Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

You are completely incorrect and neuroscience (which isn’t naturalism) does not support your vacuous, reductionist claim. One can only label me as a “naturalist” insofar as my recognition of the spuriousness or artificial credibility for the supernatural. Attaching to it some set of cemented precepts or fixated scientific claims is an underhanded maneuver than misrepresents my argument. Naturalism, in the way that it is properly understood, is not science nor is it a systematic body for making scientific assertions. Conflating the two as fundamental equivalents is a very mendacious tactic.

</p>

<p>Do you think that what we call thought is merely a byproduct of the universe’s race towards grater entropy? Or do you believe that something besides the natural laws governs human thought? Those are the two options.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Did you even bother to read the paper that I posted?</p>

<p>And from where are you obtaining these “according to naturalism” claims?

</p>

<p>In this debate, the “according to naturalism” line of argument came from foolfromhell’s posts:</p>

<p>

@foolfromhell

The thing is, I don’t accept the existence of agency. We dont do what we should do because we decide to. We do those things because we are demanded to by an unbroken chain of causes and effects.

</p>

<p>

In my opinion, I find no evidence in the natural world for free will and thus I believe it does not exist. What I do is because of what my brain tells me to do, a process that’s largely deterministic.

</p>

<p>I am attempting to refute this viewpoint. If you agree with me then we can continue to other things.</p>

<p>

Your statements on the brain are not supported by scientific findings. Rather, you are degrading a fully reasonable belief (that complex wholes (such as the human brain) should be explained in terms of their parts) into a simpleminded and grossly misleading travesty (that the properties of an intricate whole are simply the sum of those same properties within the parts). “In terms of” comprises a profusion of immensely intricate causal actions, influences, and mathematical strategies of which summation is only the most elementary. Reductionism, your contention made out of your own dishonesty, misunderstanding, or both, in the “sum of the parts” sense, is profoundly absurd, and is nowhere to be located in the publications of well regarded scientists

</p>

<p>I don’t think you understand my argument. I am not claiming that the Naturalist computer analogy is the case: I am claiming that if Naturalism is true, then this would be the case. This is not the case, therefore Naturalism is not true.</p>

<p>

From where are you drawing the connection that those who recognize the inanity of the supernatural fundamentally adhere to your atomistic reductionist theory? Similar to virtually all of your claims, that is a significantly incompetent and misrepresentative assertion.

</p>

<p>There are only two alternatives:</p>

<p>1: What we call human thought is just part of the natural rush of matter towards greater entropy.</p>

<p>2: What we call human thought is a process that somehow is not determined by natural laws, but can actually act in a certain way arbitrarily.</p>

<p>There is no middle ground. At the end, you will either reach choice 1, or choice 2. If choice 2 is the case, then the logical rejection of divine creation which is based on the grounds that things to not just arbitrarily happen is invalid.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

And again, don’t conflate naturalism with science, because they aren’t the same. Incorrectly uniting the two to stand as fundamental equivalents (and scratching that out to represent the current scientific consensus) is a very fraudulent maneuver from a debate standpoint.

</p>

<p>I do not “conflate” Naturalism and science. Naturalism is a religious belief, and a poorly grounded one at that. Science is the prediction of future events based on past observations.</p>

<p>My claim has nothing to do with the “scientific consensus”. I trying to show that:</p>

<p>a: Naturalism is not science, but a poorly grounded faith based belief.</p>

<p>b: Therefore, rejecting theism on the basis of a Naturalistic viewpoint (god can’t exist because we know that things don’t just arbitrarily happen without a natural cause) is invalid.</p>

<p>You seem to agree with my first point, yet you also seem to think my second point is invalid. Please explain.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

So your erroneous deduction is that some supernatural bloke is required to endow a “correctness” to our sensory experience. Are you that blind to the absurdity, baselessness, wrongness, and profound inferiority of that explanation?

