[_ Old Earth _] God must be scientifically verifiable or He doesn't exist.

[jwu]

I mean, you could argue that all thoughts are existent since they are grounded in energy within the brain. For example, beauty would be a concept which is "energy" organized in the brain. You could argue that a purple unicorn is existent because it is energy in my head. However, this is merely a semantical dodge of his argument. One could say, "There exists a pink unicorn that can fly," and it would "exist" because the thought was in my head. However, this use of the word "exist" is essentially meaningless. The argument that all thoughts are concepts would logically lead to the conclusion that EVERYTHING exists. Any thought I came up with would be an electrical impulse, and thus "existent." This results in logical absurdity (since contradictory existing things would happen).

Actually, it wasn't argued that "imaginable" things actually do exist - just that concepts exist and that concepts are immaterial and thus disprove the premise of anything existent consisting of matter/energy.

How about logic? Mathematics? I would very much say that these do exist, yet they don't consist of matter or energy. Don't get me wrong, they can manifest themselves in form of thoughts, which can be argued to be purely material...but even if all life were extinct in the universe and no-one thinks about it, the concept of "mathematics" would still exist, wouldn't it?

If you argue that space and time do not actually exist, then how can they have distinguishable attributes? We even quantify them...in cubic meters, minutes...

That's not possible with nothingness...you don't get two "units" of nothingness by adding one to another.

 

[Jayls5]

That sounds good in theory where you would want to put faith in a Christian God and the purple unicorn on the same epistemological level but in all reality would you be able to produce any intersubjective verifiability that the Christians can show vs your purple unicorn?

The only point was that it would be on the same epistemological level. I think it's a good question to ask in reality if we could be able to have an "intersubjective verifiability" for the purple unicorn. I don't think it's really a hammer blow to my unicorn theory. Take the widespread examples of countless people in history believing in what you would consider to be a ridiculous personified deity. Thor throwing lightning bolts, Apollo and his golden chariot making the sun rise, and native americans believing that the world was suspended by a giant tortoise were all widespread beleifs. These all have one thing in common. They were all fairly unsubstantiated claims, passed down by tradition, and indoctrinated in our children to believe it. I'm sure the believers felt emotionally empowered by a lot of these religious myths just as others believe in the interventionist God of modern Christianity. The fact that we are less likely to believe in animated Gods and Goddesses as explanations for natural events now merely supports my earlier point: that science is making previously miraculous events simple and profane.

Let us investigate this. Suppose theories of Evolution and Abiogenesis suddenly receive nearly irrefutable evidence for their validity (on the same level as say our understanding of chemistry). There is now a highly substantiated natural explanation to something that God once did. We might not say it disproves God, but it certainly leaves a more probable explanation than the one depicted literally by the bible. This is why so many are forced to take the bible as a collection of allegories. Surely, nothing will disprove God, but His influence will gradually be removed from the sphere of what we consider "modern intervention." One day, we might merely have a Christian God whose common ability is merely to make one feel special and not alone. Science might not be able to take that away, unless we happen to find the chemical responsible for that feeling. We could then dispense and sell "nicotine style" patches that releases the desired emotional response without all the trouble of prayer and church going. Ok, the last part was a bit facetious, but I think you understand my point.

I think you should qualify that statement with "some/most" theists.

I thought it was an implied "some/most" given the nature of my argument. Universal statements that are about a culture/religion/race/sex are not true. We can merely make accurate statements about significant quantities within a categorized group. The fact that some people bomb abortion clinics while others are pacifists under the same group would necessarily lead one to the conclusion that there are noteworthy differences. I was merely addressing the people who fell into my description, and I in no way meant to imply that all Christians felt or believed a certain way.

This is where I agree that VaultZero4Me got it right. You can scrutinize the "claims of the theist". The falsification of the theist's claim does not prove the non-existence of God. The flaw in your argument is that you equate "natural explanation" to "evidence against God". This begs the question, "Is God incapabale of creating natural events by natural processes?"

I don't think I was making the case that it was explicit evidence against God. I was pointing out the fact that alternative explanations become so much more likely after scientific evidence builds that it may as well have falsified God. I think a lot of Christians realize this trend, and that's why so many fight evolution with scriptural motivation rather than authentic interest in scientific discovery. It makes sense that "some/many" would feel threatened by science because it often takes away the power of their God. As mentioned in this thread, it ironically is embraced by the same crowd when science happens to coincide with scripture. I'm sure this is borderline argument ad nauseum, but I need not mention the Christian resistance to Copernicus and Galileo. I also need not go into the church's general support of Big Bang theory (creation ex nihilo), even though it is LESS empirically supported than evolution.

 

[TanNinety]

I think it's a good question to ask in reality if we could be able to have an "intersubjective verifiability" for the purple unicorn. I don't think it's really a hammer blow to my unicorn theory.

I think it is. If we consider two tentative competing theories for the cosmic particle accelaration we see that "Black Holes" is the most known/accepted versus the "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" based on intersubjectivity of the astrophysicists, though both try to explain the same phenomenon with lack of enough evidence to falsify the other theory. So 'black holes' is epistemologically at a higher level compared to 'MECO'. If evidence is found backing up MECO then this will tip the scale drastically just as it would towards your purple unicorn if found. Until then, based on intersubjective evidence, Christianity will be at a higher epistemological level than say the purple unicorn or the flying sphagetti monster.

There is now a highly substantiated natural explanation to something that God once did.

Science is a threat to the radical/fundamental literalist readers of the Bible. To the rest, the now highly substantiated natural explantion would be the answer to "how" God once did it. Your nicotine style God patches was pretty funny. Christians probably will call it "mark of the beast" ;)

I thought it was an implied "some/most" given the nature of my argument. Universal statements that are about a culture/religion/race/sex are not true. We can merely make accurate statements about significant quantities within a categorized group.

Fair enough. I will note your statements as such from henceforth.

I was pointing out the fact that alternative explanations become so much more likely after scientific evidence builds that it may as well have falsified God ... It makes sense that "some/many" would feel threatened by science because it often takes away the power of their God. As mentioned in this thread, it ironically is embraced by the same crowd when science happens to coincide with scripture.

I agree. If one starts to make scientific claims based on the bible which implicitly link to the validity of God, then the falsification of such claims would definitely be a blow to the validity of God by proxy.

 

[Jayls5]

I think it is. If we consider two tentative competing theories for the cosmic particle accelaration we see that "Black Holes" is the most known/accepted versus the "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" based on intersubjectivity of the astrophysicists, though both try to explain the same phenomenon with lack of enough evidence to falsify the other theory. So 'black holes' is epistemologically at a higher level compared to 'MECO'. If evidence is found backing up MECO then this will tip the scale drastically just as it would towards your purple unicorn if found. Until then, based on intersubjective evidence, Christianity will be at a higher epistemological level than say the purple unicorn or the flying sphagetti monster.

