|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
woscar, have you ever tripped on drugs? |
Only once, and it wasn't really a hard drug at all. It was marijuana.
I guess it would still depend on what you call "tripping". :p |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I am merely saying that it's extremely counterproductive to regard belief and script with such a slash-and-burn policy. Religion is here to stay, so let's just focus on better ways to exploit explore it to its fullest, eh? |
i concur with this one. people need to stop going to extremes: either we blindly believe in God and burn the motherfvcking heretics or we dismiss God, the Bible, outlaw religion and implement the strict scientific approach to everything like the communists did |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
However, I have had strong personal convictions that I have the qualities required to succeed in accomplishing a goal. For example, I am perfectly aware that I landed the job I have now because I have earned it through hard work, the right set of mind, and the right circumstances (a fancy way of saying chance). |
Would you agree that you have faith that employment is the result of positive, economic approaches to one's lifestyle? Haven't you known people this most certainly has not worked for? People who work hard but get nowhere? Doesn't this shake personal observation of causation for your instance?
| quote: | | Like I said before, the concept of "God" per se is very simplistic. It is as simple as saying "Something I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel created everything I know. Why? Because that's what this book says and the authorities on this thing that I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel say that it is true.". If you don't agree you are deluding yourself. To use Mongoose's example, you would also need to believe that the concept of a pink unicorn that created the universe and everything in it, and who is interested in the personal, sexual, and private lives of humans as well as their dietary habits is also a very complex one. |
You hold the assumption that God is utterly unknowable - that it is the via negativa of the human condition. Have you considered that you already know God, and could know even more, and will some day, at least in some sense? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Lira, but the above statement is beyond absurd. God is an incredibly complicated explenation that requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand. Extremely intelligent and rational people devote their entire lives; even to the exclusion of all other pursuits, to the study of theology/God and will readily admit that they don't understand; rather, the total result of all their effort is mearly a slightly better informed belief. Sure, there are people who will use God as a crutch to explain that which they cannot; however, this is a contrition in the face of complexity; not understanding.
I would suggest that the reason some people hold to a stringent disbelief in certain aspects of science is the very same reason others hold to a stringent disbelief in God; a lack of familiarity and/or understanding. People tend to believe what they can observe; believing in the observable is easy. Many people do not have the opportunity to observe complex science at work. A farm-hand in Nebraska doesn't have ready access to oceanic tempeture readings, cannot measure the rate of melt in the antartic ice cap, or see that carbon molecules are sitting in the sky reflecting sunlight back to earth. What the farm-hand can readily observe is that the tempeture does not feel significantly different today then it did last year at this time; consequently, this global warming doesn't jive with what he observes and he's disinclined to believe it. Couple this with the natural confirmation bias that we all have and the farm-hand pays attention to second-hand evidence that supports his belief and disregards that which does not. The end result is that if the evidence supporting his belief is outweighed by the evidence contradicting his belief then he develops a distrust of those who contradict him and dismisses them rather then revisiting his position, as that's the easiser path. |
I reckon the subtleties are hard to grasp, I can agree with you right there. However, when I wrote that, I meant the use of God as a way to explain phenomena other than Himself (which surely makes everything all the more complicated when you need to explain what He's got to be if you want to have Him as a powerful, yet simple, explanans).
The reason why the idea of a single God has remained strong ever since its beginning in the Middle East is because it is incredibly powerful for its simplicity unless you focus on the details. For example, the statement "God created men and women" is not really hard to believe because you've got a simple idea (that is, a powerful being created us roughly the way we are now) and it looks more credible, given our short life span than, let's say, we evolved from minute lifeforms that changed over hundred of thousands of years.
If it were really complicated to be believed in, it wouldn't have endured for so long. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
If it were really complicated to be believed in, it wouldn't have endured for so long. |
This is probably very true of widespread proselytization, but Kabbalah comes to mind as a very complex, yet enduring and transmissive system of religious (sub)consideration. Of course, it has a racial tradition attached to it which keeps it very conservative in its facets, but it is not entirely as simple as saying it's monotheism and little else. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
Wow dude, you're usually quite reasonable; however, on this topic you seem to only read what it is you want.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Like I said before, the concept of "God" per se is very simplistic. It is as simple as saying "Something I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel created everything I know. Why? Because that's what this book says and the authorities on this thing that I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel say that it is true.". |
Again, you confuse belief and understanding.
| quote: | | Even odd-lier...that is not what I hear every time I accompany my girlfriend to mass on Sundays. Hell is a very serious thing for Roman Catholics, specially the current Pope who once said "Hell really exists and is eternal". |
Newsflash... concepts and actual physical locations are not the same thing.
