Atheists and their jargon of insults

[blü 2]

There can be no science without assumption.

The philosophy of science does its best to identify and clearly state assumptions, both fundamental ('a world exists external to the self; our senses are capable of informing us of that world; reason is a valid tool') and specific to the particular matter under investigation. Most experiments are expressly to test the correctness of assumptions stated to be such. You'll also be aware of the role of repeatable experiment in scientific method.

Somehow nobody noticed that the last century of experiments often don't support the assumptions suggesting a new paradigm is necessary.

That statement is meaningless until you provide specific examples from history. What are you actually talking about?

 

[Dimi95]

Proverbs 12
"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,but whoever hates correction is stupid."

"Good people obtain favor from the Lord,but he condemns those who devise wicked schemes."

"A person is praised according to their prudence,and one with a warped mind is despised."

"The way of fools seems right to them,but the wise listen to advice."

"Fools show their annoyance at once,but the prudent overlook an insult."

You play their game , that's how you win

 

[shunyadragon]

And theists are still being insulted incessantly. What is it with believers in science that they think it's OK to be nasty with heretics? There are very few nasty theists though admittedly more are annoying.

False generalization. The vast majority of scientists are indifferent are indifferent to the religious issues of their research, conclusions, and publications. I have never seen any such accusations by scientists in respectable scientific journals.

Again Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any subjective religious claims that lack objective verifiable evidence.

There are a very few notable scientists that debate religion, but very few.

 

[Orbit]

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the assumptions of science?

The assumptions of science, according to classical positivism are:

1. The universe is knowable
2. We can know it by observing
3. If we observe, we can formulate general laws about how it works
4. If we can formulate general laws, we can make predictions from data we gather.

 

[Little Dragon]

This is a problem. It's a very common problem but a problem none the less.

The concept of freewill permits and engenders poverty criminalization and general inequity and indifference to human suffering.

The belief in free will, and abrahamic religious narratives in general, are why partly, this world is so messed up.

 

[shunyadragon]

New Atheism for example is epistemologically unfriendly; ignores instead of addresses the evidence for Theism; holds Theism to standards it doesn't hold itself to; intentionally conflates itself with Agnosticism; often falls back on emotion rather than reason; relies on demonstrably false/contradictory logic such as "you cannot prove a negative;” utilizes false equivalencies; and it encourages both bias and Anti-Theism

Still waiting! What is the objective evidence for Theism?

It is logically valid you "cannot prove a negative." Example: You cannot prove God does not exist. Atheist most often do not try to prove Gods do not exist, They often believe that because of the lack of objective evidence there is no reason to believe in Gods.


Most apologetic arguments are dependent on accepting the subjective assumptions,

Still waiting . . .

 

[MikeF]

The assumptions of science, according to classical positivism are:

1. The universe is knowable
2. We can know it by observing
3. If we observe, we can formulate general laws about how it works
4. If we can formulate general laws, we can make predictions from data we gather.

Let's start with the first one. Is this an assumption? I don't think it is. In my view, what we know about anything is through experience. From those experiences we begin to form reasoned expectations, and when those expectations continue to be met, it demonstrates that we can actually know something. No assumption is required.

The second one is incorporated by my first comment as experience is observation and our ability to form valid expectations from our observations demonstrates that it works. No assumption required.

The third and fourth are more of the same, not assumed but demonstrated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the assumptions of science?

Good luck.

 

[MikeF]

Still waiting! What is the objective evidence for Theism?

It is logically valid you "cannot prove a negative." Example: You cannot prove God does not exist. Atheist most often do not try to prove Gods do not exist, They often believe that because of the lack of objective evidence there is no reason to believe in Gods.


Most apologetic arguments are dependent on accepting the subjective assumptions,

Still waiting . . .

You might be waiting a while. I think @1137 quit RF today. LINK

 

[Orbit]

Let's start with the first one. Is this an assumption? I don't think it is. In my view, what we know about anything is through experience. From those experiences we begin to form reasoned expectations, and when those expectations continue to be met, it demonstrates that we can actually know something. No assumption is required.

The second one is incorporated by my first comment as experience is observation and our ability to form valid expectations from our observations demonstrates that it works. No assumption required.

The third and fourth are more of the same, not assumed but demonstrated.

In the context of the development of science, #1 is absolutely an assumption. Prior thought held that the universe was the handiwork of God, and it was not man's place to question the work of God. It was sinful. Further, we could not fathom the universe, because God's ways were too mysterious for humans to understand. Assumption #1 was the basis for the scientific revolution.

The others flow from my first explanation. It was not always "taken for granted" for people to think that observations could lead to the ability to predict anything--again, that would be divination! Sinful.