I think you glossed over my point here. I referenced all of the other things that were equally laughable as my unicorn which actually occurred in history. The fact that people all independently had a subjective experience of Thor's thunderbolts doesn't mean it's the least bit accurate. I was implicitly arguing that the Christian God and any other (non scientific) claims like my unicorn could have this widespread subjective experience.

Although I understand what you're trying to compare by your black hole/MECO reference, I've got to say it's a false analogy. You're comparing scientifically verifiable theories to unverifiable religious propositions. One scientific theory has preference right now given lack of evidence for the other. Assuming the evidence showed that the other was more likely, scientists as a whole would adopt it... or they wouldn't be scientists at all. In the case of these religions, a culture's tendency to adopt a position depends almost entirely on indoctrinating our kids and what the culture currently promotes from tradition. This is not an empirically testable position. All of the religions will be intersubjectively "verified," but this fact does not alter the essential truth value of the religion. Truth value is what I'm interested in.

Science is a threat to the radical/fundamental literalist readers of the Bible. To the rest, the now highly substantiated natural explantion would be the answer to "how" God once did it. Your nicotine style God patches was pretty funny. Christians probably will call it "mark of the beast" ;)

Well, unfortunately there are degrees of fundamentalism. As a whole, fundamentalism has an enormous amount of political power in the USA - in both money and populace. We have Huckabee recently saying that we should add an amendment to the constitution dictating that it is founded on Christianity (a dangerously vague statement). Just look at our current president's spiritual adviser... Since we were mentioning Dawkins, I found this fitting:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wGrltT54OsA

I agree. If one starts to make scientific claims based on the bible which implicitly link to the validity of God, then the falsification of such claims would definitely be a blow to the validity of God by proxy.

Well I'm glad we found some easy common ground :-D

 

[Imagican]

Funny,

But MOST scientist, (given TIME), will ulitmately come to the CONCLUSION that there MUST be a 'supreme BEING', (hence; God).

Even those that are insistant upon KNOWLEDGE 'beging their 'god', are ONLY able to USE their science by the DISCOVERIES of their past teachers. And NOTE, the WORD; discoveries. For even those that DO the 'discovering' are forced to openly admit that their discoveries were ONLY the 'finding' of knowledge. That the principles and mechanisms EXIST well before the 'discovery' of them.

Mathematics is a perfect example. The formula and methods involved with Physics is NOT 'man-made' science. It is a 'beginning of understanding' of HOW this universe is 'put together' so to speak. NOT a 'creation' of mankind, but a 'glimpse' into undertanding. But such an ORDERLY existence of principle and application MUST have had a 'creation' by 'something' of ORDER. And chaos does NOT bring about order. Therefore, those that have a 'deeper understanding' are most definitely LED to an undertanding that 'something' brought about the ORDER that we clearly see here on earth and in the heavens. That can ONLY lead to an understanding of purpose which can ONLY lead to an understanding of God. For to admit that 'someTHING' created the ORDER that we observe, is to openly admit that there IS a Creator. God has revealed this WELL before man even began to understand the 'method' of this 'creation'.

MEC

 

[Jayls5]

Funny,

But MOST scientist, (given TIME), will ulitmately come to the CONCLUSION that there MUST be a 'supreme BEING', (hence; God).

Even those that are insistant upon KNOWLEDGE 'beging their 'god', are ONLY able to USE their science by the DISCOVERIES of their past teachers. And NOTE, the WORD; discoveries. For even those that DO the 'discovering' are forced to openly admit that their discoveries were ONLY the 'finding' of knowledge. That the principles and mechanisms EXIST well before the 'discovery' of them.

Mathematics is a perfect example. The formula and methods involved with Physics is NOT 'man-made' science. It is a 'beginning of understanding' of HOW this universe is 'put together' so to speak. NOT a 'creation' of mankind, but a 'glimpse' into undertanding. But such an ORDERLY existence of principle and application MUST have had a 'creation' by 'something' of ORDER. And chaos does NOT bring about order. Therefore, those that have a 'deeper understanding' are most definitely LED to an undertanding that 'something' brought about the ORDER that we clearly see here on earth and in the heavens. That can ONLY lead to an understanding of purpose which can ONLY lead to an understanding of God. For to admit that 'someTHING' created the ORDER that we observe, is to openly admit that there IS a Creator. God has revealed this WELL before man even began to understand the 'method' of this 'creation'.

MEC

Most "scientist" as you describe do not ultimately come to the conclusion of a theist God. If you want to make that position, I welcome you to support it with facts.

Our universe appears orderly and constant as a product of the fact that we couldn't exist in a disorderly one to ask the question, "Why is our universe disorderly?" We'd never come to exist in a disorderly universe.

So obviously, as a necessity of existing as a conscious creature, we will be able to at least grasp some of the truths of our universe with predictable results. Assuming the universe did not have "laws" as we describe them, we wouldn't be here to question why that is the case.

To attribute our "orderly" existence to a divine creator is not necessary. The fact that we exist at all given our current understanding of science necessitates that we are able to understand the natural world. It is supported by the previous successes of science, and it is grounded in the fact we exist at all. To attribute the "luck" or "unlikelihood" of a universe as supporting life is either the product of a lack of scientific data or pseudoscience. Either way, it's not all that fruitful on an objective level. It might make you sleep better at night though.

 

[TanNinety]

Jayls5 - I did not gloss over your point even though re-reading my post it does seem that way. My closing statement of agreement with you on the issue reflects the "Thor/Apollo/Tortoise .." hypothesis which are scientifically verifiable and falsifiable. I am not testing for the accuracy of the claims, I think this might be the crux of our disagreement, I am testing for the epistemic preferability of the faith in Christian God vs the purple unicorn. Intersubjective verifiablity would place Christianity on a higher ground compared to the unicorn. I am not disputing that we might one day dismiss Christianity as we did some of the predecessors as you have pointed and worship Zoomba. But I was making a case against "faith leads to a bunch of nonsense and all unsubstantiated claims are on the same level, so if Christianity is true then so is the purple unicorn". Case in point "black holes vs MECO" wasn't a wrong analogy but I admit it wasn't a perfect analogy.

Assuming the evidence showed that the other was more likely, scientists as a whole would adopt it... or they wouldn't be scientists at all. In the case of these religions, a culture's tendency to adopt a position depends almost entirely on indoctrinating our kids and what the culture currently promotes from tradition. This is not an empirically testable position. All of the religions will be intersubjectively "verified," but this fact does not alter the essential truth value of the religion.

Again, I wasn't comparing scientific method with religious faith. The analogy was just to demonstrate the preferability of one theory(Christian) over the other(unicorn) in the realm of faith.

Truth value is what I'm interested in.

This would become a very subjective excercise. So I will refrain.

