You Can't Argue Against God

[Madsaac]

Luj



Can you identify some of these studies please?

In general, I am of the opinion that so called social sciences are qualitively different from the natural sciences, have different standards of evoidence, and operate from theories which are generally unfalsifiable (which is not, btw., to say they aren't valid).

If someone can produce an equation which predicts human behaviour as accurately as Newton's Law of Gravitation predicts the behaviour of massive objects, I will change my opinion on this.

The countless Psychology studies

Scientific Research in Psychology – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition

opentextbc.ca

Emotions

Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues

Emotion feeling is a phase of neurobiological activity, the key component of emotions and emotion-cognition interactions. Emotion schemas, the most frequently occurring emotion experiences, are dynamic emotion-cognition interactions that may consist of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

EVOLUTION OF HUMAN EMOTION: A View Through Fear

Basic tendencies to detect and respond to significant events are present in the simplest single cell organisms, and persist throughout all invertebrates and vertebrates. Within vertebrates, the overall brain plan is highly conserved, though differences ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Language

Carving the World for Language: How Neuroscientific Research Can Enrich the Study of First and Second Language Learning

Linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience all have rich histories in language research. Crosstalk among these disciplines, as realized in studies of phonology, is pivotal for understanding a fundamental challenge for first and second language learners ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A Study of Scientific Research Articles | Ahmad | English Language and Literature Studies | CCSE

Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A Study of Scientific Research Articles

ccsenet.org

Social Cohesion

Australian Social Cohesion: Exploring New Directions | Australian National University

In times of economic downturn and climate disaster, strong social cohesion bolsters community resilience, increasing ability to take collective action to address needs and problems. Declines in social cohesion are associated with higher costs of security, business and health. The ANU Grand...

www.anu.edu.au

Opinions

Are opinions based on science: modelling social response to scientific facts - PubMed

As scientists we like to think that modern societies and their members base their views, opinions and behaviour on scientific facts. This is not necessarily the case, even though we are all (over-) exposed to information flow through various channels of media, i.e. newspapers, television, radio...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I could have added, politics, commerce, anything

Actually, anyway you look at it science can help us understand nearly anything better. And dare I say, better then anything else.

Or do we know more then what these studies can achieve?

 

[Madsaac]

Believing in science is also a 'false belief'.

Believing is choosing to presume to know things that we don't actually know. And this is a problem for humanity both past and present. And it causes us problems in comerce, politics, religion and science, alike. For some reason we humans don't want to accept our conceptions of reality and truth provisionally. We want it to be certain. So we 'believe' it's certain even though we cannot possibly know this to be so. And then when it turns out to be wrong, we 'double down' on our phony certainty. We become 'at war with' reality.

This is not a religious issue. It's a human issue, and the scientism crowd is just as guilty of it as any religious zealot is. And is just as blinded by it, too.

No we don't want it to be certain, just better and as you can see I have added many scientific studies that can make it better. See above

Or maybe they aren't science but you get the picture

And I'm personally glad that society is seeing the more value in these scientific studies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes my friend, but what really matters is the meaning of my point. Of course its subjective

We need certain parts of humanity to be without personal opinions because it works better, you know science

Objective evidence for the fact that science works better. Not just that you can write, but that you can show it with evidence.

 

[Madsaac]

Objective evidence for the fact that science works better. Not just that you can write, but that you can show it with evidence.

I can't (I probably could but you know.....) but the fact that humans use it extensively and have very high trust in it, would suggest it works better then other approaches.

Common sense

 

[RestlessSoul]

The countless Psychology studies

Scientific Research in Psychology – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition

opentextbc.ca

Emotions

Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues

Emotion feeling is a phase of neurobiological activity, the key component of emotions and emotion-cognition interactions. Emotion schemas, the most frequently occurring emotion experiences, are dynamic emotion-cognition interactions that may consist of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

EVOLUTION OF HUMAN EMOTION: A View Through Fear

Basic tendencies to detect and respond to significant events are present in the simplest single cell organisms, and persist throughout all invertebrates and vertebrates. Within vertebrates, the overall brain plan is highly conserved, though differences ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Language

