|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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? |
If that is how you want to define god, you're free to it..but I don't see the point. Why not just say "the natural order exists." instead of bringing in the assumption of a god when you have no reason to? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
If that is how you want to define god, you're free to it..but I don't see the point. Why not just say "the natural order exists." instead of bringing in the assumption of a god when you have no reason to? |
But I do have reason too, that's the thing... we disagree on this point and the weight that one should ascribe to the available evidence and likely how one should approach the question; however, I've arrived at faith through a methodical, reasonable, logical process of review and deduction. I presume you have gone through no such process; subsequently, I trust my weighting more then I do yours.... again I ask; how much time have you spent studying the Vedas and Upanishads that you can conclude they are invalid?
We're nearing the point where you are ill-equiped for further discussion of any real value. Why don't we both just accept that you are incapable of accepting that there is any validity to my beliefs and that I am incapable of convincing you to the contrary as our frames of reference are not common. I mean, it's been a fun discussion and you now have a little bit more insight into how I think but we're really just playing rhetoric games now.
edit... besides, I gotta go now. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
You can say you arrived at your position through "methodical, reasonable, logical process of review and deduction" all you want, but when the materials you reviewed have no evidence to back up their supernatural assumptions, any conclusions you reach from that material will necessarily be unjustified.
I think Mongoose said it best above..
| quote: | | You cant reach a meaningful and a correct conclusion on evidence that is flawed and questionable at best and completely made up at worst. |
As for the Vedas and Upanishads, I've spent the same amount of time studying them as I have Dr. Seuss books..because from what I see, both are equally backed by physical evidence and equally valid when it comes to their claims about reality. You have yet to give a reason why we should take anything seriously in any holy book. Is there a particular line, passage, or idea in one of those two books that you believe was handed directly down from the creator of the universe..one that could not possibly have been written by a human? Is there a concept so profoundly amazing that you can't possibly conceive of it being invented by the human imagination? If so, please point it out for us. Otherwise the Vedas belong with the rest of the holy books, on the fiction section next to Green Eggs and Ham. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| Sorry but the physical evidence argument is utterly flawed. By that reasoning we must write off all philosophy as baseless. Face it you really discout theology due to prejudice and ignorance. Don't you think it's rather unreasonable to disregard something you understand so little? If you don't then you're not half as bright as you appear. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Philosophy is not an entity moral. And ad hominems aren't doing you any favors. They just make your stance seem even weaker.
P.S. I wasn't even asking for physical evidence in my last post (I know you don't have any). I was asking for the particular lines or lessons from the holy books you mentioned that convinced you they were written by the creator of the universe. If God really wrote them, they must be the most profound, transcendent, and mindblowing words ever written..far beyond the capability of any human to imagine. I'd like to see what specifically convinced you..and what gave you the STRONGEST REASON for maintaining your belief. I'm not going to laugh or be critical. I just want to know. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry but the physical evidence argument is utterly flawed. By that reasoning we must write off all philosophy as baseless. |
I'm fine with that :p |
|
|
| tachobg |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
that is precisely what gives me pause - observation is not as objective as scientists have liked to think for centuries. (positivism)
besides that, I am critical of ethical implications of the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake, and the dogged, blind pursuit of positive industrial development.
i'm not 'against science'. i just think it shouldn't be the only 'authentic' way to understand the world, and reaping its fruits should not be the only goals of human life. |
Exactly -- the skeptic in me also makes me question the value of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Why not knowledge for the sake of improving people's lives? Or why focus on acquiring knowledge at all -- there are lots of people who live their lives content and at peace without pursuing 'knowledge'.
All I was saying though, was that to argue against the methodology of science or its value in understanding the world, one needs to have at least some understanding of what it means. Many people who knock down science do it via a knee-jerk reaction without any careful reflection. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| simple answer...god is everything and everything is god..even your farts are god. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Philosophy is not an entity moral. And ad hominems aren't doing you any favors. They just make your stance seem even weaker. |
Nice try to redirect;) What you had stated was that there is no evidence to back up the claims made by "holy books"; there may be no physical evidence but that is not the only type. If you state there is no evidence then you either know very little about said "holy books" or you are discounting all but physical evidence; if the former then you're not qualified to make any judgment on the validity of same if the later then you are also arguing that no idea, thought, belief, etc can be considered valid unless it is supported by physical evidence.