I fault both the Dawkin's camp and the religious fundamentalist camp. He uses the word "science" and "scientist" so fervently to the point where he almost indoctrinates one into thinking that science explicitly refers to atheism. I detest intolerance no matter what "ism" it comes in. As for the video, it was entertaining. It's funny to see someone say that evolutionists claim that the eye popped out of nowhere while it is the creationists that actually claim that. My bet, if that video was shown to their congregation and we get their opinions you would sure hear how Ted Hag did a great job at setting Dawkins straight on things

 

[Jayls5]

Jayls5 - I did not gloss over your point even though re-reading my post it does seem that way. My closing statement of agreement with you on the issue reflects the "Thor/Apollo/Tortoise .." hypothesis which are scientifically verifiable and falsifiable. I am not testing for the accuracy of the claims, I think this might be the crux of our disagreement, I am testing for the epistemic preferability of the faith in Christian God vs the purple unicorn. Intersubjective verifiablity would place Christianity on a higher ground compared to the unicorn. I am not disputing that we might one day dismiss Christianity as we did some of the predecessors as you have pointed and worship Zoomba. But I was making a case against "faith leads to a bunch of nonsense and all unsubstantiated claims are on the same level, so if Christianity is true then so is the purple unicorn". Case in point "black holes vs MECO" wasn't a wrong analogy but I admit it wasn't a perfect analogy.

Black Holes and MECO are not a matter of faith though. It's speculative hypothesizing that has yet to be significantly tested. When people reference "black holes" as a scientific position, they are implicitly talking about an intense gravitational collapse that appears to capture all of the light. We generally don't speak in certainty about black holes, but we reference it generally as an event that occurs where we are fuzzy on the details. The fact that there is an alternate theory to that of the standard black hole is only a semantical issue. The different word isn't even necessary. We could clarify the details of what is happening by this "Black Hole" we see evidence of.

The core of our issue here is precisely objective truth. I don't care about theistic personal Gods, and this is because no Christian truly believes in a theistic personal God. This is because nobody could meaningfully talk to others about a theistic personal God. We define a personal God as one commonly depicted by Christians as only occurring on an individual level. By stating that a God has intersubjective verifiability between more than one person, it cannot be a solely personal God. You're implicitly appealing to an external objective deity, something capable of giving you that subjective feeling. Assuming it was ONLY a personal God, there would be more than one God in Christianity... since every Christian would have a personal God. So, God's objective existence is actually asserted by stating it is intersubjectively verifiable. He would have to be able to be subjected to scientific testing and scrutiny as a result.

That, or I can see one other option, which I have brought up. I proposed that intersubjective verifiability could be a meaningless term grounded in illogical tradition and indoctrination. We witnessed all of those (now) stupid religions and laugh at them. They were all supported by tradition and indoctrination, which was the main driving factor keeping them alive. The vague ties they had to what we understand as objective reality (lightning, the sun, etc) is what eventually led to their destruction through science. We now have a fairly good knowledge of how lightning and the sun functions without the need to appeal to deities.

Now, by asserting we have a God that helps us on our daily lives but is not subjected to scientific scrutiny, it is on the exact same epistemological level as my unverifiable omnipotent unicorn. To merely refer back to this vague intersubjective verifiability and how people tend to agree with God for (unscientific reasons) seems to be a logical retort of, "Oh yeah, well most people claim to experience this Christian God over your omnipotent unicorn!" And I immediately refer back to the fact that there are countless other religions of a laughable nature with the exact same intersubjectively 'verified support.' So the conclusion we reach here is that vague non scientific notions of intersubjective verifiability is not a reason to accept a position. In fact, in logic, this probably why this is an official logical fallacy (argument ad populum).

Again, I wasn't comparing scientific method with religious faith. The analogy was just to demonstrate the preferability of one theory(Christian) over the other(unicorn) in the realm of faith.

What exactly is meant by preference? Practicality? Whimsical choice?

Lets go for practicality.

The fact that many get a better emotional or personal response from a specific religion is a product of tradition and indoctrination rather than the theory of Christianity itself. It would be more practical to simply address this fact instead of attributing validity to a theory that is not grounded with any stronger epistemological verification than my omnipotent and benevolent unicorn.

Lets go for whimsical choice. I like vanilla ice cream. It's not right nor wrong. I like my omnipotent unicorn. It's not right nor wrong, not anymore right or wrong than Christianity.

This would become a very subjective excercise. So I will refrain.

I fault both the Dawkin's camp and the religious fundamentalist camp. He uses the word "science" and "scientist" so fervently to the point where he almost indoctrinates one into thinking that science explicitly refers to atheism. I detest intolerance no matter what "ism" it comes in. As for the video, it was entertaining. It's funny to see someone say that evolutionists claim that the eye popped out of nowhere while it is the creationists that actually claim that. My bet, if that video was shown to their congregation and we get their opinions you would sure hear how Ted Hag did a great job at setting Dawkins straight on things

I think talking about science as a subjective exercise, if you are doing it, is disingenuous. When hundreds of scientific instruments all independently verify something within a margin of error of 99.99%, you've got to say there's a hint of objectivity our "subjectivity" is leading to.

Dawkin's camp is scientific. He has stated that he will drop the notion of evolution if it is scientifically refuted. The irony of the video was that Dawkins, as a true scientist, would happily adjust the 4.6 (or whatever) billion year universe given new strong scientific data. He was just fairly confident that it was unlikely to change at this point. The religious guy, on the other hand, talked about giving people a choice. Yet, in that very sermon he preached about "truth" that cannot not change. Their congregation might think Ted set him straight on things precisely because they've been indoctrinated to believe something empirically and scientifically unsubstantiated as an absolute. The most articulate, non-confrontational, and well worded position made to that congregation would still receive criticism based on the sole fact it contradicted scripture. Their tendency to disagree is a moot point.

 

[Imagican]

In reply,

The ONLY means of understanding ORDER is our objective VIEW of or definition of ORDER. And the ONLY examples that we have in relation to order are that which we are able to create. And this points DIRECTLY to the obvious. That for ORDER to EXIST it NEED be 'created'. Otherwise, there IS NO ORDER.

According to the science of evolution, EVERYTHING came from NOTHING but by mere CHANCE, all the necessary ingredients came together to 'create'. We have NO evidence that this is EVEN possible WITHOUT guidance. Without 'something' placing everything in order. Random chance will NOT allow this to happen. Only in the minds and imaginations of those unwilling to accept the evidence.

Evidence of what I previously stated: Almost EVERY bit of the foundation of what YOU would call science was 'discovered' by those of FAITH. From Newton to Einstein, each of these has offered a PLAIN and irrefutable acceptance of a 'divine' Creator. For EACH eventually comes to the SAME understanding that 'random chance' cannot BE the answer to our existence.

And God CAN be scientifically verifiable to ANY willing to accept the evidence that has been offered. For, while man was still struggling witht the 'idea' of a 'flat earth', the Word of God had already offered that the EARTH was round. Even though it took mankind thousands of years AFTER it was stated in the Word to PROVE it, we had already been offered the scientific explanation of MANY things in nature. From the water cycle, to time, much of what took mankind, perhaps MILLIONS of years to UNDERSTAND on his own, were offered in written word of the prophets thousands of years before ANY physical PROOF was discovered.

