"I believe in science, I don't believe in God"

[ecco]

So the actual takeaway is that for the majority of cases in that study, there was no measurable difference from before death to after?

(Either that or that 5 out of 6 people don't have souls)

One went to heaven - five soulless persons went to hell!

 

[ecco]

Everything "originates in nature". The question, now, is where does nature originate, and why. And we can only ask such a metaphysical question because that ability originated, and then transcended the physical realm from which it emerged.

Where does nature originate?
I really don't understand why you think that there is anything metaphysical in that question.
We now know where atoms originate. We even know how they are created. Atoms are part of nature. We know about forces. None of that sounds like it's based on abstract reasoning or transcending the laws of nature.


metaphysical

1. 1.
   relating to metaphysics.
   "the essentially metaphysical question of the nature of the mind"
   • based on abstract (typically, excessively abstract) reasoning.
     "an empiricist rather than a metaphysical view of law"
     
     
   • transcending physical matter or the laws of nature.
     "Good and Evil are inextricably linked in a metaphysical battle across space and time"
     
     Similar: transcendental spiritual supernatural paranormal

What is supernatural about the natural? The natural cannot be supernatural. Nature is not supernatural, no matter how much you want it to be.

Science is ALL quesswork. Any scientist will gladly tell you so. Science has never produces one speck of 'truth'. All it ever produces are functional theories. Those who have fallen into this new secular religion of 'scientism' somehow just can't seem to grasp or retain this most fundamental fact of science.

There is not one single instance of truth in any sentence in that entire paragraph.

Is understanding geology "guesswork". One hundred fifty years ago people guessed at the places to drill for oil. Now, using science, they have pretty solid ideas where there is and is not oil.

Is radiocarbon dating guesswork? Is knowing how to land a vehicle on the moon guesswork?

Maybe you are thinking of the "science" of the OT that states that different types of wood affect spots on goats.

You can't know this to be so, as you cannot define existence beyond the ignorance and bias within which we all live. You THINK you can define existence as the state of physicality (because you are a philosophical materialist), and because you so fully believe in your own belief that it feels undeniable and unquestionable to you. Right?

Wrong. Step on a thumbtack and tell us if your belief that it hurts is real.

 

[PruePhillip]

Which scientist said that? J. J. Strawman?
.

Actually, I suggest that ALL scientists say there's no 'reason' for us being here - it just happened.

 

[PureX]

Where does nature originate?
I really don't understand why you think that there is anything metaphysical in that question.

Since so many of you atheists are so intent on eliminating the idea of 'metaphysics' from the conversation, let's take a close look at what the term would actually mean.

Etymology
The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετα-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.

Epistemology
In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table.

On higher level of abstraction
Any subject can be said to have a metatheory: a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).

Early use in English
The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these formations are parallel to the original "metaphysics" and "metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began being used with specific nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929.

So, clearly, according to this info on wiki, the prefix, "meta" refers to an abstracted framework of understanding apart from, but adjacent to that which is being understood. In the case of gravity, for example; there is 'gravity' as a physical phenomenon, and there is 'gravity' as the cognitive experience/understanding of that phenomenon; i.e., a phenomenological abstraction existing apart from but adjacent to the physical phenomenon, itself. And although the former can exist without the latter, it's existence would be unrecognized, unrecognizable, and therefor of no possible value without the latter. To raise the physical phenomenon of gravity above the metaphysical recognition of the phenomenon in level of import and/of origin is logically incoherent, as the act of valuation itself is 'metaphysical'.

It is therefor an argument that negates it's own premise.

You have decided in your own mind that the term "metaphysical" must and only refers to the "supernatural" because that's the straw man you can defeat. And I predict that even though I have just shown you otherwise, you will continue to ignore every word I've posted.

 

[ChristineM]

I think that as you are clearly floating in the formaldehyde of 'scientism', yourself, that your view from within the jar it is being warped and impeded, of what's without.

Ok so RF rules are meaningless to you.

At least im not mired in woo and delusion of what constitutes reality.

 

[PureX]

Actually, I suggest that ALL scientists say there's no 'reason' for us being here - it just happened.

