Science ... NOT God ...

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see you didn't respond to the rest of my post. Okay.

The rest of your post misses the point I was making.

 

[Windwalker]

Because that was what you explicitly said:

That imagining things creates things or situations. It doesn't.
Real-world action sets things in motion. Merely thinking stuff doesn't.

I really don't know what to say when I have explicitly said in each post that beliefs lead to actions, but that beliefs are the beginning of what happens. I can't make that any clearer. Yet, you in your imagination hear me saying "merely thinking it' makes it happen with no actions at all. I do not believe that. Never stated that anywhere. That is how you hear it, and that says something about the way you think, not me.

Here. You cannot take three words out of a sentence, and omit the following context. Read this again, and if it sounds to you like I believe it's beliefs alone without action, then we can analyze this quote more carefully if you still don't see it:

"His beliefs, his imagination lead to changes in his behaviors, which lead to another's reactions and behaviors, which led to the end result he imagined. His imagination thus, in a series of cause and effect relationships. is the initial condition that created and manifest into actual physical reality. From mind, to matter."​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sometimes I get tired of pointing out that you can't prove anything to do with the real world. Science works on objective (intersubjectively verifiable) evidence.

And I am pointing out that to the *exact* same standards, the IPU has not been disproved.

But by any *reasonable* standards, the Deluge, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall have, in fact, been disproven.

Could you 2 agree on whether science has to do with proof or not?
It gets old, that you both claim science, yet can't agree on what it is?

So if I say proof or truth in regards to science to some of you non-religious humans it is both correct or not. One of the positions are maybe a false as a contradiction, but I now that is only relevant for religious clams.
So here it is: What is knowledge and what does that have to with science?

Now figure it out among you non-religious humans, because I get tired of science being about proof, truth, verification, falsifiable and what not.
Some of you hold false beliefs about what knowledge is as with logic.
An universal method of knowledge can't both rely on proof or not. There are other versions of this, which also leads to contradictions.

Stop it!!! We can't even debate, what science is, because you can't agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The rest of your post misses the point I was making.

So I am not a thing, where I can reconstruct myself by changing my thoughts and feelings. Okay, am I a soul?

 

[Polymath257]

Could you 2 agree on whether science has to do with proof or not?
It gets old, that you both claim science, yet can't agree on what it is?

Science deals with *disproof*. It uses testing to show certain ideas are *wrong*. The idea is that whatever is left has a good chance to be close to the truth.

I think we agree on that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could you 2 agree on whether science has to do with proof or not?
It gets old, that you both claim science, yet can't agree on what it is?

So if I say proof or truth in regards to science to some of you non-religious humans it is both correct or not. One of the positions are maybe a false as a contradiction, but I now that is only relevant for religious clams.
So here it is: What is knowledge and what does that have to with science?

Now figure it out among you non-religious humans, because I get tired of science being about proof, truth, verification, falsifiable and what not.
Some of you hold false beliefs about what knowledge is as with logic.
An universal method of knowledge can't both rely on proof or not. There are other versions of this, which also leads to contradictions.

Stop it!!! We can't even debate, what science is, because you can't agree.

Do you realize that words often have more than one meaning or usuage? It was made rather clear that the claim was not one of absolute proof, as in a mathematical theory, but more in the legal sense of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really don't know what to say when I have explicitly said in each post that beliefs lead to actions, but that beliefs are the beginning of what happens. I can't make that any clearer. Yet, you in your imagination hear me saying "merely thinking it' makes it happen with no actions at all. I do not believe that. Never stated that anywhere. That is how you hear it, and that says something about the way you think, not me.

If I misunderstood, then I apologise.

To me it did sound as if, to put it in half absurd terms, "if you wish for something hard enough, you'll get it". As if there was more going on then a mere causal chain of physical events leading to physical effects.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Could you 2 agree on whether science has to do with proof or not? It gets old, that you both claim science, yet can't agree on what it is?

They do agree on what it is. You just keep missing the fact that one is talking about "proof" and the other about "disproof".

 

[Windwalker]

If I misunderstood, then I apologise.

To me it did sound as if, to put it in half absurd terms, "if you wish for something hard enough, you'll get it". As if there was more going on then a mere causal chain of physical events leading to physical effects.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit.

I'm always very careful in my word choices. But I do wish to stress that we should not downplay or minimize the role of beliefs. My point is in saying, as my dad wisely and rightly pointed out to me in my youth, "We create our own enviroment". That means how we think about things, how we believe about ourselves and others, has a very direct and powerful influence upon what happens in our lives. Mental beliefs and attitudes, radically influences what happens.

