Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Questioning the merits of naturalism, and by extension, scientific reasoning – its epistemological relative, is a profound social indiscretion.

</p>

<p>Mifune, the vast majority of humans throughout history have not had a Naturalistic viewpoint and yet have given us such developments as Gravity, Astronomy, Calculus, Electrochemistry, the Printing Press, Taxonomy, Trigonometry, the concept of more than three dimensions…</p>

<p>Naturalism is not a requirement for scentific reasoning.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Again, it is absolutely incorrect to strictly state that the brain is essentially an organic computer because the lack of parallel is quite profound in many respects, as I have already touched upon. Your adherence to the computer analogy is merely another vehicle for cognitive fixation in erroneous comparison.

</p>

<p>According to Naturalism, the brain is no more than an organic computer. I am not saying it works on C++ or RAM. According to Naturalism, if we could create an exact model of a human brain, we would expect it to be just as capable of thought as a normal human brain. Yet in fact it would be incapable of thought. All of its responses would be deterministically decided by the natural laws of physics. Only something capable of a higher level of thought could determine whether these responses correlated with any “truth”.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

“In this conception of vision, perceived images accord with the cumulative probability of what the same or similar stimuli have signified in the past history of the species and the individual…The counterintuitive conclusion that follows from this evidence is that what we see is a statistical consequence of an accumulation of past experience rather than a veridical representation of the retinal stimulus or the objects that confront the observer in the present (the term ‘past’ again referring to both phylogenetic and ontogenetic experience).”</p>

<p>But scientific conclusions are established on the foundations of systematic reasoning and objectively collected data rather than subjective interpretations or individual inclinations to think and respond in a particular manner.

</p>

<p>Again, that is a statement. Produced by the deterministic actions of physical processes, according to Naturalism.</p>

<p>You can say it in 2400 SAT vocabulary, but it still has the same problem. There is no grounds under Naturalism to reject one brain’s interpretation of reality over another.</p>

<p>A deterministic chemical reaction is incapable of choice. Thus, how can you say one brain made the “right” choice and another brain made the “wrong” choice. What makes your view more valid than mine? You may think you examined the evidence and made a logical decision, but by your own theory you did not in fact do so. You merely obeyed the inexorable command of the laws of nature.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

They discussed two completely separate concepts – human error in fallaciously detecting supernatural agency and the irrelevancy of religion or supernaturalism in determining moral guidelines.

</p>

<p>Let me repeat your quotes to you:</p>

<p>

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>

<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>You also agreed with my statement that humans are no more significant than rocks.</p>

<p>Given all that, why is it “wrong” to rearrange some atoms from the “live human” state to the “dead human” state?</p>

<p>Or, for that matter, why is it “wrong” to cause a set of atoms to change from the “young mind without religion” to the “young mind with religion” state?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What do you mean by “their code?” Empiricists simply rationalize and justify ethical behavior on an evidential and objectively established platform with aid from the relevant profiles of historical, evolutionary, anthropological, and archaeological findings.

</p>

<p>Now you are introducing the term “Empiricists”. Will you accept the web definition, or do you wish to define it yourself?</p>

<p>define:Empiricist gives:</p>

<p>empiricism - (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience.</p>

<p>By “code” I meant “the set of principles a person believes are ethically ‘right’”.</p>

<p>For example, you believe it is ethically wrong for a parent to teach their child their worldview.</p>

<p>If Naturalism is true, there is no grounds for such a belief. It would be like saying a pile of blocks fell in the “wrong” way and “should” have fallen differently.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Problem solving, for instance, is not an activity in which the brain mechanically acts in a way that is genetically predisposed.

</p>

<p>I agree. But if Naturalism were true, then this would be the case. The existence of problem solving thus refutes Naturalism.</p>

<p>

How do you integrate the concept of learning into your perspective if we are all cognitively ingrained by its structure and process functionality?

</p>

<p>I don’t, of course! I am presenting the argument that the Naturalistic model is false, exactly because it leads to such contradictions!</p>

<p>

The capacity for biological organisms to learn also fatally undermines your computer analogy.

</p>

<p>Thank you. You have just proven my argument. Which is that a Naturalistic model of the brain (human thoughts are simply the result of natural cause-and-effect, anaylogous to a computer) is logically inconsistent and impossible.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Nothing about it will be a “straw man” argument, although that is the natural cop-out reply from those who refuse to budge from the false assertions provided by all forms of supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

</p>

<p>It is not a cop-out if you refute an argument which I do not make.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

You must objectively assess the likelihood that there exists some chimerical element governing the cosmos that communicates specifically through human nature, assumes humanlike characteristics – including intelligence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence (which are logically refutable through the problems of hell and evil as has been argued previously), has no origin (another fallacy), created matter and energy without any mechanism, and governs the full range of human and universal affairs in synchronous fashion, among other deeds.