You would be quite wrong, however. Scientists are free to formulate their own opinions about existential purpose as anyone else is. But whichever opinion they choose, it will not be based on science.

 

[ChristineM]

You would be quite wrong, however. Scientists are free to formulate their own opinions about existential purpose as anyone else is. But whichever opinion they choose, it will not be based on science.

How sad that you think that way. Are you saying a sciencists are hypocrits?... Are you say you know the mind of all sciencists? Wow, just wow

 

[PruePhillip]

You would be quite wrong, however. Scientists are free to formulate their own opinions about existential purpose as anyone else is. But whichever opinion they choose, it will not be based on science.

Sure, but as a scientist they obliged to say "There is no ultimate reason for the universe"
Because there's nothing in science that will ever tell them there's a reason. That's outside of the
natural world.

As an aside, a scientist cannot say 'I believe in the Higs Boson', all he can say 'There is evidence
consistent for the Higs.' or 'There is evidence which supports the theory of atoms.'
Gets exceedingly tricky.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science doesn't deal with everything.

And saying that science doesn't work with terms like justice and love in the way you want it to, is perfectly fine, no problem there. But that doesn't mean that religion does then, that is a fallacy.

Exactly as saying "If A is not equal B, then C must be". How do you demonstrate that religion holds the truth or know anything about justice or love, in the way you want it to? If you can't then you are equally as good as answering that question as science is.

I use the hypothesis method--always have, when testing the Bible.

Science cannot answer love or justice questions at all, so religion need not do much in those arenas, right? Fortunately, Jesus Christ provides IMMENSE wisdom in these and other areas.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most scientist are christian or hold other religious views. Science is the first to say it doesn't know, it's just a theory. I only heard christians say they know. Science and religion are not rivals-at least from a scientific view.

Have you considered why Christians say "they know"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

In this aspect of life, this is where the social sciences might come into play (although some don't consider to be the same as the natural sciences). Philosophy, political science, sociology, and other social sciences might examine questions of justice - and even love and righteousness. But no God is required for that; people can figure it out on their own, as they've already been doing for millennia.



I think people might be inclined to believe things that they can see or feel for themselves. This doesn't necessarily confine one's belief solely to the physical or the material, but other than things we can feel and know first-hand, we have to rely on other people to supply us with information about the world and universe we live in. That's the tricky part, since a lot of people might outright lie - or at the very least, they might talk about things they can't possibly have any direct knowledge of.

1) If no God is required, we must be evolutionists in thinking about the social sciences, too.

2) I cannot get better answers from atheists, therefore, then "we are social animals, like bees or ants are social (evolved) insects".

3) Humans aren't always so social--cannibal societies et al, I'm afraid skeptics only have "majority rules" and "must have evolved".

4) This underscores my OP.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

DNA evidence has been used to verify the innocence of people charged with crimes and it has been used to show the guilt of others. So, you can get justice using science. I am not sure how many pounds that is. I am entirely uneducated on the material quantification of justice.

Of course many people have been unjustly condemned by the whim of believers.

So we can use DNA to get some justice--"they did it" but not "here's the extent and duration of their reparations/justice".

You are affirming, therefore, not denying, my OP.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

At my gas station there is a woman selling love.

The son of Reverend Schuller (Crystal Cathedral, Orange County, California) had a scantily clad woman in one arm, bottle of booze in another, and his pants were down and his penis was sticking out in public.

From this (and other stories), it is clear that religion does make morality. Atheists are usually much more moral.

Your argument seems to fall apart when you try to assert that religion is the key to love and righteousness.

I'm not using anecdotal evidence, as you are. I'm saying that the wonder you feel at the universe is meaningless, an evolved brain function. 1,000 years from now, you will be forgotten, dust.

There IS hope--not found in science, but faith.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In one way I would agree with the subject line, but in another way I wouldn't.

If it's just the logical conjunction of two propositions, such that '(I believe in science) & (I don't believe in God)', I guess that (I believe in science) would be T for me (in one sense, at least) and (I don't believe in God) would be T for me as well (again in a particular sense at least).

