Print

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

[malimbar04]

If one were to believe prof.Hayes, the universe as represented in Genesis is made of water, which got separated by a flat piece of land at the bottom, and a rigid dome of firmament above, with holes through which rain falls(and that's where the Flood came from as well) - almost verbatim copy of the world view of ancient Babylonians.
Here's where she talks about it:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/sessions/lecture03.html
The rest of the course is equally enlightening:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/content/class-sessions

Seems I can always count on you to bring up the evidence (and links), thanks.

[Zrk2]

Ok, I am an atheist for one simple reason; it makes more sense than anything else.

For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.

[CoughDrop]

Ok, I am an atheist for one simple reason; it makes more sense than anything else.

For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.

Problems? (In my evolution?)

Could you elaborate?

[Andir]

Ok, I am an atheist for one simple reason; it makes more sense than anything else.

For all the problems with evolution it doesn't rely on some ultimate being who only ever gets described by contradictions.

Problems? (In my evolution?)

Could you elaborate?

Maybe he's saying the problem (As in it's not perfectly executed, seemingly more random than not... ) is that a god that can't get evolution to work right (every time) probably doesn't deserve to be doing it.  [That's a guess...]

[Siquo]

I see accusations with nothing to back them up. I said your position was contradictory because it simultaneously makes claims about a deity while saying that deity cannot be understood. You say my position is contradictory ... because?

Objective truth and observation rule eachother out, since no observation is without subjectivity.

Why would I attack you through your ideas? I'm trying to get to the root of what you believe so that you think about it more.

That's good, and working, thanks

And I'm not seeing how contradictions on their own or changes push any understanding of.. anything. You don't discover things by creating contradictions or changing arbitrarily, you must actually find the contradictions, and then THINK about them. Without sorting a contradiction out you get, what exactly? Cognitive Dissonance? Because you certainly don't make any progress by saying "Look, this new thing contradicts our current understanding! Let's ignore the part where we find out why and what we did wrong and whether or not we can devise a more predictive model!"

That's not how it works. You create a hypothesis (you "make up" the contradiction), and then you start testing for it. Scientists don't go experimenting at random and then accidentally discover shit. Well, sometimes they do, those eureka moments are famous, but very rare. It's all about dissonance and challenging the status quo. You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know. "Contradiction" is a wide term, here, including "refining" and "adding to".

See above. Contradictions are only opportunities for growth if they are explored and conquered as they arise. I'm not sure where your growth comes from if you're defending contradictions for their own sake.

Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.

[Glowcat]

Objective truth and observation rule each other out, since no observation is without subjectivity.

That is why we must coordinate our observations with that of others and analyze our observation with rigorous logical deduction. When I refer to Objective Truth I mean treating reality as if it were a real thing and piecing our observations together so that the whole makes as much coherent sense as possible.

That's not how it works. You create a hypothesis (you "make up" the contradiction), and then you start testing for it. Scientists don't go experimenting at random and then accidentally discover shit. Well, sometimes they do, those eureka moments are famous, but very rare. It's all about dissonance and challenging the status quo. You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know. "Contradiction" is a wide term, here, including "refining" and "adding to".

Eh? A hypothesis isn't a contradiction, it's a prediction about what will happen. i.e. If this happens, this should also happen. Current issues with scientific understanding do drive the search but, as you said, it isn't random. It is the contradiction or whatever it is that doesn't make sense which becomes the target of inquiry and what must be resolved. I was urging you to resolve the contradiction in your own philosophy (as I understood it).

It should also be considered that while scientific revelation may contradict earlier findings, it doesn't tend to completely flip previous findings on their head. Scientific advancement starts with blurred vision and slowly becomes more clear. The image itself may reveal new details as it becomes clearer but you won't see anything completely crazy like... The Earth suddenly becoming Flat again. At least not without some very good reasoning/observations to back it up.

Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.

The method by which you examine and sort your beliefs is essential to understanding yourself. I love the scientific method precisely because its (good) practitioners only consider findings reasonably accurate when they can support them but will still pursue ideas to the best extent of their current ability.