If you believe you are fat and ugly and no one likes you, you will carry yourself in such a way that people don't want to be around you. If you believe you are attractive and a good person, you walk around with confidence and people are attracted to you. It's not that complex to understand and see that relationship. Explaining the dynamics of it however, is another matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

Could you 2 agree on whether science has to do with proof or not?
It gets old, that you both claim science, yet can't agree on what it is?

Valid scientific hypotheses must provided testable predictions (of observations or experimental results) and, as @Polymath257 said, we can disprove or falsify a hypothesis with an observation or experimental result that contradicts it.

However, you can never prove a hypothesis, however many correct predictions it has made. What happens it that each correct prediction is evidence for the hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mental beliefs and attitudes, radically influences what happens.

See, it's stuff like this that throws me of. I don't know if you are speaking literally or figuratively.
Figuratively, I agree.
Literally, I do not.

Yes, your mindset can influence the events in your life. But it's a social effect. Your mindset influences your behaviour and body language . That in turn determines who people perceive you ("he always looks angry", "he's got a great vibe!",...). These are literally perceptions of your physical presence and composure.

This is "aura". It's not something magical or spiritual or whatever that "surrounds" you. It's rather subtleties in your facial expression, composure, body language, etc... Our social brains pick up on those signals and we then create an image of you and label it. "looks trust worthy" or "looks gentle" or "stay away from him - bad vibes" etc.

In that, figurative, sense - I agree. Your mindset will influence your "manifestation" and how you are socially perceived. But it's not going to influence weather patterns. And it's not something "mysterious" or "mystical" or what-have-you. It's just all physical cause and effect.

We like the think in abstract / spiritual terms about such things and cultures around the world have come up with such labels for it: chakra's, ki, aura, spirit, soul,... But really, it's just external physical manifestation / expression of your emotional state of mind, in the form of body language.

If you believe you are fat and ugly and no one likes you, you will carry yourself in such a way that people don't want to be around you. If you believe you are attractive and a good person, you walk around with confidence and people are attracted to you. It's not that complex to understand and see that relationship. Explaining the dynamics of it however, is another matter.

So that is what you mean then?
The social aspect of the perception of your physical appearance / manifestation, which reflects your emotional state of mind?

Then we agree.

But this just deals with social interaction and body language...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let us start here:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Then there is this:

So here it is as a testable idea: Can you observe in the natural world, that there are religious humans? Yes, that is a fact. Then it can't be wrong with science, that there are religious humans or that they have religious behavior.
Start there - then do: Aims to explain the natural world. Describe and explain how religion works in the natural world!

Now I know some of the non-religious humans, not all, try to explain how ever indirect and polite that religious is "wrong" in some sense. But that is not science however much, that they hide, what they are doing. It always ends with morality or utility in some versions.
So we end here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Howe come I as a religious human have to point this out?

Forget God, this thread is about science.
With science as evidence - religion as a human behavior is a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See, it's stuff like this that throws me of. I don't know if you are speaking literally or figuratively.
Figuratively, I agree.
Literally, I do not.

Yes, your mindset can influence the events in your life. But it's a social effect. Your mindset influences your behaviour and body language . That in turn determines who people perceive you ("he always looks angry", "he's got a great vibe!",...). These are literally perceptions of your physical presence and composure.

This is "aura". It's not something magical or spiritual or whatever that "surrounds" you. It's rather subtleties in your facial expression, composure, body language, etc... Our social brains pick up on those signals and we then create an image of you and label it. "looks trust worthy" or "looks gentle" or "stay away from him - bad vibes" etc.

In that, figurative, sense - I agree. Your mindset will influence your "manifestation" and how you are socially perceived. But it's not going to influence weather patterns. And it's not something "mysterious" or "mystical" or what-have-you. It's just all physical cause and effect.

We like the think in abstract / spiritual terms about such things and cultures around the world have come up with such labels for it: chakra's, ki, aura, spirit, soul,... But really, it's just external physical manifestation / expression of your emotional state of mind, in the form of body language.



So that is what you mean then?
The social aspect of the perception of your physical appearance / manifestation, which reflects your emotional state of mind?

Then we agree.

But this just deals with social interaction and body language...

@Windwalker I'll even take this a step further....

What mindset also does, is influence how you yourself perceive the external world and the events happening therein.

Someone with a "positive" mindset, will focus on positive things.
Someone with a "negative" mindset, will focus on the negative things.

The things you focus on, are the things you remember.