Now, how does one propose to argue against prophecy that it 100 percent accurate. And how does one deny the obviousness of these things being revealed BEFORE proof was even possible WITHOUT some sort of 'divine' intervention. The words and concepts being offered THOUSANDS of years BEFORE man was able to PROVE any of it.

The biggest problem between science and religion is that science insists that religion MUST be 'wrong' for the simple sake that MANY that follow religion refuse to accept what science IS able to prove. Blind faith can be a wonderous thing so long as this faith is directed in the proper direction. But it can most certainly be misdirected and lead to a LACK of understanding.

The earth IS much older than 'traditionalist' believe it to be. A literal six day creation is ludicrous. But because 'traditionalist' continue to hold to these 'traditions' in learning, science finds that this is a 'perfect' excuse to dismiss religion in general.

There is room for both my friend. Science is most certainly able to show understanding of that which God 'created'. The simple FACT that EVERYTHING that we KNOW revolves around numbers that can be offered in formulae that WE did NOT 'create' but DISCOVER shows that 'something' created this ORDER. And EVERYTHING IS NUMBERS. Read what Newton offered so far as his views of science and religion. One of the greatest scientist that the world has ever known ended his 'science' career in his early twenties, (all that he offered to science was FINISHED by this young age), and spent the REST of his life trying to unlock the mystery of Revelation. And this being one of the greatest minds science has ever known.

Einstein's story is little different. He openly acknowledge a 'supreme being'. Understanding THAT is what LED to his greatest discoveries. For this man didn't simply offer a 'new' species to a 'science book', but discovered mathematical content that made it possible to discern time AND space. A NEW dimention almost. But openly admitting that this WAS order that NEED be 'created' to EXIST.

So, there will always be individuals unwilling to bow to authority. Thinking that 'they' are the masters of their own destiny. And to an extent this IS true. But only to the extent of CHOICE. And one day even this will be conformed to THE TRUTH.

MEC

 

[Jayls5]

In reply,

The ONLY means of understanding ORDER is our objective VIEW of or definition of ORDER. And the ONLY examples that we have in relation to order are that which we are able to create. And this points DIRECTLY to the obvious. That for ORDER to EXIST it NEED be 'created'. Otherwise, there IS NO ORDER.

Sparing the necessity of order being "created" (loaded language right there), I essentially said this a few posts up. It's the Anthropic principle. We, as living creatures, would only come to existence in a universe that we call orderly. We shouldn't take surprise from the fact that if one small aspect of our physical "orderly" laws was different, we wouldn't exist. The very ability to ask the question is contingent on the fact that these laws would work out for us. To attribute this to an intelligible God, a series of "possible universes," or one of the other theories is pseudoscience. It does nothing to advance human knowledge because it is beyond the realm of scientific discovery by definition.

I simply say, "I'm glad that I am alive!" And I leave it at that.

Thanking a Christian God is an unnecessary semantical step with a ton of theological and historical baggage. A Christian God can mean anything from pacifism to burning someone alive for heresy. It can mean persecution, and it can mean giving to the poor. It can be telling Galileo that there are no moons around Jupiter, and it can be telling Copernicus that the world is the center of the universe. Everyone thinks their scriptural and theological interpretation is the right one. I just don't put my beliefs on a pedestal. I just make a position, and I try to argue why I think it's correct or better. I don't think my beliefs are an absolute. That would be presumptuous of me, and I think a lot of theists are guilty of this.

According to the science of evolution, EVERYTHING came from NOTHING but by mere CHANCE, all the necessary ingredients came together to 'create'. We have NO evidence that this is EVEN possible WITHOUT guidance. Without 'something' placing everything in order. Random chance will NOT allow this to happen. Only in the minds and imaginations of those unwilling to accept the evidence.

A great deal of this entire post I have addressed in another thread. I'm going to quote myself here:

"The mathematical odds of my theory are really not all that improbable, especially when viewed with the alternative. I'm not sure that many theists understand all of the principles involved in calculating the probability of intelligent life as we know it. First of all, I'll admit that it is speculative and more qualitative than quantitative. However, think it is important to illustrate some important principles so there is no confusion as to what exactly I'm basing my position on. I don't want to bring in a long winded evolutionist argument. The basic tenants of the position are important to cover though. This is not some cliff of improbability that must be ascended from the base in one leap (thank Richard Dawkins for that analogy). This is a slow, gradual sloping mountain with individual ledges and peaks, ascended one at a time, resulting in new creatures and further complexity. We are not at the top of this mountain, but we can reasonably say that we are higher than other forms of life with all that we have accomplished. This is not solely a random leap. The randomness is SELECTED by nature as better for survival, and it slowly causes speciation. There are few evolutionary leaps here and there. But it was not an instant change of one species without vision to one which randomly mutates a highly complex eye. Countless complex structures we can reduce further back, each being useful for survival over an animal without this trait.

Now, admittedly, the biggest ledge of this mountain is the first one... from natural substances to life. I don't claim to know precisely how this occurred. I certainly consider it a possibility when taking into account the anthropic principle, the size of our universe, and the scope of time. I also consider fact that one of our first crappy experiments to recreate basic building blocks of life was successful... we were able to produce some of the significant amino acids necessary for life without much trouble at all. I haven't truly subscribed myself to a specific version of abiogenesis just yet because I don't think the evidence is substantial enough like evolution.

The main criticism against evolution is typically regarded as the argument from irreducible complexity. By declaring a mechanism as being too complex to be formed by "random chance" (a complete bastardization of evolution by the way), THEN attributing that mechanism to a higher intelligence, it necessarily leads one to continually beg the question what "greater" thing made each successive creator.

If something is too complex to be created by evolutionary processes, then one cannot ever logically reach God without those premises ALSO being attributed to God. To assert that God does not require a more complex creator and allow Him to "create itself" or "always exist," begs the question why another designer couldn't have that exact same explanation. In order to exempt God from needing a more complex source, one would have to resort to a typical explanation of "omnipotence" or something similar. That's how it usually goes though... when logic breaks down, give God the ability to break logic! This also begs the question why anyone bothered with the argument in the first place. Why not just say "GOD EXISTS DESPITE LOGICAL ABSURDITY BECAUSE HE IS ALL POWERFUL!" I can only speculate that it's because it sounds less convincing, and one is less likely to gain a potential convert.."

Evidence of what I previously stated: Almost EVERY bit of the foundation of what YOU would call science was 'discovered' by those of FAITH. From Newton to Einstein, each of these has offered a PLAIN and irrefutable acceptance of a 'divine' Creator. For EACH eventually comes to the SAME understanding that 'random chance' cannot BE the answer to our existence.

