Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that every fact must be interpreted and it will necessarily be interpreted in terms of the observer's beliefs and models.

Blatant projection.

Only creationists are obsessed with force-fitting facts into their a priori model of reality.
Science on the other hand has no problem at all tossing aside current models of reality when facts surface that don't fit those models.
In fact, science thrives when that occurs. That's when scientists get excited. It means progress.

Take the tangible fact that science holds that the entire universe apparently sprang from a point with no dimensions at all. Sure, it can't be projected back so far in time but we still have the universe emerging from a mere pinpoint.

It's a conclusion from the evidence. Not an a priori belief that is being super-imposed on the evidence.
In fact, the scientists' who's ideas led to such conclusions were horrified by it. To the point that they questioned their own theories because they found it to be unfathomable. Like how Einstein thought he must have been in error somewhere, because he considered the idea of black holes to be absurd.

This is the difference between scientists and religionists.
Scientists have no problem following the evidence, even if it leads them to places they would prefer not to be.
Whereas for a religionists, such sentiments is what motivates them to ignore and / or question the evidence.

As the saying goes: when the evidence of reality contradicts your beliefs... it's not reality that is incorrect.

While numerous facts support this I have no doubt that there are alternatives to the common interpretation of the 'big bang".
I don't believe in something from nothing either. Perhaps in reality it's possible. Perhaps reality itself came into being from nothing at all. I merely doubt it.

Here's the point: the only reason you doubt it, is because you don't like it and / or want to believe something else instead.

I have no problems at all with anyone doubting anything as long as that doubt is well motivated.
"i don't like it" or "i already believe something else" or "i want to believe something else", is not proper motivation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Insects can't understand any abstraction whatsoever. Just like the great pyramid builders their science is based on observation and logic. It works because their brains are wired logically according to their genes. They see reality directly through their consciousness rather than indirectly though their beliefs like every human being since the tower of babel.

Animal progress is so slow that their behavior eventually becomes wired right into their genes but this isn't "instinct" because most behavior is based on consciousness rather than their wiring.

I swear I don't understand what is so complicated about any of this. It's all just a different way to see all the facts and all the experiment. Instead of viewing reality from the perspective of its parts its a way to see it all at once like a bee would see it.

The whole point of science, is to step outside of our subjective perspective and see reality for what it really is.
This is why we use tools and experiment to tell us what the nature of reality is as opposed to our subjective senses.

Our mere subjective senses wouldn't be able to recognize things like radiation, light spectrums outside of our ability to see (like infra red), quantum mechanics, magnetic fields, etc.

This is the point of the quote in my autograph...

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead it is what the tools and methods of science reveal".

 

[cladking]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead it is what the tools and methods of science reveal".

Nonsense!

Reason and experiment are the only means to seek reality but it will never be found. You and Tyson believe in miracles like that it has been found so anyone who disagrees with you is an heretic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense!

No. Bang on.
If it wasn't for the "tools and methods of science", none of us would know about radiation, the infra-red spectrum, gamma rays, magnetism, quantum physics, etc....

None of those things can be perceived with our subjective senses. None of those things can be perceived from the perspective of our subjective experience of the world. If anything, most - if not all - of these things are in fact even counter-intuitive to our subjective experience.

Reason and experiment are the only means to seek reality but it will never be found. You and Tyson believe in miracles like that it has been found so anyone who disagrees with you is an heretic.

That makes no sense at all.

There is nothing "miraculous" about aspects of reality existing outside of our subjective experience of reality.

As Lawrence Krauss once put it: Our minds and senses evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa... not to understand quantum mechanics.

 

[cladking]

None of those things can be perceived with our subjective senses.

The Egyptians believed we have hundreds of senses. You believe we have five. Even among the five you have you can sense ranges of frequencies. We can impart these to the world and we can observe other senses in other creatures.

We can also study these things using various sciences and extrapolate more knowledge because consciousness is also pattern recognition. What casts a bigger shadow than a double slit experiment?

 

[cladking]

As Lawrence Krauss once put it: Our minds and senses evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa... not to understand quantum mechanics.

Except for the "evolving" part I can kindda agree with this. You'll never get me to agree that reality is what science say us it is. Reality is what is regardless of what you and Peers believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except for the "evolving" part I can kindda agree with this.

You'll never get me to agree that reality is what science say us it is. Reality is what is regardless of what you and Peers believe.

Science isn't about what anyone believes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Egyptians believed we have hundreds of senses. You believe we have five. Even among the five you have you can sense ranges of frequencies. We can impart these to the world and we can observe other senses in other creatures.

We can also study these things using various sciences and extrapolate more knowledge because consciousness is also pattern recognition. What casts a bigger shadow than a double slit experiment?

None of this addresses the actual points I made.

 

[cladking]

None of this addresses the actual points I made.

It is exactly your point but you can't see it. You tear reality down into little tiny spectra and never realize a big picture even exists. Reality unfolds as whole and our understanding of it once did as well. From our perspective we see things that aren't even there.

 

[Pogo]

It is exactly your point but you can't see it. You tear reality down into little tiny spectra and never realize a big picture even exists. Reality unfolds as whole and our understanding of it once did as well. From our perspective we see things that aren't even there.

What is this "our perspective" though I won't argue that you seem to see things that aren't even there.

 

[Valjean]

Nonsense!

Reason and experiment are the only means to seek reality but it will never be found. You and Tyson believe in miracles like that it has been found so anyone who disagrees with you is an heretic.

TagliatelliMonster said: "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead it is what the tools and methods of science reveal".

