Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Moreover, the burden of proof is completely on the theist.

</p>

<p>Why? You are the one who is trying to make a case for supressing my belief and preventing anyone from even considering it as a possibility.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Many theological believers claim that their god exists in its own realm outside of the empirical world. Yet, every time one claims that it did one thing or another in the physical world, those are scientific claims and it is not possible to conveniently separate the two.

</p>

<p>Similarly, science exists only in the empirical world. Yet Naturalists make claims about the non-empirical world, and then attempt to call it science.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Religion makes existence claims, which, in turn, means scientific claims. Yet, these assertions are not subject to the rigor of scientific criticism, since, to those wishing to stay politically correct in order to avoid public attack, they are religious in origin and should be respected.

</p>

<p>Similarly, Naturalism makes origins claims, which, in turn, means religious claims. Yet they present these assertions as empirically proven fact.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

However, given their irrational, spurious, and pseudo-intellectual foundations, they certainly do not deserve any respect whatsoever.

</p>

<p>I am sorry you are not willing to even consider the other side.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Regarding point three, evolution is fact as is the scientific confirmation that the Earth is 4.54 billion years of age. Those who refute the validity of evolution either are unaware of the concept, don’t understand it, refuse it because it fundamentally encroaches on their own ideological sentiments, or a combination of the latter two.

</p>

<p>Should I restate the reasons I find evolution an unconfirmed conjecture at best?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

For anyone with some sense of intellectual curiosity, religious explanations are conceptually unproductive and inconsequential since they merely heap more perplexing enigmas on top of the original ones, such as what created the universe, biological life, consciousness, morality, and free will, particularly when each, in one form or another, is rationally intelligible.

</p>

<p>Naturalism provides no explanation for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th of those things, and only provides a doubtful theory for the 2nd.</p>

[CRBK92]

<p>Stephen Hawking already dropped the hammer on this issue:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Stephen Hawking on Religion: Science Will Win (6.7.10)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I-XT5nH7g&feature=popular]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4I-XT5nH7g&feature=popular)</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Stephen Hawking is a smart guy. He recognises the mystery of existence, and the fact that logically, there should be nothing, not something. He is smart enough to know what he doesn’t know.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>^ Sure, but don’t portray his views as being in agreement with yours, because they aren’t.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Of course not. But at least his views recognise their own flaws. He doesn’t simply say “pft, I don’t believe in thunderbolt-wielding men in the clouds”.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>I don’t think anyone believes in thunderbolt wielding men in clouds.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

He doesn’t simply say “pft, I don’t believe in thunderbolt-wielding men in the clouds”.

</p>

<p>If you asked him, he probably would.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^^ Neither do I. But some people use that analogy regularly when attacking my beliefs.</p>

<p>^ I think he would give an actual answer.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>Not surprised that this thread is still going. But MosbyMarion you seriously need to give everyone a break. You still surprise me with how ridiculous and wrong your argument is (evolution doesnt exist, 6000 year old earth, dinosaurs existed within the past few thousand years w/ humans… seriously??? who are you trying to fool?) And you arent willing to agree to one piece of science. If everyone had your POV we’d all stillbe in the Dark Ages.</p>

[bagelsbagels]

<p>so nobody proved me wrong, huh?</p>

<p>yet you call my claim fictitious without proving it wrong?</p>

<p>someone has some explaining to do</p>

[mifune]

<p>

And as a computer programmer, I know that a physical sensory system is incapable of choices. It is forced to act in a certain way due to the configuration of it’s components.

</p>

<p>A human brain and a computer are not the same. A computer does not possess the capacity to learn from integrating sensory input from its environment unlike the human brain. It simply does not have certain human characteristics, thus you cannot draw the analogy because it is incorrect. The brain processes stimuli in parallel fashion, not with the modularity and seriality of computers. In short, the two function in completely different manners, and the metaphor only presents a false dichotomy and conceals the significant dissimilarities in crude computational power. Hence, it is completely fallacious to assume that the two are unmistakable equivalents.</p>

<p>

The only way we could confirm that our brains are configured in such a way that they correctly interpret sensory input would be if we were a higher intelligence than our brains.

</p>

<p>The brain visually interprets what it sees based on the previous data it has received.</p>

<p>

If Naturalism is true, then humans are no more significant than any other creature. For that matter, they are no more significant than rocks.