</p>

<p>This is an example of a strawman argument. The actual choice before us is:</p>

<p>a1: At some level of reality, something exists without a cause, and has caused all the other causes.</p>

<p>a2: Infinite regression.</p>

<p>Of these, #1 seems more reasonable. Then:</p>

<p>b1: This something is completely arbitrary.</p>

<p>b2: This something is governed by precise laws.</p>

<p>b3: This something is a sentient intelligence.</p>

<p>Of these, #2 brings back to the first choice with the question of what put those laws into place. Of those remaining, I find #3 more reasonable, due to:</p>

<p>c1: The existence of sentience not determined by natural laws, as seen in humans. This proves that such a sentience is possible.</p>

<p>c2: The existence of order and morality in the world, which to me indicates that such a sentience is probable.</p>

<p>You are free to come to a different conclusion, but you should respect those who disagree.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Do you dispute the scientific legitimacy of the formula E=mc^2 or that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 for any right triangle because, according to your baseless reasoning, “[they are] the product[s] of [themselves]?”

</p>

<p>See above. I am asserting that they cannot be products of themselves, and thus Naturalism, which presents no other possible source for them, cannot be valid.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

No, it’s not. Ascribing origins on a scientific basis (as it has been biologically) is ultimately what will resolve the issue of cosmogenesis. Indiscriminately substituting a supernatural explanation wherever you cannot attribute a natural cause is intellectually unsound and doesn’t exercise the critical thought requisite to materialize any perceptive or authoritative conclusions. Rather, it merely hinders active thought and scientific inquiry. Using “God” – in your case, one of the tens of thousands that have been used to describe cosmological origins – merely piles more enigmas on top of the previous ones since you cannot describe how the bloke came about and what created the designer and the designer of the designer, in perpetuity – that is a fallacious misconstruction, clearly and with exceptional resolution.

</p>

<p>See above. It is irrellevant how many levels of the universe we are able to understand, we are still faced with the dilemma I presented.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What experiences? Your biased upbringing that implacably indoctrinated you into an unshakable belief? The one in which you refuse to budge even on the basis of the most resolute of facts in all of science?

</p>

<p>What of your experiences? Are your beliefs not simply the result of the information you have been given? Naturalism offers no other source for them.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There is absolutely zero reason to believe in a personal god. In epistemically crude eras, such a primitive understanding of scientific foundations, intellectually encapsulated settings, and a more proximal subjection to the rudiments of nature rendered such a belief understandable. But adhering to demonstrably false viewpoints in a more socially and scientifically enlightened generation is insupportable and doesn’t properly exercise critical thought. It’s time to dispose of such mental coloration.

</p>

<p>I am not here arguing in favor of a particular religion. I am demonstrating that Naturalism is itself irrational, and thus should not present itself as somehow “scientific” while Deism is considered “religious”, and thus irrational.</p>

[BillyMc]

<p>“Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind”
-Albert Einstein</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There is a single unity to all of science. On the other hand, there have been over 100,000 separate religions created since humanity began each with their own conflicting assertions. Scientific, point by point, ceaselessly overturns theological assertions and provides an evidential and dispassionate basis to its findings. Which wins? Well, the answer is quite clear.

</p>

<p>“Science”, meaning the prediction of future events through the observation of past events and the finding of patterns, does not require “Naturalism”, which is a religious belief about the origin of the patterns which science observes. Science is a largely unified system which allows us to do cool things with the world. Naturalism is one of the 1000s of theories which attempt to explain why there is a world to do cool things with.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^^ Heh, that’s the second time that has been quoted here.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

The act of being correct or incorrect is readily determinable in many scenarios – just as it may be readily ascertained that the Earth is not 6,000 years old and that evolution is factual and at a point of incontrovertible scientific consensus.

</p>

<p>Yes, but why should that be the case? If our actions are determinestically decided by natural laws, there is no reason why we should be able to make truth judgements.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

No, it’s not. As explicitly stated previously, if you wish to evidence your assertions, and given that some other asinine abstraction is just as objectively defensible, the substantiative obligation is your own liability. Hence, you still have established no credibility for your argument.

</p>

<p>The burden of proof is on you to validate your given before that argument has any weight.</p>

<p>You are trying to throw out my argument without having to refute it by claiming it to part of some automatically false group. You must prove this true before you can reasonably throw out my argument.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Universal origins may be empirically corroborated (see the the three links posted above).

</p>

<p>The theories in the arguments you listed to not even attempt to explain the origin of the unverse. If true, they merely push our universe farther back along the path of infinite regress.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

The development of biological organisms, at the very least, teaches one to be exceptionally dubious of design models in other academic realms, cosmology in particular.

</p>

<p>Obviously I do not consider evolution probable, but unless we accept an infinite regress there must be some level at which there is no cause. At this level we reach the dillema I stated in post #648.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Natural selection is the most profound mechanism of evolution. One cannot separate the two. To accept natural selection is to accept evolution.

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but this is a false statement. Natural Selection is:</p>

<p>The fact that organisms which are better suited for survival are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over multiple generations, this causes the most fit organisms to outproduce and supplant to less fit organisms.</p>

<p>Evolution is:</p>

<p>The belief that all organisms existing today arose by some mechanism which produce new traits, the most valuable of which were perpetuated due to Natural Selection.</p>

<p>Through Natural Selection, a population of black and white moths will be reduced to primarily white moths if the color white is less visible to predators. Natural Selection will never produce blue moths, unless that trait already exists within the population.</p>