Science IS religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

We all have beliefs. How do you fit stuff in yours?

Using testable and verifiable objective evidence instead of bronze age tales of makebelief.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Claiming that there should be such evidence of different forces once existing by looking at current ones shows you have missed the crux of the arguments.



I don't! The thread is not about defending beliefs, but about some people trying to show origin science is not belief based! I believe that it is likely, based on history and the bible, that the past was quite different. Now if you believe it was not, fine. However if you claim to know, and that science knows, well, you need to show why.

The spin of the earth has nothing to do with the forces of nature that used to exist.


False. You have a little faith based regime that you insert data and it yields 'distances', and 'sizes', etc. Unless time existed out where stars are none of this is valid, so the only question that matters is this. Do you KNOW time is the same out there also or not? The indisputable answer is absolutely not. Checkmate.

No. Same as above, you simply thought you knew it all. As for spirits, all we can do is look at the record. In the bible we can see they are not bound by time or space. Gabriel appeared to Daniel before Daniel finished praying and opened his eyes, and Gabriel had come from across the universe!
Science has no relation to origin sciences except in name. The basis of models of the past have no connection to verifiable, repeatable, observable, testable .. etc. None.

This thread is certainly NOT about the origin science you keep parroting for no reason. I do not have faith, I have data and evidence. I have given you clear examples, logically consistent arguments, and relevant analogies, facts and evidence. I have even explained the inductive/deductive reasoning behind my claims. But you simply ignore them, misrepresent them, and deflect them. Of course, none of this is about me or my claims. This is about you defending your claims, with either logic and evidence. Only a moron would assume that anything can be absolutely certain. Only a moron would assume that anything could be absolutely right or wrong. Only a moron would assume that there is evidence for everything. Only a moron would use absolutes only to support their arguments. Most non-moronic people operate in a reality under the principle of "degrees of certainty". This means that the degree of certainty is directly proportional to the amount of objective evidence supporting it. Zero evidence, zero degree of certainty. Some objective evidence, some degree of certainty. Massive amount of evidence, massive amount of certainty. Infinite amount of objective evidence, ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Only a God has absolute certainty. Most non-moronic people agree that in this Universe, for every effect there is a cause(s). We also accept that near enough is good enough. And, if it works, it works.

Science is evolving, reviving, and changing, as new information, better tools, and data become available. No one is arguing whether the science itself is the same today, as it was in the past. This claim is self-evident. Your claim was that the fundamental forces in nature were different in the past, on earth and in deep space. Still no evidence or examples so far. And, of course there should be clear evidence supporting this claim. Why would you think there wouldn't be? It is you that made the claim that the natural forces of Nature were different in the past, because the Bible tells you so. You now want me to prove that you are wrong, and that the forces were the same. Wow, you make the claim, and I must prove my own claims. Talk about a one-sided argument. You should really learn when the burden of proof is applicable.

No. Same as above, you simply thought you knew it all. As for spirits, all we can do is look at the record. In the bible we can see they are not bound by time or space. Gabriel appeared to Daniel before Daniel finished praying and opened his eyes, and Gabriel had come from across the universe!

Even a moron doesn't try to validate one fantasy with another fantasy. There is no objective evidence to support either claim. Another argument from ignorance. Everything out of your mouth is an argument from ignorance, under the guise that "If you can't prove me absolutely wrong, then I must be absolutely right.". Fortunately science doesn't work this way. Do you really think we should base our scientific understanding on scriptures in the Bible? I also have complete faith in the outcome of the data, because it works. This again, is not about proving what already exists, or is self-evident.

People here have been very patient with you two. They assume that you might have an open mind. That once you realize that there is zero evidence to support your claims, that you might realize that your extraordinary claims are not intellectually valid, or logically consistent. We were under the mistaken belief, that you were really interested in honest discourse. Clearly, both your intentions were to taunt, insult, incite, irritate, and provide zero evidence no matter how many times we ask. You are both deluded trolls, that would do or say anything to justify why you still believe in fairy tales. You are both science illiterates, whose only idea of any scientific methodology, is that "God did it all", and all evidence must support this conclusion(top down). I can certainly understand why the rational community would consider you both jokes. But, this same community would respect your right to believe in any fairy tale you choose. I think I am wasting my time expecting an honest dialogue, or a different outcome. Especially among close-minded dreamers, that don't understand the nature and value of objective evidence. I am not interested in arguing just to go the distance. Have a nice day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Especially among close-minded dreamers, that don't understand the nature and value of objective evidence. ...