So the idea of when you are "negative", bad things happen to you, isn't exactly true.
It's just the bad you will focus on and the bad you will remember. You won't remember the good. You might not even notice it. Instead, what happens to you is just random. You'll have good things happen and bad things happen. In a negative mindset, you'll just remember the bad and say "only bad things happen to me".

So it's not that your "negative mindset" makes bad stuff happen more frequently, because it doesn't. It's rather that such a mindset causes you to focus and remember the bad and forget or ignore the good.

It's the glass half full or glass half empty story, really.
But it's all just perception.

At the same time, you might also cause such stuff yourself.
A depressed person will be less inclined to take care of himself, like taking frequent showers, brushing teeth, etc. That person's immune system will suffer due to bad hygiene. A crippled immune system makes one more vulnerable for desease. And then you're there again "why does such bad stuff always happen to me?"
Well... in this case, because you didn't wash yourself properly, doofus! Perhaps if you took the time to clean that wound on your toe before you put it in a fresh and clean pair of socks, you wouldn't get any blood poisoning as a result of a nasty infection......

It always comes back to physical effects triggered by physical causes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

L
So here it is as a testable idea: Can you observe in the natural world, that there are religious humans? Yes, that is a fact. Then it can't be wrong with science, that there are religious humans or that they have religious behavior.

For the bazillionth time, nobody claimed otherwise.

Describe and explain how religion works in the natural world!

Tendency of type 1 cognition errors and infusing agency in random events, resulting in tendency to hold superstitious beliefs and engaging in magical thinking. Seen thoughout the animal kingdom.

Now I know some of the non-religious humans, not all, try to explain how ever indirect and polite that religious is "wrong" in some sense.

You're mixing things up again.

There is a difference between the act / state of "holding religious beliefs" and the actual contents of what is being believed.

With science as evidence - religion as a human behavior is a fact.

Nobody claims otherwise, once again.

 

[Audie]

Valid scientific hypotheses must provided testable predictions (of observations or experimental results) and, as @Polymath257 said, we can disprove or falsify a hypothesis with an observation or experimental result that contradicts it.

However, you can never prove a hypothesis, however many correct predictions it has made. What happens it that each correct prediction is evidence for the hypothesis.

Have him repeat that three times

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For the bazillionth time, nobody claimed otherwise.

Good, we agree.

Tendency of type 1 cognition errors and infusing agency in random events, resulting in tendency to hold superstitious beliefs and engaging in magical thinking. Seen thoughout the animal kingdom.

We have establish a set of facts. Then what is next? Is that it? Some humans do type 1 cognition errors and infusing agency in random events, resulting in tendency to hold superstitious beliefs and engaging in magical thinking. Period, End of story. Nothing more here to see or do, folks - move along. How is it that I get the feeling that there is more to it, than this fact?

You're mixing things up again.

There is a difference between the act / state of "holding religious beliefs" and the actual contents of what is being believed.

And yet are both natural and take place as a result of natural world, all the way back to the Big Bang. So again: Then what is next? Is that it? There are actual contents of what is being believed. Yes, that is a fact. Period, End of story. Nothing more here to see or do, folks - move along. How is it that I get the feeling that there is more to it, than this fact?

So if that is it, we agree. Some humans do type 1 cognition errors and all beliefs have actual contents.
Fine, if that was it. But I know there is more. So why not tell us, what is next? How come you point this out? There must be a reason for it or is it just random and arbitrary and you might as well have posted something else.

I would like your reasoning if any behind why you posted it and how it matters, if it matters. Or if it is all meaningless?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have establish a set of facts. Then what is next? Is that it? Some humans do type 1 cognition errors and infusing agency in random events, resulting in tendency to hold superstitious beliefs and engaging in magical thinking. Period, End of story. Nothing more here to see or do, folks - move along. How is it that I get the feeling that there is more to it, than this fact?

These basic simple things form the feeding ground from which religions are born.
You asked to explain the workings of religion. Well, that's the explanation. That's why humans gravitate towards religious beliefs and invent them out of thin air. As well as other superstitious / magical beliefs that aren't necessarily or traditionally recognised as being "religions". Like belief in tarrot readings, sceances, crystal healing, voodoo, horoscopes, homeopathy, alien spacecraft, appearances of bigfoot and lochness monsters or "the kraken", etc etc etc.

And yet are both natural and take place as a result of natural world, all the way back to the Big Bang. So again: Then what is next? Is that it? There are actual contents of what is being believed. Yes, that is a fact. Period, End of story. Nothing more here to see or do, folks - move along. How is it that I get the feeling that there is more to it, than this fact?

Seems like the point being made flew right over your head again.