| quote: | | I was asking for the particular lines or lessons from the holy books you mentioned that convinced you they were written by the creator of the universe. |
With this question you really drive home my point. None of the books contained within the Vedas or Upanishods claim to be writen by any deity. Your question illustrates that you do not have even a passing knowledge of these texts; subsequently, one must conclude that the reason you are dismissing them as invalid has nothing to do with the content; rather, it is based on the fact that a religion(s) deem them to be sacred. It is unreasonable to dismiss something as invalid if you have no knowledge of it.
| quote: | | I'd like to see what specifically convinced you..and what gave you the STRONGEST REASON for maintaining your belief. I'm not going to laugh or be critical. I just want to know. |
I'd love to be able to point to a single line or even paragraph; however, it really is not that simple. It doesn't really matter anyway, as your only reason for asking seems to be so that you can belittle ideas you neither understand nor have any desire to understand. I'll humour you one again though; EDIT, naw, I changed my mind... I don't have the time or energy to continue with this today. Please just feel free to write me off as another misguided, obviously irrational, theist. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
But I do have reason too, that's the thing... we disagree on this point and the weight that one should ascribe to the available evidence and likely how one should approach the question; however, I've arrived at faith through a methodical, reasonable, logical process of review and deduction. |
How can one "arrive" at faith via a logical, reasonable process? By it's very nature faith eschews all those things. That's why it's called faith; you're believing something with no evidence.
Also, consistently calling capitalizt ignorant of the true meaning of certain texts, et cetera is akin to the old art critic's argument. "This blank canvas is art, you just don't understand it because you're a cretin with no proper appreciation ability." It's an argument that can't be refuted, but at heart it's a falsity used to cover the inability of the debater to adequately argue their (usually) bull position. Just as the art critic should be able to explain why something is art, you should be able to explain which particular element of your previous readings has led you to your faith.
(I apologise in advance if you've already done this, I only read the most recent page of this thread). |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What you had stated was that there is no evidence to back up the claims made by "holy books"; there may be no physical evidence but that is not the only type. If you state there is no evidence then you either know very little about said "holy books" or you are discounting all but physical evidence; if the former then you're not qualified to make any judgment on the validity of same if the later then you are also arguing that no idea, thought, belief, etc can be considered valid unless it is supported by physical evidence. |
Any idea can be valid. Once it starts making claims about the nature of reality however (as all religions do), it is subject to examination. You believe in some form of magical nonsense. I'm asking you to demonstrate a single reason why you believe in it. If you can't, at least have the honesty to admit you take it on FAITH and that you hold your position because you want to believe it and because you feel it in your heart. Reason is irrelevant.
| quote: |
With this question you really drive home my point. None of the books contained within the Vedas or Upanishods claim to be writen by any deity. |
Fine then.."inspired" by a deity. Show me the text you believe could only have been handed down to man directly from the deities...something beyond human capacity to invent. Why should we believe there is anything divine in them? Do you believe any of the magic spells in those books have any effect in reality?
| quote: | | I don't have the time or energy to continue with this today. Please just feel free to write me off as another misguided, obviously irrational, theist. |
You made it easy. Thanks. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
How can one "arrive" at faith via a logical, reasonable process? By it's very nature faith eschews all those things. That's why it's called faith; you're believing something with no evidence. |
No, faith is believing in something that cannot or is not proven... unproven does not equate to unsupported.
| quote: | | Also, consistently calling capitalizt ignorant of the true meaning of certain texts, et cetera is akin to the old art critic's argument. "This blank canvas is art, you just don't understand it because you're a cretin with no proper appreciation ability." It's an argument that can't be refuted, but at heart it's a falsity used to cover the inability of the debater to adequately argue their (usually) bull position. |
That's not really the argument I was advancing. He stated my conclusions are invalid because they are in part or in whole based on invalid materials. My counter is that since he has no knowledge of the sources I based my conclusions on he is not qualified to make the determination that they are invalid. Moreover, this really isn't a debate, there is no issue to be resolved here; he asked me why I believe what I do, I explained it, he questioned it, then we got off on a tangent arguing for entertainment sake.
| quote: | | Just as the art critic should be able to explain why something is art, you should be able to explain which particular element of your previous readings has led you to your faith. |
I agree, if I was trying to convince anyone of anything I would lay it all out; however, a) I'm not, and b) there is little point in doing so if Capitalizt has already rejected any point I will raise as being invalid because is may come from a book that some people consider to be holy. |
|
|
|
|