Now some history from skepticism. It is from David Hume. He observed the following:
You have a large body of text stating objective evidence and then suddenly out of nowhere you have a subjective claim. As if from the objective evidence follows a subjective claim.
So here is what you did.
Premise: There are objective evidence. (True)
Therefore objective evidence has value.

As a deduction it is invalid, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
Note - you should know this since you claim to understand logic and you should know this piece of skepticism, because it is a part of critical thinking and that is what you do.
So I apply critical thinking on your critical thinking.

So back to objective evidence has value. How is that known and what kind of of value is that? Qualitative or quantitative?
Subjective or objective value?
Further for the deduction you use in effect to make it valid, what is the premise, which is missing and if found is the missing premise true with objective evidence.

So since you are so good at this, I will leave it here. You can find the missing premise and show it is true with objective evidence. And/or you can show with objective evidence, that it is true, objective evidence has value and show that is objective value.

A tip: You can't. Because the sentence "objective evidence has value" is subjective and without objective evidence.
But since you can use reason, logic and evidence I know you can figure that out. Or rather I know you can't, because you can't recognize your own subjectivity in this regard, you can only recognize it in other humans. Don't worry, most people can't do that: They can't in some cases recognize that they themselves are subjective, thought they can recognize it in others.
So you are as normal as most humans and you share it with some religious humans.
They use "moronic" reasoning when it comes to subjective values. And you are one of them.

Prediction - you will not use reason, logic and evidence to establish that objective evidence has objective value, because it is not possible as long as humans remain humans(conditional claim). Rather you will use emotions and argue that my thinking is "bad" and your is "good".
You are not that special, when it comes knowledge about how the world works, because you are as average as most humans: You take your own subjective values for granted and are not skeptical about that.

PS The correct statement is that: Objective evidence can in some cases have subjective value to some humans. That is a conditional statement, because it has the conditions of it being relative and not absolute, You always check the conditions for something be true and don't make incomplete claims. You should know this, because you understand science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Vee said,

"Scientists believes....."

But



More semantics. Unbelievable how ridiculous to argue the point.

No. What's unbelievably ridiculous is to only quote that one sentence out of that rather large post and then ignore everything else, pretending it's the only counter point to anything.



And call it semantics if you will.... The fact is that when talking to people who like to confuse multiple meanings of a word (religious beliefs vs more colloquial use of the term, wich is a lot more nuanced), it's best to properly define terms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neutral Theory vs. Darwinian ToE

You do understand that Neutral theory is also "...of Evolution", right?

Also, right in the abstract you can also see that darwinian evolution isn't denied by neutral theory

Last sentence of the abstract:

I conclude that since the origin of life on Earth, neutral evolutionary changes have predominated over Darwinian evolutionary changes, at least in number

That's an explicit acknowledgement that darwian evolution occurs.
Within mainstreamvolution, "neutral evolution" is also already recognized at least to an extent that I am aware off.

The "piggy backing" of traits. Neutral mutations with pretty much neutral phenotypical changes, piggy backing on the natural selection of other things that happened to be part of the same DNA.

So the idea that everything had to have an explanation in terms of suriveability or reproductive success, isn't even a thing anymore.

From what I understand, and without looking into it any further, it seems to me that this article is someone presenting a case to suggest that neutral changes are more prevalent then previously believed, without denying that darwinian changes happen also.

There are others, just Google.

It seems you still have given us nothing though. You need to have at least one before being able to speak of "others". ;-)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. What's unbelievably ridiculous is to only quote that one sentence out of that rather large post and then ignore everything else, pretending it's the only counter point to anything.



And call it semantics if you will.... The fact is that when talking to people who like to confuse multiple meanings of a word (religious beliefs vs more colloquial use of the term, wich is a lot more nuanced), it's best to properly define terms.