[CoughDrop]

You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know.

If you only discover things by contradicting hypotheses with observational facts, then the only conclusion I can come to is that you believe that there is already a hypothesis to every conceivable question.

I know I don't have much say in the matter, but I think that the true problem here is that you are confusing theories with beliefs.

[ECrownofFire]

I think the best example of scientific refinement is the atomic model. Plum-pudding, Rutherford model, Bohr model, now the quantum model. They're all mostly the same thing, same basic idea. It's just gotten more and more refined over the years.

[Siquo]

A hypothesis can be construed for every conceivable question, at least, I can't come up with an example that couldn't.
Then you start testing your "answer" (which is what a hypothesis is, a hypothetical answer) to see if it holds up, then it becomes a real "answer" (or theory). There can be multiple valid theories as answers to the same question, and in the case of science the simplest one usually wins.

Now if I answer the same question differently with a different hypothesis, then I'm contradicting (Definition: not saying exactly the same as, contradiction doesn't mean exactly the opposite) the previous one, and we can test which is the better suited answer.

The method by which you examine and sort your beliefs is essential to understanding yourself. I love the scientific method precisely because its (good) practitioners only consider findings reasonably accurate when they can support them but will still pursue ideas to the best extent of their current ability.

Yes, but if the method itself is rigid and unchangeable, how would I ever know it's the right one? The Scientific method wasn't built in a day, either, and may even not be complete yet. Sure, it's a good start, but to hold it up like some holy grail for finding the Truth™ just won't do, for me.

I think the best example of scientific refinement is the atomic model. Plum-pudding, Rutherford model, Bohr model, now the quantum model. They're all mostly the same thing, same basic idea. It's just gotten more and more refined over the years.

Good one. Remember that most of these models persisted alongside eachother for a while until finally concensus was reached over which model was the best one. I call that a contradiction (see definition above).

[Glowcat]

Yes, but if the method itself is rigid and unchangeable, how would I ever know it's the right one? The Scientific method wasn't built in a day, either, and may even not be complete yet. Sure, it's a good start, but to hold it up like some holy grail for finding the Truth™ just won't do, for me.

It doesn't find Truth, it finds truth.

The question is of course how does one discover anything about Absolute Truth when we are always limited by our senses and our logic depends upon the assumptions we make. We will never be able to realize whether we found The Truth or not, so I propose that we're better off instead focusing on the reality that we live in. To that end we must reduce the assumptions in our philosophies until the equation of metaphysics goes from "A + B = X" to "A + B = Reality". Once we've clearly established our goal it is possible to make progress towards understanding it.

The Scientific Method may not be the end all of ways to understand reality but so far it has proven remarkably successful. It would also gladly disprove itself if there were a more predictive method of understanding the universe as we could experience it.

[Leafsnail]

Well, I lack a rigourous methodology like science has, so I haven't really got a good reason to throw away any contradiction yet. For example, string theory is still up in the air with some contradicting hypotheses, just because science hasn't found a way to test for them, yet.

And are you constantly searching for ways to test your hypotheses?

The point is, if you have no intention of ever finding which of your contradictory ideas are true, they're all... well, equally useless.

[CoughDrop]

A hypothesis can be construed for every conceivable question, at least, I can't come up with an example that couldn't.

I was not arguing that a hypothesis can be constructed for every conceivable question, but that there are questions that one does not even know about. They can find the question before forming a hypothesis, thus making your "You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know." statement false.

[Siquo]

It doesn't find Truth, it finds truth.

All too true, I just can't help it that the basic assumptions that underlie something like science, are to me just as believable as the basic assumptions that underlie Religion X, which makes both of their truths equally valid. If you talk about predictions: Science yields better cars, religion yields better answers-to-life-questions and solace. There's a tool for every job, but you have to make sure you use the right one at the right time. Being able to predict the future doesn't make you any more "true", IMNSHO.