And God CAN be scientifically verifiable to ANY willing to accept the evidence that has been offered. For, while man was still struggling witht the 'idea' of a 'flat earth', the Word of God had already offered that the EARTH was round. Even though it took mankind thousands of years AFTER it was stated in the Word to PROVE it, we had already been offered the scientific explanation of MANY things in nature. From the water cycle, to time, much of what took mankind, perhaps MILLIONS of years to UNDERSTAND on his own, were offered in written word of the prophets thousands of years before ANY physical PROOF was discovered.

Now, how does one propose to argue against prophecy that it 100 percent accurate. And how does one deny the obviousness of these things being revealed BEFORE proof was even possible WITHOUT some sort of 'divine' intervention. The words and concepts being offered THOUSANDS of years BEFORE man was able to PROVE any of it.

The biggest problem between science and religion is that science insists that religion MUST be 'wrong' for the simple sake that MANY that follow religion refuse to accept what science IS able to prove. Blind faith can be a wonderous thing so long as this faith is directed in the proper direction. But it can most certainly be misdirected and lead to a LACK of understanding.

The earth IS much older than 'traditionalist' believe it to be. A literal six day creation is ludicrous. But because 'traditionalist' continue to hold to these 'traditions' in learning, science finds that this is a 'perfect' excuse to dismiss religion in general.

There is room for both my friend. Science is most certainly able to show understanding of that which God 'created'. The simple FACT that EVERYTHING that we KNOW revolves around numbers that can be offered in formulae that WE did NOT 'create' but DISCOVER shows that 'something' created this ORDER. And EVERYTHING IS NUMBERS. Read what Newton offered so far as his views of science and religion. One of the greatest scientist that the world has ever known ended his 'science' career in his early twenties, (all that he offered to science was FINISHED by this young age), and spent the REST of his life trying to unlock the mystery of Revelation. And this being one of the greatest minds science has ever known.

Einstein's story is little different. He openly acknowledge a 'supreme being'. Understanding THAT is what LED to his greatest discoveries. For this man didn't simply offer a 'new' species to a 'science book', but discovered mathematical content that made it possible to discern time AND space. A NEW dimention almost. But openly admitting that this WAS order that NEED be 'created' to EXIST.

So, there will always be individuals unwilling to bow to authority. Thinking that 'they' are the masters of their own destiny. And to an extent this IS true. But only to the extent of CHOICE. And one day even this will be conformed to THE TRUTH.

MEC

I specifically addressed this in another thread as well, so I will quote myself again:

"I think it's important to note that Einstein was a pantheist. He specifically stated that he believed in "Spinoza's God." You might find a quote of his interesting. Einstein said, "It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God, and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

That was his religion. In that sense, you could consider me religious. Obviously his use for the word "religion" was entirely metaphorical and nontraditional.

Einstein once famously tried to speak for God (personifying Him), where he stated, "God does not play dice." This was metaphorical as well. It was also ironic that the one main time he spoke for God without scientific investigation, he turned out wrong. He was directly referring to a chance-driven universe, one which we now have confirmed as reasonable and even demonstrable by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Newton, aside from his scientific work, did like his religion. He had a doctrine similar to Leibniz' monadology, which I invite you to read if you feel like wasting time on something nearly unintelligible and riddled with inconsistencies. Newton's religion involved a rational God guided by principles we could investigate and discover. Regardless, Newton was not a typical theist. I will happily admit that not every religious position will conflict directly with science, at least in a way I care about (by inhibiting its progress). Both Deism and Pantheism are great religions to drive the pursuit of scientific investigation."

So, you attribute this order to a God... which I find to be an extra step. I just realize that my existence is predicated on an orderly universe, and thus I must be able to discover things about the "order" which allowed me to come to be.


When you say "God can be scientifically verifiable," you must necessarily define God. If you meant something similar to the so called religion of Einstein, then you're just using God as a metaphor. To my understanding a theistic Christian God is not scientifically verifiable. If by God, you meant "logical structure and order able to be found out by man," I say we should just change the name to something that doesn't lead to confusing discussions involving the many interpretations of God.

 

[TanNinety]

The fact that there is an alternate theory to that of the standard black hole is only a semantical issue. The different word isn't even necessary.

One of the points in the OP video was that faith leads to nonsensical conclusions where faith in purple unicorn is comparable to faith in God. The reason I chose 'black hole vs MECO' analogy is because with the lack of substantial evidence it is to an extent a faith based decision. The standard black hole theory involves a "singularity" at the center of the black hole and is popular because it is widely accepted and is based on "it makes sense". The new kid on the block, MECO theory however explains the black hole without a singularity, it is not just an alternative theory but a competing theory. If it stands peer review it would change the way a black hole is explained. But why is the standard model still standard? Because the new model is not yet on the same epistemological level as the standard model. Once there is enough evidence to show the MECO model to be true, then this will replace the standard current model. Coming back to religion, the reason why you cannot just insert purple unicorns(MECO) to be on the same level of already established religions(standard black hole theory) is because of the same reason that you have to have some kind of evidence to back your claim, for e.g. intersubjective verifiability.

The core of our issue here is precisely objective truth.
...
When hundreds of scientific instruments all independently verify something within a margin of error of 99.99%, you've got to say there's a hint of objectivity our "subjectivity" is leading to.

If collective subjectivity leads to objectivity in our science then how can we deny the same freedom to religion?

This is because nobody could meaningfully talk to others about a theistic personal God. We define a personal God as one commonly depicted by Christians as only occurring on an individual level. By stating that a God has intersubjective verifiability between more than one person, it cannot be a solely personal God.

The problem here is that you have misplaced the term "personal". It is the relationship that is personal not the nature of God. Even if there might be no intersubjectivity in relationship there is intersubjectivity on the God in question. And also just because something is personal doesn't mean that it cannot be corporate. If that were true concepts like beauty and happiness etc are not possible. Though different things might make you and me happy, we can intersubjectively verify the concept of happiness. Similarly, the concept of God can be intersubjectively verified even though the personal experiences of God between the believers vary.

So the conclusion we reach here is that vague non scientific notions of intersubjective verifiability is not a reason to accept a position.

I am not discussing the reasons to accept a position or to reject it nor am I suggesting that intersubjective verifiability somehow holds the key to the truth value of a belief. Please do not read that into my post. I was merely trying to show how a purple unicorn does not fall into the same epistemic level as the already established religions (I am not making a case for Christianity alone but for any widely accepted religion in the world). You seem to argue from the point of view of "right or wrong", that would be moving the goal posts. Like I already stated, I am not interested in the truth value of the claims but the epistemic.

The irony of the video was that Dawkins, as a true scientist, would happily adjust the 4.6 (or whatever) billion year universe given new strong scientific data. He was just fairly confident that it was unlikely to change at this point.

If science can adjust its theories and facts based on new data, I do not see a problem with religion adjusting its interpretations based on this new scientific data where necessary. But I do see your point in regards to the YEC'ists and the religious that support YEC in the face of substantial counter evidence.

I think at this point we can close the discussion on the common ground that we do agree on.