Belief:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

In essence that is a supernatural belief, because "playing fair" is not physical, it is a form of metaphysical idealism. It assigns a mental, non physical attribute to the universe.
Further as the contradiction in regards to a physical universe:
There is no purpose in the universe. Everything comes from the physical universe. There are purpose in humans. Human comes from the universe. Purpose is from the universe.

Science is a belief system. It beliefs that the universe is natural, fair and knowable. But that is a foundational belief without evidence about the reality of the universe. Science is not a religious belief system, but it is a belief system on the same foundational level as religion. Science has beliefs about what the universe is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Belief:

William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

In essence that is a supernatural belief, because "playing fair" is not physical, it is a form of metaphysical idealism. It assigns a mental, non physical attribute to the universe.

It is not, because it tested continuously with new observations.
The statement is fully in line with the evidence and always has been.
So it seems like a pretty safe assumption.

For example, you and I can independently measure the acceleration speed of an object falling to earth in a vacuum and we'll come up with the same answer.

We can independently use such knowledge to calculate the energy required for an object to achieve escape velocity and again we'll come up with the same answer.

So the idea of the properties and workings of the universe being the same to its observers, seems to work pretty well. It's why multiple companies, independently from one another, can design and manufacture airplanes, cars, computers, cellphones, wifi routers, GPS satellites, etc etc etc.

Because science works when you do it when such assumptions.

Science is a belief system

It is not. It instead is a method to figure out how the universe and phenomenon of reality work.

It beliefs that the universe is natural, fair and knowable

It "believes" none of those things. For the obvious reason that methods don't "believe" things.
Only conscious entities do.

Secondly, scientists assume some of those things - and are very willing to change their minds when required.
For example, when uncovering the bizarness of quantum physics, I doubt that "playing fair" would have been the choice of words of the scientists involved....

If anything, it sees to me that quantum physics is the very opposite of playing fair. Subatomic particles break about every rule that classical physics would term unbreakable.

Einstein so famously said that "God does not play dice with the universe". Quantum physics suggests otherwise.

In short/summary: the assumptions that science makes are very rationally defendable and some of the things you claimed are assumed aren't actually assumed at all. So.... yeah....

Not sure what your objection and / or point is.

But that is a foundational belief without evidence about the reality of the universe.

Beliefs and assumptions aren't exactly the same thing.

Science is not a religious belief system, but it is a belief system on the same foundational level as religion

That doesn't mean anything to me.
It sounds like you are kind of desperate to equate scientific knowledge with religious beliefs and are happy to use obfuscation and word plays to hide the fact that they are more like polar opposites instead...

Science has beliefs about what the universe is.

Science doesn't deal with beliefs.
Science deals with attemtping to explain the data of reality in testable ways.
In fact, you could even say that the scientific method deals with trying to disprove such explanatory ideas and that those ideas wich can't be shown false, are the ones that are left standing and worth exploring further.

 

[ratiocinator]

Further as the contradiction in regards to a physical universe:
There is no purpose in the universe. Everything comes from the physical universe. There are purpose in humans. Human comes from the universe. Purpose is from the universe.

There is no contradiction. Purpose arises via evolution because when some trait is preserved via natural selection it happens because of differential reproduction but the differential reproduction will be because the trait serves some purpose for the survival of the organism.

See: The Evolution of Purposes - Presented by Prof Daniel Dennett

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no contradiction. Purpose arises via evolution because when some trait is preserved via natural selection it happens because of differential reproduction but the differential reproduction will be because the trait serves some purpose for the survival of the organism.

See: The Evolution of Purposes - Presented by Prof Daniel Dennett

Yea, and that includes subjectivity and is why science fails in the following manner:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Everything is from the physical Big Bang, yet science has these limits.
So how can everything come from the physical Big Bang, yet the method that describes that has limits to in regards to the everyday world, which comes from physical Big Bang.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science is a belief system. It beliefs that the universe is natural, fair and knowable.

Science doesn't believe anything, it's a methodology. Science is based on some basic assumptions; most notably that it is possible to build models that correspond well to actual observations of the universe. The success of of these models is evidence of this assumption.

Science is not a religious belief system, but it is a belief system on the same foundational level as religion.

What on earth do you think this "foundational level" is exactly?

Science has beliefs about what the universe is.