</p>

<p>My deduction is not that a god is needed to validate thought, but rather that thought invalidates Naturalism, which should therefore not be used to invalidate god.</p>

<p>To decide whether to believe in a god, and what god to believe in, requires looking at evidence and personal experiences, and will always be at least somewhat faith based, whether you decide for or against the belief.</p>

<p>

The brain and its subsidiary structures have now been scrutinized to the extent required to demonstrate that no specific locality remains that can rationally and defensibly be assumed to foster a nonphysical ontology or undergo a nonmaterial interaction.

</p>

<p>This is the Naturalistic viewpoint (things to not happen for a “reason”: they just follow the laws). Do you believe it or don’t you?</p>

<p>

You continue to misrepresent my position and form arguments incapable of sustaining methodical thought. Our ability to interpret our sensory surroundings to create conscious awareness is something that you simply cannot mentally grasp.

</p>

<p>And now you are disparaging the Naturalistic viewpoint. The two sides are mutually incompatible, either human thought is a Naturalistic process (in which case it is invalid) or human thought is not a Naturalistic process (in which case Naturalism is invalid).</p>

<p>Since we must assume human thought is valid for there to be any point in debating (or thinking), we must also assume that Naturalism is false.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

From an ontological standpoint – human significance on the grand scale of the universe – yes. Does that mean that humans are no less distinctive on a phenomenological level or that we recognize that condition in the daily course of affairs? Absolutely not.

</p>

<p>But we aren’t talking about what is here, we are talking about what should be. The concept of should be doesn’t make sense once we rise above our superstitious past, according to your beliefs as I currently understand them.</p>

<p>I am still waiting for you to explain why “should be” exists under your viewpoint. To name a relevant example, why is it “wrong” for me to raise my children in my worldview?</p>

<p>By your beliefs, is it really “wrong”, or is it just “something you are biologically programmed to attack”? If the second is the case, then why is your biological programming more “right” than mine?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Your logic and reasoning skills could really use some work. That is like asking: was Beethoven’s brain full of “music” atoms? Was Picasso’s brain full of “art” atoms? Forming unique individuality and developing the ability to reason correctly is a complex process involving genetic constraints and personal development, social context, and individual experience.

</p>

<p>I completely agree. It is ridiculous. But if one holds to Naturalism then one is forced to the conclusion that, whatever the cause, the effect was a brain full of atoms (or quarks or quantum strings or whatever, the argument is the same no matter how many levels down you go) arranged in the configuration we call “music”.</p>

<p>If you don’t believe in Naturalism, then say so, present your alternative beliefs, and please desist from using Naturalistic arguments against my beliefs.</p>

<p>

Your involutions are mortifyingly senseless. And you are not resolving your own brainless complexities by believing that free will is endowed by some fairy in the sky that is superfluous and logically inconsistent.

</p>

<p>Once more, I challenge you to find a logical inconsistency in the concept of a god without resorting to Naturalistic claims. If Naturalism is false, and not everything is bound by natural laws (which I believe is shown by the existence of human thought), then there is nothing logically inconsistent with the concept of a personal god. It may be unsupported by evidence. To refute it on the grounds of evidence would require it to be shown that another theory exists that is better supported.</p>

<p>I think that the most productive path for this argument to take is to discuss the different theories (the various flavors of Evolution, and the different shades of Creation) in terms of the evidence. Attempting to refute one or the other on the basis of logic will lead to endless cirular arguments as any grounds for refuting one refute the other as well.</p>

<p>That is also an argument that can actually be of some use, as you can explain why you strongly believe evolution and I can explain why I strongly disbelieve it, with the hopeful result that both of us will both understand the other’s view and remove any false reasoning from our own side.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>I will finish responding to your posts soon. Right now I am going to bed.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>Seriously, I stopped getting into these when I was 13, but what the hell. Science wins; without science we would all be deader than a dog being run over by a steamroller the size of Pluto. Religion is an ancient cultural relic that will more or less become a minority phenomenon over the next century and die altogether in a millennium.</p>