 

[Jayls5]

Ok, you wanted the discussion closed, but I'd like to finish by stating that the word "epistemic" and "science" are intertwined.

Vague notions of intersubjective "verification" that do not uphold to rigorous scientific testing are weaker on an epistemic level. I think I've effectively made this case. This is where religions differ from pure science. Talking about one non-scientific subjective preference (christian God) over another (omnipotent unicorn) is merely stating that one has tradition and indoctrination backing it while the other doesn't. This retort is not even worth talking about, in my opinion. Non Scientific epistemic merit can easily result in my omnipotent unicorn given a different upbringing and culture.

 

[TanNinety]

Jayls5 - May be I can indulge a little bit more in our discussion before we give up on the dead horse ;)

Vague notions of intersubjective "verification" that do not uphold to rigorous scientific testing are weaker on an epistemic level.

(or) Scientific testing is incapable of appraising the epistemic levels of faith based beliefs. You are making a typical atheist mistake of "I have a telescope, now show me that micro-organisms exist".

Here is the excercise for us: Propose how we are going to scientifically test for "Christian faith" vs "Unicorn faith".

If we can't test it scientifically then we cannot make a scientific epistemological statement about the above faiths.

Intersubjective verifiability is but a subset of the evidence that I am using to appraise the above faiths. We haven't even started considering "personal experience" as evidence for the faith. I am sure you would want to disqualify personal experiences as non-scientific, but that would just be special pleading. Evidence as established by Hume, is still personal experience. Scientific evidence is but a subset of evidence.

Non Scientific epistemic merit can easily result in my omnipotent unicorn given a different upbringing and culture.

The burden for now is on you to provide this "indoctrinated unicorn culture". Until then it is not demonstrably/scientifically true to say that your unicorn shares the same epistemic value as the Christian God unless we can implement an accurate procedure for scientifically testing faith based belief systems.

 

[Jayls5]

Jayls5 - May be I can indulge a little bit more in our discussion before we give up on the dead horse ;)

Fair enough

(or) Scientific testing is incapable of appraising the epistemic levels of faith based beliefs. You are making a typical atheist mistake of "I have a telescope, now show me that micro-organisms exist".

Here is the excercise for us: Propose how we are going to scientifically test for "Christian faith" vs "Unicorn faith".

If we can't test it scientifically then we cannot make a scientific epistemological statement about the above faiths.

Intersubjective verifiability is but a subset of the evidence that I am using to appraise the above faiths. We haven't even started considering "personal experience" as evidence for the faith. I am sure you would want to disqualify personal experiences as non-scientific, but that would just be special pleading. Evidence as established by Hume, is still personal experience. Scientific evidence is but a subset of evidence.

I'd like to leave Hume out of this if that's alright with you. Hume's skepticism led to some wacky conclusions that I really think would stretch out the conversation unnecessarily long.

If we can't test something scientifically, you're somewhat right.... we cannot assign a definite statement of truth value about the above faiths. However, your analogy with the telescope is inherently weak. In that case, you don't have the right tool for the job, but you can build a microscope (or at least conceive of making something of the sort). In the case of the religious beliefs, there is no conceivable method of possibly beginning to measure it. This is especially the case in practice whenever you see scientific tests seemingly refute an act of "God" only to receive the retort of, "Well God didn't appease your test!" If God has the ability to supersede any scientific test, then the analogy does not apply.

You yourself said that scientific testing cannot appraise epistemic levels of faith based beliefs. I belief I already showed otherwise. World religions are pretty much indesputably passed through culture, upbringing, and indoctrination. Everyone claims that they have this "faith" that you speak of in their different religions. The great diversity of religious beliefs and the sheer number of followers based on location/culture scientifically demonstrates that your willingness to believe one faith based religion over another is not grounded in anything miraculous. If you grew up in India, chances are you would be a Hindu. If you grew up near the Vatican, you'd probably be a roman catholic. If you grew up in a Quaker community, you'd probably be a Quaker. If you grew up in a Jewish family, you'd probably be a Jew. If you grew up in a Buddhist community, you're statistically more likely to be Buddhist. It goes on and on. General scientific testing shows that faith in a specific religion is quite predictable. Each and every one of these people would argue that there is more epistemic warrant for their religion than another. So, we logically conclude that epistemic warrant for "faith" is a fairly baseless assertion.

The burden for now is on you to provide this "indoctrinated unicorn culture". Until then it is not demonstrably/scientifically true to say that your unicorn shares the same epistemic value as the Christian God unless we can implement an accurate procedure for scientifically testing faith based belief systems.

Where does this epistemic value come from, and why wouldn't it be scientifically testable?

Zeus had a ton of this vague "epistemic value" you speak of. If epistemic value isn't tied to truth in any way, why bother talking about it? Why not pick the unicorn, if there is no more truth to the unicorn than the Christian god? These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious because I have no idea what you really mean by this "epistemic value."

 

[TanNinety]

I agree with a major portion of your post above. I was going to point out that there are always converts from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity to Atheism to any other belief system regardless of upbringing, location and culture. But from the point of view of predictability, when we analyze populations then you would be right to say a person from India is more probable to be a Hindu than a converted Christian.

Each and every one of these people would argue that there is more epistemic warrant for their religion than another.

And we cannot objectively solve this riddle. So the best to do, other than outright dismiss the epistemology of the religions, is to place these religions on the same epistemological level. What I then want to do is to compare the unicorn faith against these religions. As much as I am unsatisfied with the evidence, we cannot special plead tradition, scripture, intersubjective and personal experience under the faith setting. If this can be produced for the unicorn faith, then it will be on the same epistemological level as the rest of the religions. Since the unicorn faith is a claim in line with reductio ad absurdum we cannot really speak of the epistemology of it.

Scientific route to epistemology will be grounded in arriving at the truth value. But when it comes to theology, we cannot explicitly use science to verify faith. So we have to broaden our scale to include non-scientific elements to asses it.

 

[Jayls5]

I agree with a major portion of your post above. I was going to point out that there are always converts from Hinduism to Islam to Christianity to Atheism to any other belief system regardless of upbringing, location and culture. But from the point of view of predictability, when we analyze populations then you would be right to say a person from India is more probable to be a Hindu than a converted Christian.

I wouldn't deny that there are converts that stray form a normal predictable path. I still say it's reasonable to assume that science can predict the epistemic warrant for faith. Using examples of exceptions to a norm shares a striking resemblance to the "God of the gaps" argument. The fact that we don't have a rigorous explanation for specific instances does not mean that as a whole the assertion doesn't have scientific merit.

And we cannot objectively solve this riddle. So the best to do, other than outright dismiss the epistemology of the religions, is to place these religions on the same epistemological level. What I then want to do is to compare the unicorn faith against these religions. As much as I am unsatisfied with the evidence, we cannot special plead tradition, scripture, intersubjective and personal experience under the faith setting. If this can be produced for the unicorn faith, then it will be on the same epistemological level as the rest of the religions. Since the unicorn faith is a claim in line with reductio ad absurdum we cannot really speak of the epistemology of it.