No, it doesn't.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yea, and that includes subjectivity and is why science fails in the following manner:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I don't see why you think those limitations are failures. Subjectivity arises from complex minds that arise from complex brains.

So what?

Everything is from the physical Big Bang, yet science has these limits.
So how can everything come from the physical Big Bang, yet the method that describes that has limits to in regards to the everyday world, which comes from physical Big Bang.

What do you think the problem is? It looks a lot as if you think science is trying to be some sort of complete philosophy of everything, which it isn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science doesn't believe anything, it's a methodology. Science is based on some basic assumptions; most notably that it is possible to build models that correspond well to actual observations of the universe. The success of of these models is evidence of this assumption.

And the lack of success here show the limitations in these assumptions:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

What on earth do you think this "foundational level" is exactly?

Science assumes that the world is natural and capable of being explained with reason, logic and evidence.
But that has a limit, because scientists can't do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

No, it doesn't.

Yeah, your assumptions are special and different than me, because of reason... BTW science is done by humans and it is the humans who hold assumptions or rather accepted precepts: Precept: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought. So your thoughts and behavior are special and different that mine, because of reasons...
You believe differently as what you accept as accepted precepts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see why you think those limitations are failures. Subjectivity arises from complex minds that arise from complex brains.

...

So you have no problem in that I am religious and understand reality differently than you.That is a result of subjectivity.
Just admit that religion is neither right or wrong. It is subjective and you have a different subjectivity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science assumes that the world is natural and capable of being explained with reason, logic and evidence.
But that has a limit, because scientists can't do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you have no problem in that I am religious and understand reality differently than you.That is a result of subjectivity.

But your subjective beliefs either correspond to objective reality or it doesn't. And that's what determins if what you believe is actually accurate or not.

Just admit that religion is neither right or wrong

That's ridiculous. Any statement about the nature of the world, be it religious or otherwise, is either correct or not. Not all such statements can be verified, but even those statements that can't be must necessarily be correct or not.

A thing can't be both correct and incorrect at the same time. That is self contradictory. There are no married bachelors for the same reason.

It is subjective and you have a different subjectivity.

You drown yourself in your own obfuscation and false equivocations.

 

[ratiocinator]

And the lack of success here show the limitations in these assumptions:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I still have no idea why you keep posting this link or why you think it represents a "lack of success"...

Science assumes that the world is natural and capable of being explained with reason, logic and evidence.

That doesn't answer my question. Science is a way of producing models of the world that can make predictions of the results of future observations or experiments. It works very well and is objectively (intersubjectively) testable.

Yeah, your assumptions are special and different than me, because of reason...

Are they? This doesn't seem to relate to anything I said.

BTW science is done by humans and it is the humans who hold assumptions or rather accepted precepts: Precept: a general rule intended to regulate behavior or thought. So your thoughts and behavior are special and different that mine, because of reasons...
You believe differently as what you accept as accepted precepts.

Sorry - I don't know what you're trying to say.

So you have no problem in that I am religious and understand reality differently than you.

I don't know what you believe, so I can't really say.

That is a result of subjectivity.
Just admit that religion is neither right or wrong. It is subjective and you have a different subjectivity.

A religion that makes claims about objective reality must be either right or wrong. How we approach deciding which is another matter, but from my point of view:-

If a religion makes claims that are self-contradictory, I would dismiss them as being unreasonable. If the claims go against objective evidence, I'd dismiss them on the grounds that they are inconsistent with what is known.

Other than that, they might be right or wrong but I'd want to know why I should take them seriously.

None of which has much to do with science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

A religion that makes claims about objective reality must be either right or wrong. How we approach deciding which is another matter, but from my point of view:-
...

Finally. There is no objective reality with evidence, reason and logic. That is what you assume and won't accept as being the same as an assumption of God. To you your assumption of an objective reality, as you believe in can't be questioned, because of reasons...
The problem you have is this: If you don't already know, read enough about a Boltzmann Brain. Then you will realize this:
You have no way of knowing whether you are a Boltzmann Brain or in a reality, which independent of you is, as it appear to you in your experience in your mind.

