Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

To name another subset of philosophy, in theology they also test hypotheses based on what is known, but the procedures, dogmas and axioms are different.

No, they don't.  They conjecture and reason but they never test, largely because they make untestable claims.  This is precisely why the scientific community finds religion largely incredible (hence the prevalence of atheism among scientists).

Could I get a source on that? Because I seem to remember that religion is quite prevelant amongst scientists. Perhaps not as much as in society but calling Atheism prevelant amongst scientists at the very least denies the myrades of christian, pantheist and agnostic scientists out there. And don't forget the Hindu or Shinto scientists just because they're not from the western world.

The only reason Atheism seems so prevelant is because people like Richard Dawkins make a huge fuzz about science and religion all the time and the tendency of religious scientists to mostly ignore them. (For the record, I'm a convinced atheist. I also think some people are being increadably childish with their "crusade" against religion in science. For ****'s sake don't fix what aint broken by tossing the half of the scientisic population out of their jobs)

[Siquo]

The prevalence of atheism amongst scientists is not everywhere. Many astronomers believe in a God, since what they look at every day is so awesome (the original meaning of the word) that they're unable to cope with existence otherwise. Edit: ninja'd

If by testing you mean experimentation, then no, they don't. If you mean comparing the implications against existing axioms and dogmas, using a certain form of logic then yes, they do "test". The latter also goes for mathematics, widely regarded as a part of "science".

Josh, semantics are very important. Science redefines a lot of words that have a different meaning in real life. Words as fact, theory, hypothesis, true, false, proveable, et cetera have very defined meanings in the science paradigm. Copying those words, and not their meanings, into real language causes abominations such as Intelligent Design. A scientific fact has nothing to do with absolute truth in real life. The fact is absolutely true within the specific theory within the science, but not elsewhere. For instance, you may calculate the time a rock takes to fall 1 meter at a specific gravity. Real-world experimentation differs from the calculation because you forgot the air-resistance caused by a slight air movement caused by a butterfly in the Amazon.

It's not absolute truth, it's not real truth, it's an approximation of events that happens to work really well.

Science, in all it's beauty (I love science), can never answer all questions. Two examples:
First: science can answer "how", but never "why".
Second: Godel.

[Earthquake Damage]

Could I get a source on that? Because I seem to remember that religion is quite prevelant amongst scientists. Perhaps not as much as in society but calling Atheism prevelant amongst scientists at the very least denies the myrades of christian, pantheist and agnostic scientists out there. And don't forget the Hindu or Shinto scientists just because they're not from the western world.

My bad.  I generalized something that's mostly a western phenomenon.

20-second support via Google

A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[10] (See also Relationship between religion and science.)

The prevalence of atheism amongst scientists is not everywhere. Many astronomers believe in a God, since what they look at every day is so awesome (the original meaning of the word) that they're unable to cope with existence otherwise. Edit: ninja'd

What, like a hotdog?

[Nadaka]

I think people get the science-religion conflict wrong a lot. This is my personal opinion.

Science is not antithetical to religion. Its very possible for someone well grounded in rational science to seek spiritual guidance and comfort in his life, to share common faith and philosophy with his religious community.

What is antithetical is religious control of the masses and individuals and rationality inherent in scientific thought. Science is now and has been under attack for thousands of years because it represents a challenge to the power of the few who demand obedience and wealth from the masses using the threat of magical retribution and promise of posthumous reward.

Once you see the hatred, fear and ignorance in blind faith wielded as weapons against you, it becomes a lot harder to accept that the good in religion is worth the horrors wrought in the name of god. Richard Dawkins faces the very real threat of violence for the science he has done and publicized. His professed radical atheism is a direct response to him being constantly targeted and attacked by religious groups.

To get back on topic: Breatharians exist because:
a: the prophets are full of shit and looking to take advantage of the gullible.
b: the gullible suffer from the biological condition known as life, where their survival instinct over-rides their faith in breathing air alone.
c: they die, but a sucker is born every minute.

[de5me7]

im pretty sure we discovered starvation many years ago. Simply believing you wont starve wont mean its not going to happen?
Of course we all know from the supermeat boy advert http://www.gamesetwatch.com/090428-super-meat-boy-2.jpg that not eating meat makes you evil. There fore breatharians most be evil

[MrWiggles]

You should study the history of science, it didn't fall out of thin air. It's a subset of philosophy, as is theology (which is a lot older). Theology is indeed baseless when viewed from a scientific viewpoint, but so is science viewed from a theological viewpoint.

You still use "fact" from the science-belief paradigm. You believe a proton is composed of three quarks. Science itself does not even believe that. It's the current most plausible theory, which can be altered by new observations at any time. So the "fact" as defined by science is pretty variable.

Not accepting that your definition of fact is exactly that: your definition of fact, makes you rather closed-minded. It's understandable, I've been there for a long time as well, but defining your reality as the only true one is usually viewed as "zealous".

The process of reevaluation does not make the the finding of empirical observation and experimentation facts tenuous. I cannot believe a proton to be composed of three quarks because its not an issue of belief. My ignorance or misunderstanding does not alter the state of the proton. Its a finite piece information that holds true contemporarily, and that can be deduced to be true contemporarily.

