I notice that you failed to address the issue: God apparently created us knowing that we would disobey him. This blatat contradiction in Christianity cannot be ignored.
Again, they didn't know right from wrong. They did not know it was wrong to disobey God. Once again, Christianity's contradictions causes problems for Christians.
I said that's the simplest assumption for Occam's Razor in a psychology paper
Which is a groundless assertion.
By your reckoning, my baby son was "born with" a religion and thus should be six months into cognitively practicing a religious viewpoint
Actually, that's your claim. You are the one claiming that people who are religious are so "because they have deduced it to be true", whereas more rational people will tell you that they simply believe what they were taught, and don't put much thought into it.
What I presented, however informally, certainly is evidence that people generally can infer the mind-body problem for themselves even in the absence of a religious upbringing.
That people can doesn't mean that most actually do. You claimed that everyone had "deduced it to be true".
In other words, you're advocating the belief that there are two baskets, one marked religion and one marked science, and that over time as humanity has become more aware of the universe, things have been removed from the religion basket and placed into the science basket? You're just as bad as the biblical literalists if that's the way that you think.
At least biblical literalists are honest about it, whereas the dishonest "pick and choose" Christians simply ignore anything they don't like in the Bible. And yes, there are two baskets. You have failed to show that there aren't. The more we learn through science, the more eroded religion becomes.
Think about this: You create a being, and you know beforehand he is going to transgress, yet thats the way you designed him. Christianity is a basketcase of contradiction.
Adam and Eve died because they ate a fruit which allowed them to tell right from wrong. What do you call someone who can't tell right from wrong? A psychopath. So God basically punished A&E for no longer being psychopaths. And how were they supposed to know that it was wrong to disobey God in the first place, when they didn't even know right from wrong?
Also, what about Adam and Eve's parents? Presumably, they weren't defined as "humans"?
It's also good to be clear on the distinction between *science* and *scientism*. Science is a method of enquiry based on the principles empirical experimentation and theorisation, which inform each other in an evolutionary way. Scientism, on the other hand, is the *belief* that science produces not just plain, hard facts, but also the best, most authoritative and most useful interpretation of life in general.
Yawn. More anti-science FUD. Science produces the best explanation because no other method is able to come close to achieving what science has achieved when it comes to understanding the worl around us. There is no "scientism".
You then go on about "meaning", completely ignoring the fact that you are making claims about reality, which in the end, is within the area of science. Sure, you can't prove or disprove God, but you can analyze specific claims in the religion, because they eventually have to deal with reality, and therefore intrude on science's area.
Are you claiming that there cannot possibly be any scientist who does his work due to real personal goals that he has faith in?
Not religious faith, that's for sure. You seem be dishonestly trying to pretend that working towards a goal is the same as religious faith, but that is simply nonsense. Scientists work on trying to find a cure for cancer because it's an important endeavor, not because there is blind faith that it will happen.
Rather, in this area, papers have been accepted and books published that have merely tried to say "I think this could be one way that believing in an afterlife might be advantageous, therefore belief in an afterlife must have evolved rather than been deduced."
This is nothing but dishonest mud-slinging. Please stop embarrassing yourself any further. You are clearly deeply ignorant and bigoted. Just because you don't like the fact that these things can be explained naturally doesn't mean that your blatant misrepresentation of the findings in this area holds any merit.
I claimed that the simpler explanation is that most people infer for themselves that their existence is not purely mechanistic.
You wrote that "they believe it because they have deduced it to be true", which is nonsense. Very few actually "decude" anything. They merely feel that they shouldn't be because their religion, which they were born with, says so.
As it happens, there is plenty of evidence to bear this out -- regardless of the rise or fall in popularity of specific religions, there's never been a point in history where belief in God, spirituality, or the supernatural has been in the minority.
That is not evidence for your position. Please stop being dishonest. Just because most people believe something, that doesn't make it true. Even if they believe so without being taught it, it doesn't make it true. Your argument is basically "lost of people believe this by themselves, therefore it must be true", which is complete and utter nonsense.
it will be a theory that could never be really tested
Nothing ever becomes more than a theory. Theories are the highest level. The goal of science. And yes, the Big Bang theory can indeed be tested. I suggest that you educate yourself before making assumptions.
People, ie. Scientists, tend to look for the data that best fits the theory and leave the data that doesn't.
On the contrary, scientists actively try to falsify hypotheses and theories. Falsifying something can open up to completely new possibilities, so it's extremely important to do. You are clearly deeply ignorant on the subject...