<p>As for the existence of a god which always comes up on these threads, the issue really is the definition of god. If we are to accept science we accept that all energy is infinite and cannot be created or destroyed. Can you define this energy as God/the gods himself/themselves? Perhaps, but there would be no true reason to do so. And within the religious context of such arguments, you cannot say that God exists. Infinitude, why do you create so much useless clamor?</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>^Energy isn’t infinite, that’s the problem. Just saying.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

By “empiricists,” I was denoting individuals who do not indiscriminately believe that morality or existence is derived from a supernatural basis.

</p>

<p>Ok then. I do not indiscriminately believe that morality or existence derive from a divine being, but by logic and reasoning I have concluded that that is the most reasonable explanation for the things we observe.</p>

<p>

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>Do they? Very few people actually do that. Most people act as though the things they believe are “right”, not just “useful”.</p>

<p>Do you really believe that there is no “right” or “wrong”, just “survives” and “doesn’t survive”?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Absolutely false and your analogizing is completely atrocious and irrelevant to the topic. I am going to contribute my post on the biological origin of moral aptitude and religion shortly, which will, to the unbiased reader, unravel the entire perspective that supernaturalism is necessary for the sake of a moral code and substantiate the claim that it holds nothing more than a psychological internality.

</p>

<p>Please do. I have been awaiting that post for some time now.</p>

[eastafrobeauty]

<p>Suicide is the worst option ANYONE could pick or hope for. It’s like a permanent solution to a temporary problem :/</p>

<p>Also, In Islam we believe that if you commit suicide, it’s a one way ticket to hell. And you’re going to kill yourself the same way again, again & again but probably in a much worse way.</p>

<p>I’ve also heard that atheists NEVER come out of hell. EVER :/</p>

<p>I believe that one must be able to have faith in God regardless…you don’t need proof…when there are already sooo many examples of God’s existence. The reason why we’re created is solely to worship God…and it’s a test to see who’s really faithful and whatnot etc. Not believing is kind of arrogant…</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p><a href=“Banana%20creationist%20stuff”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I heartily agree that very many Creationist groups are guilty of the same kind of false reasoning and lies that many Evolutionists use.</p>

<p>I consider myself one of the reasonable Creationists, and I’d like to debate one of the reasonable Evolutionists.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^^ I don’t know much about Islam, aside from a few basic concepts and the parts that have been important in world history. But yes, by any way of looking at it suicide doesn’t fix anything.</p>

<p>Unrelated curiousity: There are different types of Islam, right? How do the types view each other? Is it more like how a Baptist views a Presbyterian (difference of opinion, but hold the same beliefs), or a Protestant views a Catholic (majorly misguided, but still the same faith) or a Christian views a Mormon (following a completly different faith)?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Where are you drawing the connection that biological organisms ability to learn “proves” the existence of the supernatural? Your capacity for logical thought is so mind-blowingly perverted that it frankly borders on mental irregularity. Once again, quit misunderstanding what I stated and mislabeling my position. You simply demonstrate an illogical and emotional eagerness to give baselessly formulated ideology priority over objectively determined truth.

</p>

<p>The self-evident belief in non-Naturalistic thought, which exists at the very least in humans, invalidates Naturalism. If Naturalism is invalid, the only alternative is Supernaturalism. Note that Supernatural is not the same thing as God. However, rejecting God because he is “Supernatural” is not reasonable as Supernatural things are shown to exist by human thought. If one would reject God, one must do so on different grounds than Naturalism.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

No, it’s not. Your pointless retort is merely a tacit confession that you aren’t willing to address each of the points that I raised for discussion in the doubly-quoted statement.