Carving the World for Language: How Neuroscientific Research Can Enrich the Study of First and Second Language Learning

Linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience all have rich histories in language research. Crosstalk among these disciplines, as realized in studies of phonology, is pivotal for understanding a fundamental challenge for first and second language learners ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A Study of Scientific Research Articles | Ahmad | English Language and Literature Studies | CCSE

Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A Study of Scientific Research Articles

ccsenet.org

Social Cohesion

Australian Social Cohesion: Exploring New Directions | Australian National University

In times of economic downturn and climate disaster, strong social cohesion bolsters community resilience, increasing ability to take collective action to address needs and problems. Declines in social cohesion are associated with higher costs of security, business and health. The ANU Grand...

www.anu.edu.au

Opinions

Are opinions based on science: modelling social response to scientific facts - PubMed

As scientists we like to think that modern societies and their members base their views, opinions and behaviour on scientific facts. This is not necessarily the case, even though we are all (over-) exposed to information flow through various channels of media, i.e. newspapers, television, radio...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I could have added, politics, commerce, anything

Actually, anyway you look at it science can help us understand nearly anything better. And dare I say, better then anything else.

Or do we know more then what these studies can achieve?

Not quite sure what claims you are making on behalf of these studies. That they qualify as scientific?
And that by virtue of that qualification, they have more validity than they otherwise would?

Fair enough, but I'd say you're using quite a loose definition of science. What exactly is your criteria for defining science, and how does the study of language, say, meet these criteria?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't (I probably could but you know.....) but the fact that humans use it extensively and have very high trust in it, would suggest it works better then other approaches.

Common sense

Well, as long as you understand that science is about what is and not what matters, then you can idolize science all you want.

 

[Madsaac]

Not quite sure what claims you are making on behalf of these studies. That they qualify as scientific?
And that by virtue of that qualification, they have more validity than they otherwise would?

Fair enough, but I'd say you're using quite a loose definition of science. What exactly is your criteria for defining science, and how does the study of language, say, meet these criteria?

Yes, I'm not sure they qualify as scientific studies, but the point is, they are objective methodical studies devoid of subjective inputs. Which will help us understand things better, even non 'natural' aspects of life, as mentioned above.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, as long as you understand that science is about what is and not what matters, then you can idolize science all you want.

No, no, no its not me. It's the governments of the world which do it. For example, how do you think they work out the best way to harness the wind for renewable energy.

Or build the correct type of housing for certain demographics?

God isn't going to tell them

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, no, no its not me. It's the governments of the world which do it. For example, how do you think they work out the best way to harness the wind for renewable energy.

Or build the correct type of housing for certain demographics?

God isn't going to tell them

Science can tell you how to do something, but not if you ought to do it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

no wonder it took you so long to define your term God - but kudo's for finally doing so .. have now we something to work with.. but !, you failed to do so in context of the converstion ?! as persented .. although got really close in ways

You've been reclassified a troll after that comment.

Here's what happened: I offered my definition of a god in a post to you that you apparently didn't read. Later, you posted to me, "you have not defined what it is you don't believe in." I corrected your error by quoting what I had written and providing a link. And now you write that. "Kudo's for finally doing so"?

No, it would be kudos for finally reading what was written to you twice, except you don't deserve kudos because of your dishonesty. Were you embarrassed by me? Is that why you chose to write a post like that? To try to save face? Is it that you can't handle being shown wrong? I did it politely and respectfully (say goodbye to that) and you return with that garbage. You should be even more embarrassed now.

Is shame something you can feel?

 

[Balthazzar]

Are we expected NOT to argue with God? I'll suggest it's expected, if not required (at times) if only to bring out our truth and spirit. Honor in spirit and truth, right? When did I not argue with my parents? How about you? Yeah, so what ... God gets the last word, but ... blind obedience shoul not be expected nor accepted. In my umm ... childlike opinion.

On the other hand, if you know better you know better.

 

[F1fan]

That is not science and the core problem in the end for your text about in effect coping as a human.

Are you suggesting being human is a condition that is so miserable that we have to cope with it? I've noticed atheists invest more in living while those with religious beliefs have assumptions that being human has many negative elements.