</p>

<p>From an ontological standpoint, yes, that is correct. Humans simply evolved as more intelligent organisms through a directional selectional that promoted greater higher cortical encephalization. That’s it. We proceeded from the basic faculties provided by more primitive brain structures (such as the brain stem) to more complex capabilities such as neuro-structures that integrate sensory perception (e.g. thalamus, hypothalamus, and parietal structures) to the “abstract thinking” facilitated by the expansion of the frontal lobe and other developments. Yet, as a species we erringly take this cognitive superiority as a profound indication that we are of a more significant and divinely selected stock, which is completely wrong.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Yet very few Naturalists will tell you that racism, murder, wanton destruction of the planet, etc. are acceptable.

</p>

<p>As I have stated repeatedly and justifiably, religion or belief in the supernatural is in no way necessary to conform to a moral code.</p>

<p>

Yet if murder is just another re-arrangement of atoms, why is it any different from knocking over a chair? Is there not a double standard here?

</p>

<p>I am going to expand on the concept of empirical morality soon, which will touch on the concept of murder and its objective and material roots. </p>

<p>Again, equating the human brain with a device that purely runs on linearized algorithms is not conceptually proper because they aren’t the same. In fact, viewing them as complete analogs is only keeping you intellectually ingrained in false assertions.</p>

<p>

Why should any theist expect that all religions should be identical? What would be ususual would be if thousands of years of civilization HAD left all humans with the exact same beliefs.

</p>

<p>Religious and supernatural belief is purely derived from human instinct, which, in turn, is embellished through the noisiness of higher cortical functions. The absence of a religious mythos would inevitably be created in a culture if there was an absence of one. I will elaborate on this discussion later by discussing the biological origins of religious belief.</p>

<p>

All of science up to this time has only found mechanisms for mechanisms. To assume continuing that trend for a long time will produce a non-mechanistic science is based on faith, not evidence.

</p>

<p>Science isn’t faith. It will continue to be the systematic study of the composition, function, and behavior of the physical world through observation and experiment; if not, then it cannot be properly classified as science.</p>

<p>

At any rate, how would you tell the difference between a “non-mechanistic origin” and an act of god?

</p>

<p>All matter and energy has a scientific foundation, which is irrelevant to some mental coloration of our species.</p>

<p>

Neither are people, if they are nothing but complex chemical reactions. Unless you arbitrarily call something past a certain complexity “conciousness”.

</p>

<p>The concept of consciousness relies on many factors, including brain structure and its corresponding components, organization, chemistry, connectivity, sensory modulations, and particularly the associations between higher cortical structures to achieve a spatiotemporal and orientative frame of reference. Thus, it is completely valid to declare that some organisms share a consciousness of a separate nature and of a separate intensity from others; in fact, such can be mathematically modeled. </p>

<p>[The</a> neuronal basis for consciousness ? Philosophical Transactions B](<a href=“http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1377/1841.abstract]The”>http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1377/1841.abstract)</p>

<p>[Recurrent</a> thalamo-cortical resonance : Who, What, Where, When](<a href=“servinghistory.com”>http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/recurrent_thalamo-cortical_resonance)</p>

[mifune]

<p>

^^ That’s a difference in an interpretation. But if one theory or another would both expect to see the same results, and both theories are outside the pale of logical cause and effect, what makes one more valid?

</p>

<p>Science is an objective method of thought that finds a coherent intelligibility to the physical and natural world. However, instancing the supernatural is akin to invoking an untidy heap of contradictory, illogical, unproven, and completely groundless claims about reality. How can one say that “God” exists outside of “reality” when it makes scientific claims about existence?</p>

<p>

The fallacy is in placing god within the framework of natural laws, and thus assuming he would have a beard or a skin color. There is no fallacy in assuming the base cause of the natural laws to be sentient.

</p>

<p>Oh, so it’s not a fallacy to assume that it can write books, read minds, assume a specific gender, raise people from the dead, understand and respond to random vocal utterances, conduct the sequence of human affairs, invoke emotional fury, among other ventures? Regarding the second point, it is patently ill-founded to assume so and extraneous on an epistemic basis considering that we presently have natural explanations for phenomena that were previously ineffable. </p>

<p>

Again, what makes the arbitrary appearance of something from nothing different from an act of a sentient being that is the base cause of the natural laws?

</p>

<p>Vacuum fluctuations, as experimentally verified, that produce matter are not arbitrary and are perfectly natural events.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

There is no way to justify the thought “the sky is blue” as being true if it was just the result of some molecules doing what they HAD to do. They could just as well have been in a slightly different configuration as then they would have HAD to cause the thought “the sky is cheese”.