And are you constantly searching for ways to test your hypotheses?
The point is, if you have no intention of ever finding which of your contradictory ideas are true, they're all... well, equally useless.

Sure I am, I just haven't found any good methods yet.
I've got a few though. For instance I test ideas against my most basic assumptions, one of which is the long-term survival of the human species (or its descendants). From that, I gathered that "doing good" to other people is a "good" thing, since social structures and "being nice" to eachother strenghtens our chance of survival. I also learned (later on) that strife and "doing bad" is actually necessary to maintain a strong society, as a society without criminals is vulnerable to when someone does decide to perform criminal acts. It's just not up to me to perform that task, plenty of volunteers out there
How did/do I test my most basic assumptions? By denying them, and trying to do the opposite. When it feels so unnatural that I disgust myself doing it, I feel reasonably sure that it's still there, so they have mostly an emotional basis. This suits me fine, as most people act on emotional bases but just deny that it's so, and start making up all kinds of "reasons" about why their responses weren't emotional but rational. Neurological research has shown that justification of your actions after they are done happens all the time.

They can find the question before forming a hypothesis, thus making your "You only discover things by contradicting that what we think we already know." statement false.

I was about to say you're right but after reading it again I realise that I have no idea what you mean.

[Leafsnail]

Being able to predict the future doesn't make you any more "true", IMNSHO.

I disagree.  A theory that perfectly predicts the future in some particular area is much more likely to be true.  Apart from anything else, it gives itself a chance to be falsified if the predictions are incorrect.

For instance: Newtonian ideas of gravitation correctly predicting the location of the previously unknown planet Neptune.

Sure I am, I just haven't found any good methods yet.
I've got a few though. For instance I test ideas against my most basic assumptions, one of which is the long-term survival of the human species (or its descendants). From that, I gathered that "doing good" to other people is a "good" thing, since social structures and "being nice" to eachother strenghtens our chance of survival. I also learned (later on) that strife and "doing bad" is actually necessary to maintain a strong society, as a society without criminals is vulnerable to when someone does decide to perform criminal acts. It's just not up to me to perform that task, plenty of volunteers out there
How did/do I test my most basic assumptions? By denying them, and trying to do the opposite. When it feels so unnatural that I disgust myself doing it, I feel reasonably sure that it's still there, so they have mostly an emotional basis. This suits me fine, as most people act on emotional bases but just deny that it's so, and start making up all kinds of "reasons" about why their responses weren't emotional but rational. Neurological research has shown that justification of your actions after they are done happens all the time.

That still means you end up with assumptions on assumptions.  And how can you ever test ideas relating to God using this method?

I'd say the neurological research is being somewhat misrepresented here.  It just shows that we do more things subconsciously than we think.  Doesn't have to link to emotions or lack of rationality at all (if I see 6+7 and automatically think "13", it doesn't mean I just made an emotional guess - my mind just worked through the logic without me having to consciously do so).

[Siquo]

That still means you end up with assumptions on assumptions.  And how can you ever test ideas relating to God using this method?

Of course, we already established that it's impossible to say anything without assuming anything. And no, the method can't be used on many subjects, that's why it's incomplete.

I'd say the neurological research is being somewhat misrepresented here.  It just shows that we do more things subconsciously than we think.  Doesn't have to link to emotions or lack of rationality at all (if I see 6+7 and automatically think "13", it doesn't mean I just made an emotional guess - my mind just worked through the logic without me having to consciously do so).

Ah, we mean the same. The subconscious communicates basically through "feelings" or "emotions". It's can also be a lot smarter than you are (when well-trained), and it can be a lot more stupid as well. If you train your subconscious to be rational, it can do just that. If I act a certain way, and it "feels wrong", I take that as a hint that I shouldn't be doing that. Which is kind of defeatist, come to think of it, because the subconscious is definitely trainable. See, you just made my one remaining method invalid, because my "testing ground" is trainable by my conscious, I can't use it as an indicator of what's right or wrong on the most basic level (I still can and do on a practical day-to-day basis).

Asshole Thanks, I guess...