It doesn't follow down to a single individual that the non-religious way is the best way to cope for all humans.

As a human I seldom am in a situation where I have to cope. To my mind coping is dealing with trauma and issues largely outside of our control. I lost an old friend last week due the carelessness of a 16 year old driver. My friend, his mom, and his 16 year old daughter were killed at an intersection. My circle of friends are coping with this loss. We are meeting tonight to share stories. In the last week I have never considered religion as a helpful tool to cope. For me it is facing the reality head on, and experience the feelings, and the tragedy of it all.

I understand many will defer to religious thinking and learned behaviors to cope, and I won't argue with them about what they need to process the reality. I do think many religions teach learned helplessness, and that any sort of loss, trauma, fear, anxiety, hope should be dealt with through religious beliefs, and via religious leaders. It's a kind of emotional dependency that's never appealed to me.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you tell the same thing to creationists who claim evolution is wrong?

Yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you suggesting being human is a condition that is so miserable that we have to cope with it? I've noticed atheists invest more in living while those with religious beliefs have assumptions that being human has many negative elements.

As a human I seldom am in a situation where I gave to cope. To my mind coping is dealing with trauma and issues largely outside of our control. I lost an old friend last week due the carelessness of a 16 year old driver. My friend, his mom, and his 16 year old daughter were killed at an intersection. My circle of friends are coping with this loss. We are meeting tonight to share stories. In the last week I have never considered religion as a helpful tool to cope. For me it is facing the reality head on, and experience the feelings, and the tragedy of it all.

I understand many will defer to religious thinking and learned behaviors to cope, and I won't argue with them about what they need to process the reality. I do think many religions teach learned helplessness, and that any sort of loss, trauma, fear, anxiety, hope should be dealt with through religious beliefs, and via religious leaders. It's a kind of emotional dependency that's never appealed to me.

Well, I don't believe in being happy as such. I mean I am happy sometimes, but it is also about coping or if you like being content.
Maybye content is better, but there is an element of coping as I was taught to do it.

 

[F1fan]

Not quite sure what claims you are making on behalf of these studies. That they qualify as scientific?

What in this title suggests they don't qualify as science? It states "scientific" and it has to meet the standards set by the social sciences.

Scientific Research in Psychology – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition​

And that by virtue of that qualification, they have more validity than they otherwise would?

That's how science works. It has set standards that studies have to follow. That is what peer review exists for, to check the work of other researchers. I'm not quite sure what the threat the anti-science crowd feels science does to them.

Two things: 1. the anti-science crowd is not aware that they are showing their fear of science and what it can reveal about the universe and the human mind. The attempt to diminish science, and assert that those who accept results and use it are somehow deficient as humans suggests an ironic belief. It's that some believers have over-valued their religious belief and they see science offering answers that their beliefs can't. There seems a sort of envy that science has had success where their religious hasn't, at least objectively. And 2. there's an awareness that religious belief is being threatened, and it must be subconscious since a smart theist would be clever in not exposing that their religious belief is inadequate to allow them courage and acceptance of science. The reason observers notice that religion fails humans is because believers will expose how ineffective their beliefs are in these simple interactions about science.

When I was in college for my psych degree I had to take experimental psychology, and this class taught us the method to conduct studies, and do the statistical analysis. My study looked into the correlation of religious belief to attitudes towards science. I used the standard survey that measured religiosity of subjects, and I asked all subjects 72 questions. Most questions were irrelevant, but there were 12 questions that asked about science, like "does evolution explain the diversity of life on earth" and so on. The results were what I predicted, that the higher the religiosity the lower the attitude about science, and vise versa, the lower the religiosity and higher the attitude towards science. The data was clear.

Fair enough, but I'd say you're using quite a loose definition of science. What exactly is your criteria for defining science, and how does the study of language, say, meet these criteria?

This is all clearly defined in science. The anti-science crowd tries to sabotage the credibility of science, but only ruins their own. You're better off reflecting on why you have contempt for science rather than show everyone you are biased. Religious belief is inadequate to provide the wisdom for believers, often quite the opposite.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What in this title suggests they don't qualify as science? It states "scientific" and it has to meet the standards set by the social sciences.