Scientific route to epistemology will be grounded in arriving at the truth value. But when it comes to theology, we cannot explicitly use science to verify faith. So we have to broaden our scale to include non-scientific elements to asses it.

I'll be fair and say it was an intentional reductio ad absurdum argument. They're only refuted if you accept the absurd conclusion though. I was merely trying to expose the logic that led to the faith. Some people really don't seem to think of the possible implications of their reason. You don't appear to be interested in truth value, but I'm going to have to argue against this.

I tend to continue the line of thought that most if not all positions are grounded in logic and at least some notion of what people consider to be objective truth. It must in some way relate to reality, even if it's a fairly subjective interpretation of it. Without it, I simply cannot conceive of how a particular faith wouldn't be arbitrary. There would be nothing to assign greater value to one faith over another, including the unicorn, which is why I brought it up.

At least I see where you're really trying to go with this now. "Broadening the scale to include non-scientific elements to assess it" must have some sort of real world method of what this entails. Since this is the case, it stands to reason that we can scientifically test this method of obtaining faith in the real world. We may not experience this faith first hand (as non faithful scientists), but we can study those who claim to have it and where it originates. I really think this is the crux of the original video in the discussion. As a spectator of these faiths, I see two possibilities.

Either it is not grounded in reality, and belief is arbitrary... granting equal epistemic support for the unicorn
- or -
it is grounded in reality and subject to scientific testing.

Of course, "reality" can entail one extremely misguided subjective interpretation of it, but it is still subject to scientific scrutiny nonetheless.

 

[TanNinety]

The fact that we don't have a rigorous explanation for specific instances does not mean that as a whole the assertion doesn't have scientific merit.

I do agree with this and will add that the exceptions do call for revising of the data we are using to make the initial scientific statement. We can make auxiliary hypotheses based on these exceptions and still let the core statement stand on its own merit.

I'll be fair and say it was an intentional reductio ad absurdum argument. They're only refuted if you accept the absurd conclusion though.

Actually there is option B and that is to show that the reasoning behind the reduction is in error. We can take, "If we share the same ancestor with the monkeys then we might as well sling poo at each other", as an example and option B will be the best bet against this reductio ad absurdum without having to accept the absurd conclusion against evolution.

And that is what I am attempting here.

most if not all positions are grounded in logic ... I simply cannot conceive of how a particular faith wouldn't be arbitrary

Using logic is only as good as the data you apply it to. It was logically correct for a few decades to say that light constituted of particles and not waves and Huyghen's wave theory of light was rejected due to the lack of data showing that light travelled slower in glass or water than in air. If we work with incomplete data, we can definitely reach a logical conclusion but you have to ask yourself what truth value you are going to assign to this conclusion.

So when we appraise faith based belief systems, we can take data of geographic location, culture and conclude religion is nothing miraculous but statistically deducible, and I will agree with you, but to do so we have to special plead away the other evidence that a religion presents.

it stands to reason that we can scientifically test this method of obtaining faith in the real world. We may not experience this faith first hand (as non faithful scientists), but we can study those who claim to have it and where it originates.

And if we do consider the other evidence as you have suggested above, we do run into problems. The data/evidence if, is derived only once or the experience is that of only one person and cannot be reproduced by another under similar circumstances then science has to reject that data. This is not to say that the data is false but invalid.

So either we can use incomplete data to further the conclusion that unicorn faith is equal with other religions epistemologically or accept that the data is invalid and is scientifically insufficient to make a statement.

Also remember that a true scientific statement should better reflect reality and not just how reality ought to be. If absurd faith in unicorn was possible in reality then you shouldn't have a problem reproducing it in the same scale of the established religions. Because that would be the scientific method to prove your case else it would be an unsubstantiated theory.

 

[Jayls5]

I do agree with this and will add that the exceptions do call for revising of the data we are using to make the initial scientific statement. We can make auxiliary hypotheses based on these exceptions and still let the core statement stand on its own merit.

I would agree that there might be more factors involved, but the main contributing factor is a simple matter of upbringing. If upbringing alone is accepted as a legitimate reason for a faith in religion, then your original retort merely stated, "Oh yeah, well they were brought up that way." Upbringing becomes synonymous with "epistemic warrant," and that doesn't seem like much of a retort at all.

Actually there is option B and that is to show that the reasoning behind the reduction is in error. We can take, "If we share the same ancestor with the monkeys then we might as well sling poo at each other", as an example and option B will be the best bet against this reductio ad absurdum without having to accept the absurd conclusion against evolution.

And that is what I am attempting here.

The unicorn argument really wasn't all that important. I was just suggesting that it has a significant capability of becoming widespread faith, given the other absurd religions with similar logical backing. Pick any major religion that you now consider absurd. The Greek and Roman Gods all had significant faithful following. Scientology has got a significant following, and it's alive today. We consider these religions absurd, and yet followers would tell you they have as strong if not stronger faith in it than your religion. These are real world examples that cannot be ignored, and in all effectiveness, my argument does not hinge at all on the need to test my unicorn religion.

In terms of individual logic, the unicorn has pretty much the same reason to believe as a Christian God - given it's all a matter of faith anyway. Your general retort of epistemic warrant has been reduced to mere upbringing. It's practically a circular argument on your part... that the Christian religion is supported because it has cultural support.

Using logic is only as good as the data you apply it to. It was logically correct for a few decades to say that light constituted of particles and not waves and Huyghen's wave theory of light was rejected due to the lack of data showing that light travelled slower in glass or water than in air. If we work with incomplete data, we can definitely reach a logical conclusion but you have to ask yourself what truth value you are going to assign to this conclusion.

So when we appraise faith based belief systems, we can take data of geographic location, culture and conclude religion is nothing miraculous but statistically deducible, and I will agree with you, but to do so we have to special plead away the other evidence that a religion presents.

Logic is only as good as the data you apply it to? That seems like a major oversimplification. Logic has laws such as noncontradiction that we universally apply to all cases. It is true that this law is grounded in the fact that we've never had a contradiction in context. When we witness an apparent contradiction in science, it's the context (theory) that is altered.

In the case of your wave theory you mention, the context was incorrect. This was not known for decades because of an inability to test it. We had no empirical reason or support to adopt the alternate theory. However, we all realized that we could eventually test it. This is not possible with a religion that claims to have the ability to supersede scientific testing, and this is why the analogy is once again false.

You speak of some vague evidence outside the realm of scientific testing, but I honestly think this is hogwash. You can't explain what this evidence is really, but you implicitly appeal to the possibility that we will one day be able to test it. When a man's premise of their religion explicitly states that science cannot touch their God, then they must deny God any influence on reality where science could analyze it for truth value. If they grant that something has the ability to influence reality while being immune to any possible scientific testing, then I may logically assert the same exact thing about my unicorn. The only remaining retort you can have against the unicorn as a legitimate faith is that it doesn't have cultural upbringing supporting the belief, which doesn't really matter. It could have it, just like scientology and the Greek gods.