I have yet to speak to my personal convictions, as I'm speaking to empiricism. I'm a secular humanist with scientific skeptical outlook. Empiricism held within my world view but it not spoken of here as viewed in my world view.

Yes, I'm familiar with the philosophy of science, and its long stuttering history. I'm not sure why its valid in this circumstance. We're not discussing how science works or why it works but reality verses conviction. I've already stated that belief can be acted on as a fact, but that does not make it a fact.

Science, in all it's beauty (I love science), can never answer all questions. Two examples:
First: science can answer "how", but never "why".
Second: Godel.

Exactly, as to why it can't be a belief, but can inform one.
 
Godel. Math is weirdly awesome but that more to do with the philo of math then it does with science. Math is a tool used by science but not solely done so with it. Its weakness not nessicarly translate as a weakness of science as it uses other tools.

[Siquo]

Earthquakes' links were unhelpful, and very funny , in that order. Unhelpful because different definitions of belief and religion are used throughout the article. The original word "atheist" meant everyone that wasn't a roman catholic. Now (this is from the article) it can include agnosticism, "something"-ism, believers in a "prime mover", pastafaris, people who believe in a god but not in a god that interferes with our lives directly, and people who really believe there is no such thing as a higher power whatsoever. Personally I only regard that last group as a real atheist.

I'd also like to propose "the other viewpoint" to Nadaka's little story about poor little "science":
Religion's been around for a long time. New ones rise, old ones die, people pay lip service and don't really care or they believe zealously to the point of only breathing air and eating sunlight. Along comes the new guy, "science". Science claims not to have the truth, which is modest and humble. Yet it produces miracles on a regular basis that other faiths are left in the dark. They are the ones being attacked, not science! And then it gets worse. You get these radical atheists, who denounce EVERY religion (keep in mind most religions can actually co-exist. Judaism and Christendom are not amongst those), and attack the old guys on the block with their friggin toys. Religion can promise you bliss in the afterlife, but Science (as a faith) can give you heaven on earth, Here and Now! Come get some! Or stay with the losers from the middle ages! Poor religions.

Now for religious control of the masses: They need it. Read the ten commandments. Read beyond the BS. It states, that from above, these guys get a Full Day Off Per Week. A whole day! Even slaves, animals and foreigners! By divine command! God must be a union worker. And the rest of the thou shalt nots: Every group of people that is vaguely civilised has those either ingrained in their laws, or in their culture (note the US does murder people, but evades it by calling it a death sentence, and is therefore not even vaguely civilised). The rules are necessary for people to be able to coexist peacefully. Religion gives people something to hold onto, something to believe in. Hope, love, promise of a better life after this one. It's a shining beacon, a carrot that keeps them on the narrow, straight path.
Now if that faith is undermined, then all hell breaks loose. If there is no God, then there is no afterlife. If there is no afterlife, I can do what I want in this one. Ok, let's murder my neighbour and take his stuff, it's not like I'm going to get punished for it. This is why religion needed protection: to protect the community. Protecting the community, protected the people. Yes there's bad stuff, but don't let it dissuade you from the good parts. There's a lot of good in there that you don't seem to want to see...



For MrWiggles:
Please define reality. God is a subjective reality for someone who believes in it, although it cannot be seen. Protons are NOT a reality for someone who does not believe in it, because they cannot be seen.
You may build a proton cannon, and shoot someone with it, and he will die despite his disbelief ("HAH! NOW do you believe in protons!?!"), but God might strike you down at any moment, and you'll stand before him/her/it, and (s)he will say "Hah, NOW do you believe in me?". I still fail to see the difference between the two.


That was my longest post. Ever.

[Fooj]

I think people get the science-religion conflict wrong a lot. This is my personal opinion.

Same. I think people confuse their purposes when science begins to overwrite the "how" of some religions. I think people get caught up in the details that coincide between a religion and scientific discovery, and forget that the big pictures aren't the same anyway. They both serve very different purposes for different, and sometimes the same, people.

[Earthquake Damage]

Now if that faith is undermined, then all hell breaks loose.

Are you saying a god is necessary for social order?  Or are you instead saying there are people who believe so.  The latter is indeed true.  The former is a pretty bold claim.

[Fooj]

Now if that faith is undermined, then all hell breaks loose.

Are you saying a god is necessary for social order?  Or are you instead saying there are people who believe so.  The latter is indeed true.  The former is a pretty bold claim.

Eh, he's claiming an absolute with that while I'm sure he knows that only applies to a portion of the population. It undoubtedly applies to some of the population and undoubtedly doesn't to the other, but the existence of the former is inevitable and therefore it is valid to say that the complete dissolve of faith would cause anarchy in some manner somewhere.

IE the truth lies between both your claims. Life is dull like that.

[Jackrabbit]

The day someone can't deduce absolute truth over the internet is a sad day indeed.

[Nadaka]

Siquo: I like your counter point. Quite funny I think.

Religious control of the masses is not required given sufficient secular law. 30 years of violation by "bubba" in a federal prison can be sufficiently punishing for most people to avoid murder.

[Cheddarius]

Oh dear god what has happened to my thread
Locking it down.