Science rests on the belief that order and rationality exist in the universe.
No, experience shows that "order and rationality exist in the universe", and because this has been shown to be likely, it has been possible to base research on that. And it still holds up! If it one day turns out that it doesn't, science will simply adjust itself.
The prerequisite of "I can show/demonstrate/repeat" is a faith that the universe is not chaotic, and that if I drop an apple and it fell 100 times that last 100 times I tried it, there's a damn small chance it'll hover the next time.
Again, this isn't faith. It's experience. It's science.
And it's a real leap of faith to extrapolate the order to the timescale of billions of years
You are assuming that one simply extrapolates with no other basis than blind faith, which is wrong.
modeling evolution by natural selection and random variation of traits over hundreds of generations
Evolution has been observed.
Except that pinko atheists scream bloody murder about religion while making this substantive leap of faith, and normal people like me conclude that God wrote the immutable laws of mathematics and physics.
"Pinko atheists" aren't making any "substantive leaps of faith", but what you actually did here was to admit that science and religion are in fact 100% incompatible (if science is "atheist").
And "normal people" who conclude that GODDUNIT are simply ignorant faith heads who hate science.
Faith is simply believing something that can't be proven.
No, faith is believing something with no evidence.
Theres a -ton- of scientific fact that requires faith, especially for the beginning scientist. For example, the basis of uniformitarianism which is essential for the study of geology, can not be 100% proven.
Science doesn't "100% prove" anything.
We rely on the fact that some things are stable and don't change for a ton of scientific measurements.
No, all known data shows that those things are stable. Once we get data which shows otherwise, everything is adjusted accordingly.
You need faith for a good chunk of science in 2009
No you don't. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is based on evidence.
Not to mention that the scientific method is inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning has it's limits - one of which being that it doesn't really "prove" things.
Science isn't supposed to "prove" things.
The best it can do is say "every time we've ever tried X, Y has happened". It establishes probability... but never certainty.
Yes, that's why science works.
Used properly it serves as an excellend indicator of future probability... but when you hear somebody (for example) use "that violates the laws of conservations" as a reason to discount some claim out of hand, that person is taking it on faith that the laws are correct and that the claim isn't, essentially, a black swan.
No, he is not taking it on faith. Experience shows this not to be the case, and he points that out.
To have no faith is to question everything
This is a description of science. Good jbo!
Scientific experiments are often driven by faith. Scientists have faith that fusion is achievable and that cancer can be cured.
Not at all. They are trying to find out if it's possible, and how.
Any time you believe something that hasn't been completely proven (through deductive reasoning, rather than inductive, for example) you are commiting an act of faith.
You don't believe in science. You accept it or not. No faith required.
Unlike religion, science is never "sure". There's no "proof". Science simply sums up the known data and looks at how it all fits together. In the case of the Big Bang, there is a lot of data which supports the theory, and which is best explained that way. And yes, that data can indeed be tested, repeated and verified. No faith required.
We assume that we can base predictions of the future on experiments performed in the past.
Well, no. We know that we can do this because experience shows this to be the case. And if something only ever happens once and will never be repeatable again, it has no bearing on the future anyway.
We can't prove that either one is correct
Experience shows that the scientific method works. No faith required.
Perhaps (I hope) the parent meant reconciling rather than 'combining'.
Actually, the most accurate description of those who try to combine science and religion is "cognitive dissonance". Science and religion aren't even the same concept. Science is a method. Religion is a set of rules, dogmas, etc.
You failed to show that these clear labels are false. Indeed, your argument "we exist, therefore God exists" is just a red herring (and not even a valid argument). Furthermore, it shows how religion is the opposite of science: You simply assert that God exists, and that's that, so you stop looking for answers. If we stop looking for answers, there is no more science. Thanks for confirming that science and religion are 100% incompatible.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that you failed to address the issue: God apparently created us knowing that we would disobey him. This blatat contradiction in Christianity cannot be ignored.
Again, they didn't know right from wrong. They did not know it was wrong to disobey God. Once again, Christianity's contradictions causes problems for Christians.
The idiot here is the guy who claims that we can't test the Big Bang theory.
All I hear is FUD.
Actually, I quoted your exact words.
Which is a groundless assertion.
Actually, that's your claim. You are the one claiming that people who are religious are so "because they have deduced it to be true", whereas more rational people will tell you that they simply believe what they were taught, and don't put much thought into it.
That people can doesn't mean that most actually do. You claimed that everyone had "deduced it to be true".
It's the same browser, Netfront.
People are ignorant of fairy tales? How terrible!