Scientific Research in Psychology – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition​

That's how science works. It has set standards that studies have to follow. That is what peer review exists for, to check the work of other researchers. I'm not quite sure what the threat the anti-science crowd feels science does to them.

Two things: 1. the anti-science crowd is not aware that they are showing their fear of science and what it can reveal about the universe and the human mind. The attempt to diminish science, and assert that those who accept results and use it are somehow deficient as humans suggests an ironic belief. It's that some believers have over-valued their religious belief and they see science offering answers that their beliefs can't. There seems a sort of envy that science has had success where their religious hasn't, at least objectively. And 2. there's an awareness that religious belief is being threatened, and it must be subconscious since a smart theist would be clever in not exposing that their religious belief is inadequate to allow them courage and acceptance of science. The reason observers notice that religion fails humans is because believers will expose how ineffective their beliefs are in these simple interactions about science.

When I was in college for my psych degree I had to take experimental psychology, and this class taught us the method to conduct studies, and do the statistical analysis. My study looked into the correlation of religious belief to attitudes towards science. I used the standard survey that measured religiosity of subjects, and I asked all subjects 72 questions. Most questions were irrelevant, but there were 12 questions that asked about science, like "does evolution explain the diversity of life on earth" and so on. The results were what I predicted, that the higher the religiosity the lower the attitude about science, and vise versa, the lower the religiosity and higher the attitude towards science. The data was clear.

This is all clearly defined in science. The anti-science crowd tries to sabotage the credibility of science, but only ruins their own. You're better off reflecting on why you have contempt for science rather than show everyone you are biased. Religious belief is inadequate to provide the wisdom for believers, often quite the opposite.

Well, I am not religiois, yet I have learned that science is more than you claim it to be.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I don't believe in being happy as such. I mean I am happy sometimes, but it is also about coping or if you like being content.
Maybye content is better, but there is an element of coping as I was taught to do it.

There were some studies a few years ago that were reported by the press, and it was looking into how social media was affecting people and their feelings of being happy. The numbers were down and even worrying. But as experts looked into what was being asked it was noted that humans are seldom happy. Happiness is a rare state that is usually a result of events or doing things that are enjoyable. Most of life is work and mundane. Instead it was suggested that subjects get asked if they are content, which is a more realistic and stable baseline.

I don't understand why you need to cope so much. But as I recall from some of your other comments over time you suffer from some sort of psychological condition. That would mean that your experience and data point is an anomaly. This is why studies look at a pool of subjects, and not individuals.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I am not religiois, yet I have learned that science is more than you claim it to be.

And what "more" is science than what I recognize it as being? Could it be your own perspective that I don't recognize, but you think I should? Explain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I don't understand why you need to cope so much. But as I recall from some of your other comments over time you suffer from some sort of psychological condition. That would mean that your experience and data point is an anomaly. This is why studies look at a pool of subjects, and not individuals.

Yeah, I learned that I couldn't do as normal people in all cases, so I learned to be content differently that the avarage normal human. I learned as an anomaly to still have a good enough life.
So your version of science for normal people, don't work for me in all cases. And if it makes you cope better that my life is in effect an anomaly, then do as you have to do.
I am an anomaly and I am proud of it, because I have learned to get the best out of that.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, I learned that I couldn't do as normal people in all cases, so I learned to be content differently that the avarage normal human. I learned as an anomaly to still have a good enough life.
So your version of science for normal people, don't work for me in all cases.

Then it would be your version of science that deviates from the norm. I recognize science for what it is, you don't. You are trying to make your personal version the norm, which is irrational and obviously flawed thinking.

And if it makes you cope better that my life is in effect an anomaly, then do as you have to do.

And here you go again trying to impose what you think and exprience onto others, and by contrast isn't your issue. Do you not slow down and ponder your thinking? You are plenty skeptical in other areas of thought, just not your own processing.

I am an anomaly and I am proud of it, because I have learned to get the best out of that.

This admission conflicts with what you say above. If you are proud, then own it all. It has nothing to do with anyone else. That includes people who get science right.