And if we do consider the other evidence as you have suggested above, we do run into problems. The data/evidence if, is derived only once or the experience is that of only one person and cannot be reproduced by another under similar circumstances then science has to reject that data. This is not to say that the data is false but invalid.

Let us disregard the apparent gaps of explanation for the select few. The vast majority have religions due to the factors I stated. This is supported with mounds of historical evidence. By stating "culture" as a legitimate source of epistemic warrant, we can use the terms interchangeably. The fact that epistemic warrant may have more sources (not explained by culture) doesn't change the fact that this epistemic warrant is only cultural upbringing for most cases. This is wholly unconvincing to pretty much anyone. It effectively states, "I may not have scientific support, but my culture brought me up to believe it, and that's why I do. This is why I have epistemic warrant."

Epistemic warrant becomes a meaningless term in the majority of cases, downright meaningless.

So either we can use incomplete data to further the conclusion that unicorn faith is equal with other religions epistemologically or accept that the data is invalid and is scientifically insufficient to make a statement.

The data is only incomplete where we don't know every source for epistemic warrant. The interest of my discussion doesn't demand it though. I merely want to take one accepted source of epistemic warrant.

Also remember that a true scientific statement should better reflect reality and not just how reality ought to be. If absurd faith in unicorn was possible in reality then you shouldn't have a problem reproducing it in the same scale of the established religions. Because that would be the scientific method to prove your case else it would be an unsubstantiated theory.

With all due respect, I don't need a lecture on science. Your first sentence of this paragraph illustrates the difference between science and pseudoscience. I'm not trying to assert that all religion ought to be grounded on culture. I'm just asserting that a lot of it is. Using this accepted notion, I've illustrated why epistemic warrant is meaningless in most cases. If you want to argue where epistemic warrant has special meaning, then I welcome you to introduce how.


You didn't respond to my main point anyway.

I'm going to simplify it down with subsections, and even use a well known religion.

Either

1) belief is not grounded in reality and belief is arbitrary, granting equal epistemic support for scientology.
a) By arbitrary, I mean subject to cultural whim and otherwise baseless assertions.

or

2) Belief is grounded in reality and subject to scientific testing
a) "reality" can be a fairly inaccurate subjective interpretation, but still tied to reality nonetheless and thus testable.


I think this is a fairly acceptable disjunction here. I am in no way trying to make a false dichotomy, so feel free to point it out if you believe I have.

 

[TanNinety]

With all due respect, I don't need a lecture on science.

Wasn't my intention.

Given,

but the main contributing factor is a simple matter of upbringing. If upbringing alone is accepted as a legitimate reason for a faith in religion

and the choices being

Either

1) belief is not grounded in reality and belief is arbitrary, granting equal epistemic support for scientology.
a) By arbitrary, I mean subject to cultural whim and otherwise baseless assertions.

or

2) Belief is grounded in reality and subject to scientific testing
a) "reality" can be a fairly inaccurate subjective interpretation, but still tied to reality nonetheless and thus testable.

My vote would go to choice 1. I guess we can consider case closed on that one then.

I want to hit on some other points in your post.

Logic is only as good as the data you apply it to? That seems like a major oversimplification.

I did not say logic is only as good as the data you apply it to, but using logic is. If you use logic with incomplete "context"/data then your conclusions will be less reliable.

Logic has laws such as noncontradiction that we universally apply to all cases. It is true that this law is grounded in the fact that we've never had a contradiction in context. When we witness an apparent contradiction in science, it's the context (theory) that is altered.

Newton's corpuscular theory and Huyghen's wave theory of light were at odds because of the law of noncontradiction. Light couldn't be particle and not particle at the same time in the same manner of existence. It was data that showed the conclusion to be otherwise.

Particle(having momentum) property and wave(having wavelength) property are mutually exclusive properties (you cannot talk about the momentum of a wave and wavelength of a particle). In quantum markers/erasers experiments, it can be demonstrated that for electrons - "both/and" and "either/or" of wave-particle states exists side-by-side at the same time. It means, that it is true to say that an electron is particle and at the same instant it is not particle.

So your law of noncontradiction cannot be employed in all instances, and in the case above it would be easier to use fuzzy logic and say an electron is 30% particle and 70% not particle at the point of observation.

You speak of some vague evidence outside the realm of scientific testing, but I honestly think this is hogwash.

Vague evidence? "Personal experience/evidence". To science it is invalid data. This isn't just a personal opinion.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

 

[Jayls5]

My vote would go to choice 1. I guess we can consider case closed on that one then.

I want to hit on some other points in your post.

Sounds good.

I did not say logic is only as good as the data you apply it to, but using logic is. If you use logic with incomplete "context"/data then your conclusions will be less reliable.

Ok thanks for clarifying, my mistake if I was quick to judge there. I'm fine with adjusting context. I just can't think of a (scientific verifiable) context in which we could ever reach a theistic God.

Newton's corpuscular theory and Huyghen's wave theory of light were at odds because of the law of noncontradiction. Light couldn't be particle and not particle at the same time in the same manner of existence. It was data that showed the conclusion to be otherwise.

Particle(having momentum) property and wave(having wavelength) property are mutually exclusive properties (you cannot talk about the momentum of a wave and wavelength of a particle). In quantum markers/erasers experiments, it can be demonstrated that for electrons - "both/and" and "either/or" of wave-particle states exists side-by-side at the same time. It means, that it is true to say that an electron is particle and at the same instant it is not particle.

So your law of noncontradiction cannot be employed in all instances, and in the case above it would be easier to use fuzzy logic and say an electron is 30% particle and 70% not particle at the point of observation.

Interesting interpretation. I actually wrote about this in another thread on this forum. Here it is:

Not once have we truly found a contradiction in context. Even when we look at quantum theory, where scientists claim a photon is both a wave and a particle (seemingly contradictory), it is only in context. It is a particle when we observe it, and when we look away, it acts as a wave. However, is not both a particle and a wave when we look at it. Our minds do not seem to allow us to experience or truly understand a contradiction in context. Over and over again, our scientific theory that has advanced mankind rests on the logical assumption that the law of non contradiction is true. When we encounter a contradiction, something is assumed to be wrong with the theory or with the manner in which we collected evidence. As a result, our society has progressed to the point where we can be having this online conversation on incredibly complex machines. We accept non contradiction as true because everyday it reaffirms itself and advances us as a species. We have no reason to believe that contradictions in context ARE possible.

Vague evidence? "Personal experience/evidence". To science it is invalid data. This isn't just a personal opinion.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

I wrote a big response to this part, but I started to wonder what the main point of it was. Were you just trying to clarify what science is? Or, were you trying to tie this back in with religion? I just wasn't quite clear on the matter, and I figured I'd ask before possibly misinterpreting.