At least biblical literalists are honest about it, whereas the dishonest "pick and choose" Christians simply ignore anything they don't like in the Bible. And yes, there are two baskets. You have failed to show that there aren't. The more we learn through science, the more eroded religion becomes.
Also, what about Adam and Eve's parents? Presumably, they weren't defined as "humans"?
Yawn. More anti-science FUD. Science produces the best explanation because no other method is able to come close to achieving what science has achieved when it comes to understanding the worl around us. There is no "scientism".
You then go on about "meaning", completely ignoring the fact that you are making claims about reality, which in the end, is within the area of science. Sure, you can't prove or disprove God, but you can analyze specific claims in the religion, because they eventually have to deal with reality, and therefore intrude on science's area.
Not religious faith, that's for sure. You seem be dishonestly trying to pretend that working towards a goal is the same as religious faith, but that is simply nonsense. Scientists work on trying to find a cure for cancer because it's an important endeavor, not because there is blind faith that it will happen.
Again, we know from experience that the future behaves like the past. No assumptions needed.
This is nothing but dishonest mud-slinging. Please stop embarrassing yourself any further. You are clearly deeply ignorant and bigoted. Just because you don't like the fact that these things can be explained naturally doesn't mean that your blatant misrepresentation of the findings in this area holds any merit.
You wrote that "they believe it because they have deduced it to be true", which is nonsense. Very few actually "decude" anything. They merely feel that they shouldn't be because their religion, which they were born with, says so.
That is not evidence for your position. Please stop being dishonest. Just because most people believe something, that doesn't make it true. Even if they believe so without being taught it, it doesn't make it true. Your argument is basically "lost of people believe this by themselves, therefore it must be true", which is complete and utter nonsense.
You are clearly deeply ignorant and dishonest. Claiming that we can't even test the Big Bang? Wow.
Belief in God is faith, and faith is incompatible with science. They are polar opposites. Comparing acceptance of science with blind faith is crazy.
Nothing ever becomes more than a theory. Theories are the highest level. The goal of science. And yes, the Big Bang theory can indeed be tested. I suggest that you educate yourself before making assumptions.
On the contrary, scientists actively try to falsify hypotheses and theories. Falsifying something can open up to completely new possibilities, so it's extremely important to do. You are clearly deeply ignorant on the subject...
No, experience shows that "order and rationality exist in the universe", and because this has been shown to be likely, it has been possible to base research on that. And it still holds up! If it one day turns out that it doesn't, science will simply adjust itself.
Again, this isn't faith. It's experience. It's science.
You are assuming that one simply extrapolates with no other basis than blind faith, which is wrong.
Evolution has been observed.
"Pinko atheists" aren't making any "substantive leaps of faith", but what you actually did here was to admit that science and religion are in fact 100% incompatible (if science is "atheist").
And "normal people" who conclude that GODDUNIT are simply ignorant faith heads who hate science.
No, faith is believing something with no evidence.
Science doesn't "100% prove" anything.
No, all known data shows that those things are stable. Once we get data which shows otherwise, everything is adjusted accordingly.
No you don't. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is based on evidence.
Science isn't supposed to "prove" things.
Yes, that's why science works.
No, he is not taking it on faith. Experience shows this not to be the case, and he points that out.
This is a description of science. Good jbo!
Not at all. They are trying to find out if it's possible, and how.
You don't believe in science. You accept it or not. No faith required.
Unlike religion, science is never "sure". There's no "proof". Science simply sums up the known data and looks at how it all fits together. In the case of the Big Bang, there is a lot of data which supports the theory, and which is best explained that way. And yes, that data can indeed be tested, repeated and verified. No faith required.
What kind of dialog should be happening? Should we incorporate religious faith into the scientific method? No thanks.
No, theories never become laws. Laws describe facts, while theories explain them.
Well, no. We know that we can do this because experience shows this to be the case. And if something only ever happens once and will never be repeatable again, it has no bearing on the future anyway.
Experience shows that the scientific method works. No faith required.
Actually, the most accurate description of those who try to combine science and religion is "cognitive dissonance". Science and religion aren't even the same concept. Science is a method. Religion is a set of rules, dogmas, etc.
You failed to show that these clear labels are false. Indeed, your argument "we exist, therefore God exists" is just a red herring (and not even a valid argument). Furthermore, it shows how religion is the opposite of science: You simply assert that God exists, and that's that, so you stop looking for answers. If we stop looking for answers, there is no more science. Thanks for confirming that science and religion are 100% incompatible.