You have to look at the broad sweep of history to even see that there *are* assumptions. Modern people take the whole thing for granted.

 

[shunyadragon]

I had this happen recently with another Theist on RF. Absolutely, flabbergasted.

The problem remains anecdotal personal this and that including insults have no relevance to the debate or discussion at hand, the logical or apologetic argument as to whether God exists or not. which so far has not been addressed in this thread,

 

[Dimi95]

There are a very few notable scientists that debate religion, but very few.

It's not about "notable" rather "actual".
There is so much that we will see.

"Science(by definition) is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

John Lennox and James Tour.

 

[shunyadragon]

You might be waiting a while. I think @1137 quit RF today. LINK

It looks like the gooney bird made a flyby dropping his smelly load and disappeared.

 

[The Hammer]

The problem remains anecdotal personal this and that including insults have no relevance to the debate or discussion at hand, the logical or apologetic argument as to whether God exists or not. which so far has not been addressed in this thread,

Whatever @shunyadragon .

I apologize for not confirming to your expectations of debate and discussion by displaying solidarity with a person who felt attacked.

I didn't write my response you quoted for your approval, or for you at all.

Indicating you are giving un-asked for advice.

That's a real Sin.

 

[blü 2]

Let's start with the first one. Is this an assumption? I don't think it is. In my view, what we know about anything is through experience. From those experiences we begin to form reasoned expectations, and when those expectations continue to be met, it demonstrates that we can actually know something. No assumption is required.

My attention was first directed to my own assumptions when I came across some remarks of Descartes, in particular where he points out that if you want to argue that reason is a valid tool then you can't use reason to support your argument.

This got me thinking about what other assumptions I make that likewise I can't validate without first assuming they're already correct.

I therefore assume not only that (1) reason is a valid tool, but that (2) a world exists external to me, and that (3) my senses are capable of informing me about that world.

(Actually I start with (2), then (3), then (1), for whatever difference that might make.)

 

[MikeF]

In the context of the development of science, #1 is absolutely an assumption. Prior thought held that the universe was the handiwork of God, and it was not man's place to question the work of God. It was sinful. Further, we could not fathom the universe, because God's ways were too mysterious for humans to understand. Assumption #1 was the basis for the scientific revolution.

I'm asking you to disregard all that and think about it. How do we know anything? When a baby is born it has no concern for what prior thought held about the universe. A baby simply experiences the world and eventually starts to make connections. As it's experience grows it begins to recognize patterns and can begin to form expectations. The baby assumes nothing. It doesn't assume the universe is knowable. A baby doesn't assume that gravity will always behave the same when an object is dropped from its highchair. It learns these things after constant repetition. These things have been demonstrated, not assumed.

This is where empiricism begins, as an infant. No assumptions, just figuring things out by trial and error.

The others flow from my first explanation. It was not always "taken for granted" for people to think that observations could lead to the ability to predict anything--again, that would be divination! Sinful.

And now we know better. I not sure what folks being wrong in the past has to do with my assertion that it is not an assumption that the universe is knowable, rather, it has been demonstrated to be so.

You have to look at the broad sweep of history to even see that there *are* assumptions. Modern people take the whole thing for granted.

I'm unsure of what you are trying to say here.

 

[Orbit]

I'm asking you to disregard all that and think about it. How do we know anything? When a baby is born it has no concern for what prior thought held about the universe. A baby simply experiences the world and eventually starts to make connections. As it's experience grows it begins to recognize patterns and can begin to form expectations. The baby assumes nothing. It doesn't assume the universe is knowable. A baby doesn't assume that gravity will always behave the same when an object is dropped from its highchair. It learns these things after constant repetition. These things have been demonstrated, not assumed.

This is where empiricism begins, as an infant. No assumptions, just figuring things out by trial and error.



And now we know better. I not sure what folks being wrong in the past has to do with my assertion that it is not an assumption that the universe is knowable, rather, it has been demonstrated to be so.



I'm unsure of what you are trying to say here.

Well, we might be using different definitions of "assumption". I'm thinking about an assumption as a basic principle, an axiom of sorts, which is the necessary basis for a logical sequence that we call science.

I think you're framing it in terms of individual psychology. No one would argue that baby's first experiences weren't observations, but what's unclear to me is what that has to do with scientific epistemology. That's just the human experience. Unless you meant to draw a connection between the two, which is fine, I suppose. But I see the baby and positivism as two different things. The baby is human experience. Positivism is an abstract logical structure that suggests a research method.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's start with the first one. Is this an assumption? I don't think it is. In my view, what we know about anything is through experience. From those experiences we begin to form reasoned expectations, and when those expectations continue to be met, it demonstrates that we can actually know something. No assumption is required.