Reason and experiment are science. They are the "tools and methods of science."

How is this nonsense? You seem to be saying the same thing. Reality is what reason and experiment -- the tools of science -- reveal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

TagliatelliMonster said: "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead it is what the tools and methods of science reveal". Reason and experiment are science. They are the "tools and methods of science." How is this nonsense? You seem to be saying the same thing. Reality is what reason and experiment -- the tools of science -- reveal.

Here's a related viewpoint. It's a little different because instrumentalism doesn't actually address external reality, just personal or subjective "reality" as experienced by the individual:

"instrumentalism, in the philosophy of science, the view that the value of scientific concepts and theories is determined not by whether they are literally true or correspond to reality in some sense but by the extent to which they help to make accurate empirical predictions or to resolve conceptual problems. Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world. Indeed, instrumentalists typically call into question whether it even makes sense to think of theoretical terms as corresponding to external reality. In that sense, instrumentalism is directly opposed to scientific realism, which is the view that the point of scientific theories is not merely to generate reliable predictions but to describe the world accurately." Instrumentalism | Definition & Facts | Britannica

 

[cladking]

How is this nonsense? You seem to be saying the same thing. Reality is what reason and experiment -- the tools of science -- reveal.

No, this is not what I'm saying at all.

I am saying we build models of reason and experiment but we mistake our models for reality at our own personal risk and the risk of the commonweal. This mistake is superstition and it's exactly what Neil Degrasse Tyson is advocating; superstition.

 

[cladking]

"instrumentalism, in the philosophy of science, the view that the value of scientific concepts and theories is determined not by whether they are literally true or correspond to reality in some sense but by the extent to which they help to make accurate empirical predictions or to resolve conceptual problems. Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world. Indeed, instrumentalists typically call into question whether it even makes sense to think of theoretical terms as corresponding to external reality. In that sense, instrumentalism is directly opposed to scientific realism, which is the view that the point of scientific theories is not merely to generate reliable predictions but to describe the world accurately."

Good "prophesy" was the goal of ancient science and professional scientists (everybody was literally a scientist) were called "prophets".

The standard of theory was its ability to predict observation. By this standard my "theory" of how pyramids were built is already firmly established in Ancient Language. Language would change to reflect this new knowledge which was the job of the metaphysicians whom were primarily the female homo sapiens.

Knowledge and theory needn't resolve any sort of problem at all but it had to make prediction and provide explanation. Without this it was hypothesis and by this standard every single thing believed by Egyptology is just hypothesis that is continually being contradicted by observation.

On the other hand modern theory is dependent on experiment and only has to make prediction not countered by further experiment. Theory is by definition a paradigm supported by experiments.


Being the first human being with two distinct metaphysics I would point out that "all" science is probably only useful to the degree it can make prediction. Modern science simply wouldn't be used at all if it didn't make prediction at least better than all other means of codifying pattern recognition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is exactly your point but you can't see it.

No, I'm very aware of the points I make, thanks.

You tear reality down into little tiny spectra and never realize a big picture even exists.

Try being more vague and see if it amounts to an argument.

Reality unfolds as whole and our understanding of it once did as well. From our perspective we see things that aren't even there.

Speak for yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, this is not what I'm saying at all.

I am saying we build models of reason and experiment but we mistake our models for reality at our own personal risk and the risk of the commonweal. This mistake is superstition and it's exactly what Neil Degrasse Tyson is advocating; superstition.

No, that's not what superstition is.

Superstition is assuming patterns exist and then simply consider them truth without even properly testing them.

Proper model building (building hypothesis / theory) in science instead concerns gathering evidence, coming up with a testable explanatory model of that evidence and then testing it (= trying to show it is WRONG; not merely looking for confirmation). And the testing preferably from multiple independent angles also.

That is the polar opposite of superstition

 

[Eli G]

Perhaps proponents of species evolution have not realized that the theory purports to explain millions of changes from one "species" to another "species" different from the previous one. They imagine a scenario in which all those millions of supposed changes were happening, one by one over millions and millions of years.

An objective mind immediately realizes that it takes a lot of imagination to suppose that such a scenario ever unfolded, especially when in the universe as we know it, there is no replica of a single one of those supposed changes, nor a scenario resembling the one they imagine.

What is tangible in all this imagery? Absolutely nothing; it is merely a meticulously crafted film set, along with numerous enthusiasts who are convinced that the fabricated narrative is based on real events.

 

[cladking]

No, that's not what superstition is.

Superstition is ANY belief not supported by reason or experiment.

The belief that science can be supported by anything but experiment or that models are right by definition are both superstitions. The belief that models are reality is the very superstition that I keep saying that every believer in science shares. Obviously Tyson believes in science.

Just because there are worse things to believe in doesn't make it OK.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps proponents of species evolution have not realized that the theory purports to explain millions of changes from one "species" to another "species" different from the previous one. They imagine a scenario in which all those millions of supposed changes were happening, one by one over millions and millions of years.

An objective mind immediately realizes that it takes a lot of imagination to suppose that such a scenario ever unfolded, especially when in the universe as we know it, there is no replica of a single one of those supposed changes, nor a scenario resembling the one they imagine.

What is tangible in all this imagery? Absolutely nothing; it is merely a meticulously crafted film set, along with numerous enthusiasts who are convinced that the fabricated narrative is based on real events.

Yes we know you lack the ability to understand the evidence so you deny it while having nothing but fantasy to offer as an alternative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The belief that science can be supported by anything but experiment or that models are right by definition are both superstitions.

Good thing then that nobody thinks that science works like that. Nobody that is scientifically literate anyway.