountainhead of a new world religion, but now..despite his popularity, he will never have that success. A new religion on the scale of Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism can never be created again..because most people today are not as credulous, superstitious, and ignorant as they were when the other religions formed. Today we have science, skepticism, a high literacy rate, and methods to explain things that were previously unexplainable and once considered "miraculous". Sai Baba has a million dollar prize waiting for him if he can produce evidence of a single supernatural event..a single disruption to the natural order, but you will never see him (nor anyone else) claim it..because there are no disruptions to the natural order..no evidence of a God's intervention. There is only ignorance, trickery, and flawed perceptions combined with human credulity. In 2010 that's not quite enough to convince the masses, but it certainly was 2000-3000 years ago. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Who says that God or other supernatural beings should be sitting around ready and waiting to satisfy any skeptic who makes up a "test?" And why would belief in God or in the historicity of the Bible or other sacred text have to depend on the existence of present-day miracles anyway?
[/deity's advocate] |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Who says that God or other supernatural beings should be sitting around ready and waiting to satisfy any skeptic who makes up a "test?" And why would belief in God or in the historicity of the Bible or other sacred text have to depend on the existence of present-day miracles anyway?
[/deity's advocate] |
It is the belivers themselves making the claims of supernatural stuff though. They honestly believe in miracles. They believe that prayers are answered. In other words, they believe a god intervenes somehow IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. If that's the case, like it or not it becomes a matter open to investigation by science. There have actually been several studies done on the power of prayer by places like the Templeton group, and they failed miserably to demonstrate any effect.
Of course believers could move the goal posts indefinitely and say "well...god knew he was being tested which is why he didn't answer..yadda yadda yadda".. But this basically turns their beliefs into an unfalsifiable proposition. If you want to define God away and turn his powers into something that can never be observed in reality, you are making him indistinguishable from nothing at all. So why believe in the first place? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It doesn't matter how consistent the stories and accounts of old books are Moral. There has NEVER been a scientifically verified observation of any magic/miracle/paranormal activity, etc..and these types of claims are the basis for nearly every modern religion. |
Why is it that when people look for miracles and the like they always look for things that are "super-natural?" Seems to me that any being responsible for creating all that is would likely use entirely natural means to get things done. Moreover, skeptics would discount anything that can be explained as not being miraculous; subsequently, to them there cannot be a verified miracle by their very definition of same. Of course all of that is really only relavent if one believes that god(s) are interventionist, and directly so. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Why is it that when people look for miracles and the like they always look for things that are "super-natural?" Seems to me that any being responsible for creating all that is would likely use entirely natural means to get things done. |
And how would he do that? :) How could he do anything without disrupting the natural order or possessing people and erasing their free will? And if he is in charge of everything and only acts through nature, WTF is up with the earthquakes, droughts, diseases, and tsunamis? How do you reconcile such excessive suffering with a benevolent god? There is no mystery about all this if you assume there is no God..because what we see is exactly we would expect to see in the absence of supernatural intervention...a bunch of random natural processes playing out on a giant rock flying through space..where accidents and tragedy strikes the innocent as well as the guilty. The moment you bring an all-loving and perfectly just god into the equation however, everything becomes a mystery. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
And how would he do that? :) How could he do anything without disrupting the natural order or possessing people and erasing their free will? And if he in charge of everything that happens naturally, WTF is up with the earthquakes and tsunamis? How do you reconcile such excessive suffering with a benevolent god? |
There's the thing... if there is a god then all is of god and god is of all; god is the natural order. Why do you believe that if there is a deity it must be external to all? |
|
|
|
|