</p>

<p>I am not here trying to prove the existence of a “chimerical element governing the cosmos that communicates specifically through human nature, assumes humanlike characteristics – including intelligence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence, has no origin, created matter and energy without any mechanism, and governs the full range of human and universal affairs in synchronous fashion”.</p>

<p>I am merely trying to disprove the concept that all things work according to Naturalistic principles, that some things, including human thought, are able to act non-Naturalistically, and that at least something must exist without an origin unless we accept infinite regression.</p>

<p>Whether the universe was created by “God”, or “Zeus”, or “The Cosmic Creativity of Matter”, or whatever, is a question that can only be answered evidentially and that will always rest at least somewhat on faith.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Your logic, once again, is of exceptionally poor quality. The belief in an infinite, multi-dimensional being (while groundlessly dismissing indisputably confirmed science (evolution, the true age of the Earth, the time in which dinosaurs existed)) is a profound indication of a harebrained ideology.

</p>

<p>I can explain my opinions on each of those issues separately, however, none of them are relevant to my rejection of Naturalism. There is a possibility that I am wrong on each of those issues, but even if I were wrong on all of them my main argument would remain the same.</p>

<p>

You cannot simply apply the argument to one side while neglecting the other. If “complex” life “requires” a creator, then the creator would require a creator of greater complexity, which would, in turn, need its own creator, ad infinitum. You are merely running yourself into a logical recursion.

</p>

<p>I agree. Logically, existence is impossible, as everything would require a cause ad infinitum. However, things DO exist, so therefore at least some part of reality does not work on mathamatical logic.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Humans evolved like every other species on Earth with various uncovered intermediates including Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and so on. Like every other fossil that has been disinterred, these structures demonstrate a continuous evolutionary progression from our more primitive, chimpanzee-like ancestors to the humans of today.

</p>

<p>Before continuing, I must correct this. Homo neanderthalensis is considered a separate branch, which coexisted with Homo sapiens, not an intermediary form. Homo ergaster and Homo erectus are considered to be two subgroups of the same species, not ancestor and descendant. Even Homo habilis is now thought to be a sister species to Homo erectus, both descended from a common ancestor. Homo antecessor is thought to be a separate decendant of Homo erectus, not a human ancestor.</p>

<p>In other words, of the species you listed, you have 1 ape, 3 types of the same species, and 2 offshoot branches.</p>

<p>A check of wikipedia (read the actual articles on each species, not just the “Evolution of man” chart) will confirm that I am not making this up. In any actual scientific work on this subject you will see “possibly” “may be related” and “thought to be”, not “proven”, “shows a continuous progression”, and “undisputable”.</p>

<p>If this is not enough for you I can post links. This is one case at least where the weight of accepted science is on my side.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There is no need to respect your position because it is patently false in every respect. Why should I respect a position that incompetently uses logical reasoning to make assertions and blatantly contradicts fact? I offer as much respect to your position as I do to the arguments that claim that the Holocaust never existed – absolutely none. The same degree of specious reasoning by Holocaust denialists (completely convincing to them) is reflected within your own writing.

</p>

<p>It is easy to invalidate the viewpoint of a Holocaust denier. A vast amount of documentary evidence, as well as millions of eyewitness, exist to hopelessly refute that viewpoint.</p>

<p>On the other hand, evolution has (obviously) not been observed, and the inferential evidence in its favor (such as random mutations, a handful of supposed “transitional fossils”) is slight, while the inferential evidence against it (such as vastly improbable traits and symboisis) is quite strong.</p>

<p>Evolution remains a poorly supported theory, not “overwhelming fact”. It may be true, but I see no reason for believing it to be so at the present time.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There is nothing incorrect with mathematical laws being grounded in a rationally intelligible universe. It is a completely baseless argument to assume that some sort of cosmological god (a logically infeasible idea, as stated previously) is required to form physical laws. Thus, this is yet another logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantium).

</p>

<p>My argument is not against the idea that mathematical laws can be grounded in a rationally intelligible universe. I am arguing that the idea that human thought is merely the result of mathematical laws is an invalid one.</p>