So how about this: There are no privileged positive position for what objective reality really is and no right or wrong, because it is unknown.
It amounts to subjectivism in both cases, because in practice you can believe in your version of objective reality and I can believe in mine.
How do we test that?
Well, we are both here, so it doesn't matter if objective reality is natural or supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But your subjective beliefs either correspond to objective reality or it doesn't. And that's what determins if what you believe is actually accurate or not.
...

The rest of your post are of minor importance. I apologize if being uncivil and so on. But the meat is there.
Objective reality is a belief.
Read up on a Boltzmann Brain and read here:

...
A religion that makes claims about objective reality must be either right or wrong. How we approach deciding which is another matter, but from my point of view:-
...

Finally. There is no objective reality with evidence, reason and logic. That is what you assume and won't accept as being the same as an assumption of God. To you your assumption of an objective reality, as you believe in can't be questioned, because of reasons...
The problem you have is this: If you don't already know, read enough about a Boltzmann Brain. Then you will realize this:
You have no way of knowing whether you are a Boltzmann Brain or in a reality, which independent of you is, as it appear to you in your experience in your mind.

So how about this: There are no privileged positive position for what objective reality really is and no right or wrong, because it is unknown.
It amounts to subjectivism in both cases, because in practice you can believe in your version of objective reality and I can believe in mine.
How do we test that?
Well, we are both here, so it doesn't matter if objective reality is natural or supernatural.

So how about this: There are no privileged positive position for what objective reality really is and no right or wrong, because it is unknown.
It amounts to subjectivism in both cases, because in practice you can believe in your version of objective reality and I can believe in mine.
How do we test that?
Well, we are both here, so it doesn't matter if objective reality is natural or supernatural.

 

[ratiocinator]

Finally. There is no objective reality with evidence, reason and logic.

I'm going with Popper here: what I mean is intersubjectively verifiable - and there is plenty of evidence, reason and logic.

This is, of course, philosophy - not science.

That is what you assume and won't accept as being the same as an assumption of God.

It's nothing like an assumption of god because it is intersubjectively verifiable.

If you don't already know, read enough about a Boltzmann Brain. Then you will realize this:
You have no way of knowing whether you are a Boltzmann Brain or in a reality, which independent of you is, as it appear to you in your experience in your mind.

Yes - and I might be a brain-in-a-vat or living in a virtual reality. The problem is that all these are dead-end assumptions that get us nowhere - and the fact remains that if what is intersubjectively verifiable isn't the real world, it might as well be. It is inescapable. I can't choose to step out of my flat window and expect to fly majestically to the ground two floors down.

There is no equivalent argument for accepting any god(s).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm going with Popper here: what I mean is intersubjectively verifiable - and there is plenty of evidence, reason and logic.

This is, of course, philosophy - not science.

It's nothing like an assumption of god because it is intersubjectively verifiable.

Yes - and I might be a brain-in-a-vat or living in a virtual reality. The problem is that all these are dead-end assumptions that get us nowhere - and the fact remains that if what is intersubjectively verifiable isn't the real world, it might as well be. It is inescapable. I can't choose to step out of my flat window and expect to fly majestically to the ground two floors down.

There is no equivalent argument for accepting any god(s).

You don't decide equivalence and nor do I. You are subjectively as you started with assuming a certain frame (first bold). I use another frame. Individual subjectivity matters and as longs you take yours as the universally measurement standard for all, we won't get anywhere.
I believe in God, because it makes sense to me individually and subjectively. Now that is a fact of how reality works and that informs my further behavior.
That is your problem: You think your subjectivity is universal and you decide any argument based on your subjective framework. I don't either, I just point that there is no universal standard for deciding subjectivity.
It is a fact that you subjectively can go with Popper and I can go religious and there is no way to find an universal standard for deciding that.
It is a combination of limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativism. Sorry to bring this on you, but that is also what I believe in despite being religious. I don't believe in knowledge, right/wrong, true/false and what not as most people do.
If you want it as testable:
Can we observe that you subjectively believe in a certain way? Yes.
Can we observe that I subjectively believe in a different way? Yes.
Can we observe that this is the reason for our different standards of how we understand this difference? Yes.
That is the evidence for limited cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativism.
There is no universal standard for deciding these arguments, because it is a fact that we both can believe differently.
That is how the world works in practice.