</p>

<p>You continue to form wholly incorrect and inappropriate beliefs. </p>

<p>

Why? You are the one who is trying to make a case for supressing my belief and preventing anyone from even considering it as a possibility.

</p>

<p>Because it isn’t a possibility! Your perspective has been scientifically invalidated on multiple accounts, which, quite frankly, is recognized even by theists with a more “sensible” outlook. It is your fundamentalist biases that have desensitized your perspective from a more objective foundation. There have been thousands upon thousands upon thousands of biological, anthropological, and geological measurements that have confirmed an Earthly age beyond the bogus, illegitimate timeframe that you place it in, excluding the commonsensical extrapolation that human civilization alone (excluding the fossil record and the aforementioned measurements) cannot logically fit within a 6,000-10,000 year timespan. The evidence weighing against your position is overwhelmingly abundant and consistent, yet you remain intellectually ossified in your own baseless beliefs. That is precisely what I indicated when fundamentalism calcifies the intellect and prevents new or additional scholarship from rightfully influencing opinion.</p>

<p>Since you asked why the burden of proof is on you, I will simply repost my argument from post #512:</p>

<p>“The philosophical burden of proof relies on the theist/creationist to prove that one’s religion has any basis. If I were to suggest that there was an invisible pink unicorn living somewhere in the sky and that it cannot be disproven because it is undetectable by its very ontology, my claims would rightly be dismissed as nothing more than harebrained, idiotic, and illogical flapdoodle. But if such an assertion was endorsed by a holy book, intellectually imbibed every Sunday, instilled into children beginning in infancy, and taught that one will live a future life of great misery if one does not believe in it or is insubordinate to its doctrine (through fear, in essence), hesitation to believe in it would be a profoundly (and irrationally) perceived indication of a social impropriety. To both you and I and everyone else, belief in such should rightfully lend oneself to the due attention of a psychotherapist or, in a previous era, to the selective scrutiny of an Inquisitor.</p>

<p>Such provides an argument via reductio ad absurdum against supernatural belief. If agnosticism or skepticism holds the necessity to provide impartial regard for the belief and disbelief in supernatural power(s), then it must provide the absolute equivalent respect for belief in invisible pink unicorns or elephants, the flying spaghetti monster, and the entire infinite menagerie of mental misconceptions, which includes your own god. Believing in the aforementioned holds the same scientific plausibility as belief in any supernaturally conceived notion. Yet throughout culture, belief in one’s own personal god(s) is somehow exempted from the merited absurdity provided to other baseless abstractions.”</p>

[mifune]

<p>

Yet Naturalists make claims about the non-empirical world, and then attempt to call it science.

</p>

<p>That’s completely incorrect. Science/naturalism does not have the slightest bit of care regarding a “reality” full of delusional figments that don’t exist. </p>

<p>

Similarly, Naturalism makes origins claims, which, in turn, means religious claims. Yet they present these assertions as empirically proven fact.

</p>

<p>Once again, that is absolutely incorrect. There is nothing religious about origin. The initiation of biological life, for instance, has been recreated within the laboratory (through the fusion of the Miller-Urey experiments and the independent work conducted by Sidney Fox). </p>

<p>

I am sorry you are not willing to even consider the other side.

</p>

<p>If something has been scientifically discredited on multiple accounts, then it is obviously not intellectually respectable to abide by such assertions or to baselessly fabricate or adhere to unwarranted suppositions – nor is it honorable to exempt oneself from the critical thought of everyday affairs to draw presumptuous, misguided conclusions.</p>

<p>

Should I restate the reasons I find evolution an unconfirmed conjecture at best?

</p>

<p>I don’t see the need, as your previous process of thought and corresponding explanation was wholly indefensible. </p>

<p>To illustrate a basic validity of the discipline (again, this is absolutely ludicrous that I feel obligated to do this considering evolution’s factual integration into the biological fabric), I am relatively positive that most individuals are cognizant of the concept of antibiotic resistance. Soon after the discovery of antibiotics, bacteria were demonstrably resistant to the drugs’ chemical toxicity. Indeed, antibiotics are merely drugs that select against susceptible bacteria. Those that remain impervious to the medicine’s effects are free to reproduce, and eventually, the entire next generation is hereditarily invulnerable to the drugs’ previous potency against the less fit population. Hence, a new genetically distinct population forms and evolution has occurred.</p>