Science is not a body of knowledge, it is just a method of acquiring knowledge. Flaws in scientifically derived knowledge do not suggest flaws in science if it can be shown that the flaw is a result of something beyond the scientific method, such as faulty data or incorrect application of the method.
The existence of Pluto is not significant to my activities. But, if it became so, I could look to scientifically derived data to prove its existence. For example, if I were to buy a plot of land there, as a gift to me great great ... great descendant then I could go about determining its existence from base-principals. I could research the concepts of light manipulation with lenses, and test them for myself. I could research orbits and atmospheric effects and gravitic effects and perform the original experiments. I could design a telescope myself and take measurements of various celestial bodies using my own knowledge and calculate the existence of Pluto, I could even build my own space-ship and fly up there and look at it(or its shadow...) if I had the time and resources. People believe in Pluto because they trust the scientific method(which is trustworthy) and other humans() to provide them with the most accurate information available. Not in any small part because they can, in theory, prove it for themselves...
Even if I am nothing but a freak perception in a sea of static chaos, and nothing of my world, not even myself, or the rules that support me, exists, then it still stands to reason that the most reliable assumption is the best. That a place you have been to is there is reliable, if you go there again, it will still have been there, although it may have changed. If you talk to others about its existence, they will be able to verify it for themselves, if they have the means. And if you can go there, then it as as important to you as anything. Picking one of the many religions and declaring the vast majority of others to be false, at least in their demands of exclusivity, is not reliable, the idea that you happened to choose correctly is worthy of ridicule. The idea that the universe(not existence, deities don't work for that) was created by an intelligent entity, as opposed to random chance, or consistent laws and forces, is similarly untrustworthy. If you have a personal experience to prove your religions voracity then please share with us how we may recreate it for ourselves, so that we can also benefit from your experience. If it cannot be recreated, if it cannot be tested, then I suggest that it shouldnot be trusted...
People are constantly exposed to the successes of science, it does not require faith to assume that something that always works will continue to work.
To simply say, 'take a parachute or do not take a parachute' is not particularly compelling. One can always say that god provided the product of science. But what if god provided a parachute too. are your odds better if you follow science that tells you to jump while the plane is stable, or religion, that tells you to ask a god's advice before potentially committing suicide. What if your church community built you a parachute as a joke? Made from cheap sheets and designed by children. You were given a scientifically dubious parachute, made by good <insert religion> people and blessed by <insert religious leader> and a scientifically sound parachute that was made by a company that is somehow Evil, maybe they stopped donating to the church or something... What if taking the path of science means sacrificing faith in a religion, do you choose to be stupid according to scientific study or religious belief?
Science and religion are both means of acquiring information, the two cannot coexist. On any topic one would need to choose which they would follow in case of a dispute. If one accepts that both are true then should there be any dispute it will indeed be crippling. A person can choose to use science for those things it has answers for, and religion for those things it does not, but then they have chosen science over religion, and religion does not tolerate two masters, nor anything more trusted than itself...
our existing models break down at the extremes. In this manner, I propose that theology is a model of reality which exists precisely for some of the extremes under which science breaks down. For the most part, these extremes are not ones of heat or pressure or distance, but extremes of perception and the human spirit.
But scientific analysis is continuing to explore the extremes, people didn't even know that many of these extremes existed before scientific practise discovered them. Theology does not provide any truth, it is a completely arbitrary set of statements that has no more baring on what will be discovered scientifically, and proceed to be useful, than anything else that could be imagined. Religion is just a bunch of pretty words that can make people happy, unfortunately people cannot control their beliefs, and feel that their religion is important enough that it should be granted a protected and privileged position is society and dictate how others are allowed to behave...
How did we come to be?
Evolution, big bang... This is still a work in progress, but we have come a long way.
Is there a purpose to our having intelligence
innocent until proven guilty, or, in other word, no.
, or was it purely a random quirk of amino acids combining in random patterns for billions of years?
Not random, see evolution, it is actually pretty robust...
And either way, what does that mean for us?
Nuclear bombs, bioweapons, propaganda... On a more philosophical note, it really doesn't mean anything, we have a few more tricks to help us survive, that's all. But there really isn't anything unique about intelligence, theologically, what does intelligence mean for animals? What does an apparent lack of intelligence mean for rocks?
What about death?
Once again, until we get evidence to the contrary, the only reasoned view is that it is exactly what it looks like, the last part of life.
Is there any form of existence after the neurons in our brain cease electrical activity?
As always, my guess is as good as your truth, but I am too optimistic...
Indeed, is that all we essentially are--a pattern of electrical impluses stored in a few pounds of neural tissue?
Well why don't you work on manifesting your soul's influence in some other way? Until you succeed we may as well assume that yes, it is limited to a physiological presence.
These are questions which intersect with the hard sciences, but don't have to contradict them. In the same way that quantum mechanics is an *extension* to handle those conditions under which classical mechanics is insufficient but does not negate classical mechanics, I think of theology as an extension to handle the questions for which scientific explanation is insufficient, but does not negate science.
Quantum mechanics is not an extension, it isn't a little booster pack of physics that gets you past some tricky bits, it is an attempt to come up with a better theory for the whole of physics, it is, in short, a replacement, just as the pursuit of truth is a replacement for the acceptance of religious doctrine. For religion to earn its place it needs to not be most righteous, but most justified...
What causes--indeed, what *allows*--a human being to seek to inflict pain and suffering on another for no material benefit?
aggression mostly, and it is not surprising, in order to compete a human must believe that they are more worthy than other humans(a fundamentally unsound assumption), at which point it is a small thing to prove your superiority in displays of hostility towards others...
Likewise, what causes some human beings to voluntarily sacrifice their own existence in order to aid strangers?
This one doesn't come up so often, but there are obvious examples in suicide bombers. it is mostly a desire to serve society, there are a great many conflicting forces in the human mind...
We have social sciences to help understand the psychology and sociology of violence, and all the way in which a person can be conditioned towards different responses, but when those sciences still fail to provide an answer, especially at the extremes, it is religion which provides a toolset to arrive at an answer.
But there is absolutely no reason to believe that answer, and it is far from exhaustive...
The same way there are countless people who have also experienced God? And in roughly the same way each?
Countless? What proportion of humans are (supposedly) lucky enough to actually have a good reason to believe in god? And how many are condemned because this god is too lazy or malicious to make religion a wise choice for them?
And what exactly is this identical experience that they have all encountered?
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 410146 times)