| quote: | | Limbo was too until the same Pope decided it was not because it made them look like imbeciles willing to condemn children for all eternity for not being lucky enough to survive birth to have magical water dripped on their foreheads. |
Purgatory is what you're referring to. The church still believes it to exist, what has changed is that they no longer refer to "time in purgatory," as this is not a physical place thus time cannot exist therein. But hey, thanks for illustrating how easy it is to non understand something.
| quote: | | Like I said before, please don't make this thread about religion. This is about science, logic, and reason. Something that given your own reasoning, if it can be dignified with such a word, is unqualified to discuss. |
I actually did not endevor to make this about religion at all. It's odd that you reference logic and reason yet exhibit very little of either. You continue to address believe as opposed to understanding therefore you're arguing something that was never in dispute. Until such time as you can distinguish between belief and understanding there is nothing more that can be gleened from the discussion. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Woscar; however, you seem to be unable to distinguish between belief and understanding. |
It is perfectly clear. What is not clear, however, is how someone can be so determined to state that something that you cannot perceive by any means is real and therefore, can be understood.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I accept the big bang theory to be fact but my understanding of if it rather limited (a couple of books on the subject and a few astronomy classes during my undergrad). I can definately say I believe the theory is correct but I cannot say that I understand it. |
Truth is, you shouldn't. You are exercising the same faith that you exercise when you believe in God. As surprising as it may seem to you, I do not accept the Big Bang Theory as fact, simply because it isn't a fact (yet). It is, however, the best and most brilliant explanation that we have with several strong points in its favor and several others (seemingly) against it.
Anyways, what I meant by "You seem to be reading the same pseudo-scientific books as a friend of mine" is that you use the same flawed arguments as he does and bring up things like "The Big Bang Theory" in an attempt to "show me that I am too, a man of faith". |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I reckon the subtleties are hard to grasp, I can agree with you right there. However, when I wrote that, I meant the use of God as a way to explain phenomena other than Himself (which surely makes everything all the more complicated when you need to explain what He's got to be if you want to have Him as a powerful, yet simple, explanans).
The reason why the idea of a single God has remained strong ever since its beginning in the Middle East is because it is incredibly powerful for its simplicity unless you focus on the details. For example, the statement "God created men and women" is not really hard to believe because you've got a simple idea (that is, a powerful being created us roughly the way we are now) and it looks more credible, given our short life span than, let's say, we evolved from minute lifeforms that changed over hundred of thousands of years.
If it were really complicated to be believed in, it wouldn't have endured for so long. |
You could argue the same position for anything. Essentially, what you are saying is that anything is a quick, easy, viable explenation provided that no one asks any follow-up questions. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
:stongue:
The rest of your post makes this statement foolish... which it is. |
how come? The amount of carbon emissions we are pumping into the environment does play a factor into global warming. Peer reviewed articles have shown this. Its simply the repercussions of this that are incredibly dramatized which draws people to believe that it is completely phony.
don't mock me :( |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
It is perfectly clear. What is not clear, however, is how someone can be so determined to state that something that you cannot perceive by any means is real and therefore, can be understood. |
Ah, but I never made the assertion that a divine entity is real; in fact, even if one asserts that there is no divine entity the concept of god is still difficult to understand.
| quote: | | Truth is, you shouldn't. You are exercising the same faith that you exercise when you believe in God. As surprising as it may seem to you, I do not accept the Big Bang Theory as fact, simply because it isn't a fact (yet). It is, however, the best and most brilliant explanation that we have with several strong points in its favor and several others (seemingly) against it. |
No surprise to me, actually. I simplified things for ease of rhetoric... my true position is that I believe it to be the most reasonable explenation, as it fits best with what is observable. Truthfully, I rarely hold any position as absolute because I am smart enough to know that I don't know.
| quote: | | Anyways, what I meant by "You seem to be reading the same pseudo-scientific books as a friend of mine" is that you use the same flawed arguments as he does and bring up things like "The Big Bang Theory" in an attempt to "show me that I am too, a man of faith". |
Not my intent... I was endevoring to illustrate the difference between belief and understanding. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You could argue the same position for anything. Essentially, what you are saying is that anything is a quick, easy, viable explanation provided that no one asks any follow-up questions. |
Since you are playing a semantics game, let me help you out. :) |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| The God argument has always bothered me because it should be clear as day to people that, whether or not a mystical (by our standards) entity lords over us from above, people still pray to one, still fear one, still love one, still observe one - whether these observations are scientifically authentic or verifiable is irrelevant, because the fact still stands that God, at the very least, exists in people's minds. Why is that not enough? Many are ruled by God as an idea. It's like saying emotions do not exist because we cannot touch them, cannot directly converse with the concept of emotional resonance; despite the blaring fact that we interact with them every day of our lives, and express them no matter our level of "belief". They're just a component of things in our consensual reality. |
|
|
|
|