The second one is incorporated by my first comment as experience is observation and our ability to form valid expectations from our observations demonstrates that it works. No assumption required.

The third and fourth are more of the same, not assumed but demonstrated.

I agree that the first two fold into each other, but I see the universe being knowable as a valid assumption of science. I like your metaphor of the baby and how we enter this world without any assumptions and learn through experience as we develop. But even without assumptions at that stage, can we know if what we learned from experience as a baby is useful in understanding the past through observation of the present for instance. Can a baby know that gravity worked the same way for it's parents?

I feel my execution here is a bit awkward, but I'll leave it as it came out of my head.

 

[cladking]

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the assumptions of science?

I've listed these countless times so I'm not going to try for comprehensiveness for the dozens of assumptions. There is an assumption that we can be logical. That we are understood. That theory can be extrapolated and reality interpolated. That progress is linear. That experiment can be interpreted in only a single way. That our species pre-dates recorded history. That we can will ourselves to see what exists. That we can reason to correct answers given sufficient evidence. That computer modelling has a meaning. That understanding consciousness is unnecessary to understand life and how it changes. That reductionistic science can be applied to all of reality even in its current incarnation. That there is no God. That free will is unnecessary to explain life. That reality conforms to law. That math can exactly be applied to reality. That knowing every variable is unnecessary to calculation.

The list goes on and on and on. All the assumptions are false. There are not even two identical objects in all of creation so math doesn't directly apply to reality. People close their minds to the complexity of reality which is far more staggering than any concept of "infinity" which is puny in comparison. We believe in our reductions of science without understanding even the definitions of things like "space" may be a poor representation of the reality. Every belief derived from language and every old wives tale is false or only correct from a specific perspective.

If reductionistic science has taught us anything it is the universe nor reality are clockworks. Species succeed by dancing with reality not by taming it. People want to believe in science. They want to believe what they learned on their parents' knees. They want to believe all you have to do is look and see reality. This is why we live in a crazy world where Egypto9logists refuse to even look and see how the pyramids were built. They already looked and saw it could only have been ramps and it doesn't matter because it had to be some savage and ignorant means like ramps, perhaps, or even ramps.

We can't help but see only our assumptions and when we reason or study we always end up right back at our assumptions. It is definitional to our species which arose at an event we know only as the tower of babel.

 

[cladking]

I've listed these countless times so I'm not going to try for comprehensiveness for the dozens of assumptions. There is an assumption that we can be logical. That we are understood. That theory can be extrapolated and reality interpolated. That progress is linear. That experiment can be interpreted in only a single way. That our species pre-dates recorded history. That we can will ourselves to see what exists. That we can reason to correct answers given sufficient evidence. That computer modelling has a meaning. That understanding consciousness is unnecessary to understand life and how it changes. That reductionistic science can be applied to all of reality even in its current incarnation. That there is no God. That free will is unnecessary to explain life. That reality conforms to law. That math can exactly be applied to reality. That knowing every variable is unnecessary to calculation.

The list goes on and on and on. All the assumptions are false. There are not even two identical objects in all of creation so math doesn't directly apply to reality. People close their minds to the complexity of reality which is far more staggering than any concept of "infinity" which is puny in comparison. We believe in our reductions of science without understanding even the definitions of things like "space" may be a poor representation of the reality. Every belief derived from language and every old wives tale is false or only correct from a specific perspective.

If reductionistic science has taught us anything it is the universe nor reality are clockworks. Species succeed by dancing with reality not by taming it. People want to believe in science. They want to believe what they learned on their parents' knees. They want to believe all you have to do is look and see reality. This is why we live in a crazy world where Egypto9logists refuse to even look and see how the pyramids were built. They already looked and saw it could only have been ramps and it doesn't matter because it had to be some savage and ignorant means like ramps, perhaps, or even ramps.

We can't help but see only our assumptions and when we reason or study we always end up right back at our assumptions. It is definitional to our species which arose at an event we know only as the tower of babel.

They think science changes one funeral at a time because old men are cantankerous.

Science changes one funeral at a time because we begin acquiring our beliefs as we acquire language at three years of age. This operating system is largely complete by the time most people begin specialization (especially in science) at the age of 13. Eventually they are replaced by a new crop of 13 year olds who have a new set of beliefs based on experiment and thought. This is especially problematical in modern times where scientists often live into their '80's and '90's impeding progress. Many are still Peers right up to the end and not only define truth but even the conversation itself.

The problem is most people simply don't understand science or its metaphysics. This has become far more common since the 1960's because not only have the schools failed but they no longer even attempt to teach critical thinking. Today's student must be self taught in areas that were once taken for granted to be on the curriculum. Bill Gates has turned three generations of people into logical thinkers who often can't function at all without every I dotted and T crossed.