That point being: acknowledging that people have a tendency to HOLD religious believes, in no way means that the actual things that are being believed in that context are also correct or even plausible.

You are aware that people can clinge to false beliefs and in fact do so all the time, right?

So if that is it, we agree. Some humans do type 1 cognition errors and all beliefs have actual contents.
Fine, if that was it. But I know there is more. So why not tell us, what is next? How come you point this out?

Because you asked. You asked about the workings of religion; why do humans believe in religions.
I gave you 2 important reasons.

I'm sorry if you think my answer wasn't exciting enough.
I for one think the simplicity of it is very elegant with great explanatory power.

There must be a reason for it

Sure, there are very real, very effective, survival reasons for having the tendencies of engaging in false positives or for infusing agency in potentially random events.

It's what makes you run away when you think you hear a dangerous predator sneak up on you.
A false positive and infusing of agency upon hearing a noise in the bushes, makes you run away in fear of your life. Eventhough it's just the wind.

But what if it isn't the wind and it actually is a predator?
Well... the rational folks who stand around to investigate and collect more data, to avoid engaging in a false positive in unwarranted infusion of agency, .... get eaten.

The others, the "irrational folk" - they survive, because they ran.

Relgion and other superstitious beliefs are just a side effect, a byproduct, of this survival mechanism.

or is it just random and arbitrary and you might as well have posted something else.

Nope, anything but random and arbitrary. These are very real traits found throughout the animal kingdom - especially in those species that are seen as lunch by other species.

I would like your reasoning if any behind why you posted it and how it matters, if it matters. Or if it is all meaningless?

See above. I'm sure you'll find certain words to semantically and compulsively bicker about for a few pages and in doing so, burrying my reply under a heap of semantic drivel so that you never have to address it properly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

These basic simple things form the feeding ground from which religions are born.
You asked to explain the workings of religion. Well, that's the explanation. That's why humans gravitate towards religious beliefs and invent them out of thin air. As well as other superstitious / magical beliefs that aren't necessarily or traditionally recognised as being "religions". Like belief in tarrot readings, sceances, crystal healing, voodoo, horoscopes, homeopathy, alien spacecraft, appearances of bigfoot and lochness monsters or "the kraken", etc etc etc.




Seems like the point being made flew right over your head again.

That point being: acknowledging that people have a tendency to HOLD religious believes, in no way means that the actual things that are being believed in that context are also correct or even plausible.

You are aware that people can clinge to false beliefs and in fact do so all the time, right?



Because you asked. You asked about the workings of religion; why do humans believe in religions.
I gave you 2 important reasons.

I'm sorry if you think my answer wasn't exciting enough.
I for one think the simplicity of it is very elegant with great explanatory power.




Sure, there are very real, very effective, survival reasons for having the tendencies of engaging in false positives or for infusing agency in potentially random events.

It's what makes you run away when you think you hear a dangerous predator sneak up on you.
A false positive and infusing of agency upon hearing a noise in the bushes, makes you run away in fear of your life. Eventhough it's just the wind.

But what if it isn't the wind and it actually is a predator?
Well... the rational folks who stand around to investigate and collect more data, to avoid engaging in a false positive in unwarranted infusion of agency, .... get eaten.

The others, the "irrational folk" - they survive, because they ran.

Relgion and other superstitious beliefs are just a side effect, a byproduct, of this survival mechanism.



Nope, anything but random and arbitrary. These are very real traits found throughout the animal kingdom - especially in those species that are seen as lunch by other species.



See above. I'm sure you'll find certain words to semantically and compulsively bicker about for a few pages and in doing so, burrying my reply under a heap of semantic drivel so that you never have to address it properly.

So again you state facts. Including about death and survival. Okay, but why does these fact matter?

 

[Prestor John]

You are not paying attention to your own argument.

How is that?

You are trying to claim that those that accept reality have such a belief.

What?

Remember, Adam was a myth. There never were only two people.

I don't not believe Adam was a myth.

I believe that there were great ape and other human-like races that existed either on this Earth or upon the planet that our world spawned from, but they were not our ancestors.

 

[Prestor John]

Then I suggest reading the article I linked. Just a couple of highlights:

• We have a mutated version of the gene for making egg yoke. It was found by locating it in chickens and then looking in the same place in the human genome.
  
  
• Like other great apes, we have hundreds of mutated (non-functioning) versions of olfactory receptor genes (sense of smell), many of which have identical inactivating mutations shared between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. If we use only this evidence to assess the relatedness of these species, we can reconstruct that obtained via other evidence.

Man being made from the "dust" of the Earth could also explain these discoveries.