When I say that 'I believe in science', I'm not really sure what I mean. I don't really know what 'science' is or how to define it. I most definitely am not granting 'science' a cognitive blank check such that I'm committed to believe everything said in the name of 'science'. But whatever it is, I do have great respect for science and for the kind of things that we read in textbooks. I guess that I'm saying that I have faith in 'science', where 'faith' means something like 'confidence in the face of imperfect information'. I trust my life to science every time I board an airplane.

When I say that 'I don't believe in God' I'm basically talking about the "Abrahamic" God of Hebrew, Christian and Muslim mythology. The personalized deity who plays a central role in the Bible and Quran. I don't believe that this figure from religious tradition corresponds to anything more substantial than a fictional character. I certainly don't have any faith/confidence in these three traditions (Judaism, Christianity or Islam).

But that being said, the word 'God' has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and ancient India to refer to something more philosophical: The universe's first-cause. The source of cosmic order. The reason why there is something rather than nothing. These arguments found in the "traditional theistic proofs", all point to unsolved metaphysical questions. I don't have a clue what the answers are, assuming that the questions even have answers. But if we assume that 'God' names whatever the answers are, then I definitely don't want to deny this more metaphysical sort of 'God'. (There are major theological problems though, making this kind of functional-metaphysical 'God' into something like the 'God' of religion. Though Hindu Advaita seems to make a good stab at it, as did the ancient neoplatonists.)

Another idea suggested by the subject line that I most definitely disagree with is the so called 'conflict thesis', the idea that science and religion are fundamentally opposed, have been in sort of a death-struggle throughout history, and that they are exclusive disjoint alternatives. Anyone who has studied the history of science will realize that's simplistic and often false. So if the subject line represents somebody taking a side in this phony historical conflict, then I'm definitely not in agreement.

I use the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, working to stay objective, et al) when studying the Bible. I love science and do not see it as conflicting with Christianity in any way.

My OP was to point out that science becomes godlike for religious skeptics. For example, their many pleas on this thread--most of them ad hom attacks on religious people and me as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Have you considered why Christians say "they know"?

What do you mean?

Science says I don't know. Christians say they know (god gave answers via scriptures). Simple statements.

Could you tell me what you mean?

 

[ChristineM]

Have you considered why Christians say "they know"?

I have and you wont like the answer so i will not elucidate

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, working to stay objective, et al) when studying the Bible.

Sure you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So we can use DNA to get some justice--"they did it" but not "here's the extent and duration of their reparations/justice".

You are affirming, therefore, not denying, my OP.

Thanks.

You are another one of those "you responded to me so you affirm my assertions". That's pigeon chess. You can do better than that. Perhaps not.

I do not affirm the message that you are trying to send and failing to establish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I use the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, working to stay objective, et al) when studying the Bible. I love science and do not see it as conflicting with Christianity in any way.

My OP was to point out that science becomes godlike for religious skeptics. For example, their many pleas on this thread--most of them ad hom attacks on religious people and me as well.

I am a religious person. I have made recent requests of evidence on a subject where you claimed the evidence was everywhere. Your claims were the last I heard of you on that. You presented no evidence. Can you explain how this example demonstrates you use the scientific method and you love science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1) If no God is required, we must be evolutionists in thinking about the social sciences, too.

All that can be said and is said in science is there is no evidence of God or gods or the requirement of God or gods.

2) I cannot get better answers from atheists, therefore, then "we are social animals, like bees or ants are social (evolved) insects".

We are social animals. Bees and ants are social. The evidence supports that they evolved just as the evidence supports our own evolution. This does not negate God.

3) Humans aren't always so social--cannibal societies et al, I'm afraid skeptics only have "majority rules" and "must have evolved".

Skeptics have questions and they question claims. Especially empty claims. Anti-social acts do not refute the fact that we are a social species. The fact that we are social lets us see and contrast such anti-social behavior.

4) This underscores my OP.

Thanks.

I get the impression that you feel threatened by things like science and skeptics. They do not bother me. The fact that what I know does not align with literal interpretations of the Bible has not caused me to cast aside God or science.