Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: MCWAY on October 09, 2008, 07:23:28 AM
-
In The God Delusion and other writings, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion (specifically, the doctrine of hell) is a form of child abuse that scars children for life. Accordingly, Dawkins states, "Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds." Conspicuously absent in his writings are any published studies documenting that teaching children religious principles might adversely affect them. Since Dawkins claims to always rely upon science as the basis for his beliefs, why didn't he cite any science in support of his claims?
The following link also cites graphs, regarding the importance of religion and church attendance, versus the likelihood of committing certain offenses among teenagers. Consistently we see a lower number of offenders among those on one extreme (high church attendance and religion being very important) and higher number of offenders among those on the other extreme (low/no church attendance and religion not being important).
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuse.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_as_child_abuse.html)
The question is asked:
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion amounts to a form of child abuse. If this is true, shouldn't the data show that religious youth are more prone to having more problems with parents, their peers, and authorities (like those who experience physical child abuse) than those who are non-religious?
And, there was a consistently HIGHER number of teens, with high church attendance and religion being very important, doing volunteer work.
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/volunteervsimportance.gif)
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/volunteervschurch.gif)
"These graphs show that those whose minds have been 'subverted' by the 'evils' of religion exercise more frequently and volunteer more to help in their communities. It would indeed be a strange outcome that 'child abuse" would cause youths to behave in this manner."
With Dawkins, claiming that the alleged abuse from religion is far worse than actual physical/sexual abuse, one would think that kids who view religion as important and frequently attend church, would be cutting up EVEN MORE than those who'd been beaten, molested, or raped. But, alas, that ain't the case.
I'm sure teachers in public schools would appreciate this graphic:
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/teachervsimportance.gif)
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/teachervschurch.gif)
The UNC (Chapel Hill) study, involving 2500 adolescents, can be seen here:
http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf (http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf)
-
Conspicuously absent in his writings are any published studies documenting that teaching children religious principles might adversely affect them. Since Dawkins claims to always rely upon science as the basis for his beliefs, why didn't he cite any science in support of his claims?
Good question!
-
Good question!
Indeed it is, especially since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination is WORSE than physical/sexual abuse. By that logic, we should be seeing teens (with heavy religious background) acting a fool and cutting up even more. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least not according to this UNC study.
From my experience, I’ve heard people talk about a number of reasons why kids do such dastardly things. For some strange reason, constant attendance of church and Sunday/Sabbath school and exposure to God-fearing parents hardly comes to the forefront.
Part of the reason for his ill feelings towards Christianity may stem from his being molested by a clergyman, as a child. But, that still doesn't substantiate his claims of religion being "child abuse". Others have been molested (I know people who've gone through that, personally). But, they certainly didn't paint their religious beliefs in such a manner.
-
In The God Delusion and other writings, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion (specifically, the doctrine of hell) is a form of child abuse that scars children for life.
that's pretty stupid.
How about the story of Hansel and Gretel?
-
that's pretty stupid.
How about the story of Hansel and Gretel?
To say nothing of the Lion King!! ;D
Again, I don't recall any adults that I know, who've suffered abuse, claiming that having worship at home, thanking God for your food before eating, or going to Sunday school, scarred them and fueled their self-destructive behaviors.
-
I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.
-
I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.
He appears to be the "flavor of the month" among atheists, in that he's more in-your-face about his lack of belief and his determination to rid the world of religious belief, especially Christianity.
Atheists rarely tell us anything new. From what I've seen, many have simply rehashed old arguments from the so-called "Enlightenment Period", that Christian scholars of that era, as well as those in the 19th and 20th century, have thoroughly cut to ribbons.
-
He appears to be the "flavor of the month" among atheists, in that he's more in-your-face about his lack of belief and his determination to rid the world of religious belief, especially Christianity.
Atheists rarely tell us anything new. From what I've seen, many have simply rehashed old arguments from the so-called "Enlightenment Period", that Christian scholars of that era, as well as those in the 19th and 20th century, have thoroughly cut to ribbons.
We certainly do not agree on everything, but that one we can agree upon.
It's indeed the old "enlightenment" arguments he uses. Although I would restrict that to the scientifically oriented thinkers of the enlightenment period.
-
We certainly do not agree on everything, but that one we can agree upon.
It's indeed the old "enlightenment" arguments he uses. Although I would restrict that to the scientifically oriented thinkers of the enlightenment period.
what arguments do you have for the existence of a god, and not a pantheistic one?
-
what arguments do you have for the existence of a god, and not a pantheistic one?
The topic was what argument does Dawkins have against any form of God. He has none.
A serious critique of religion as performed by the great philospohic and theologic thinkers is valid of course.
Pantheistic or not, the discussion makes no sense as long as we are lost in the trap of scientific positivism.
We will always talk at cross-purpose.
-
Actually, the topic is Dawkins' apparent lack of scientific backing to his claim that religion (particularly Christianity) is child abuse.
This study from UNC consistently shows that teens who value religious faith and frequently attend church have lower instances of bad behavior than those who don't see faith as being that important and attend church sparingly.
Per Dawkins claim, religion is WORSE than being molested (which happened to him by a parishioner) or physically beaten. Physically/sexually abused children tend to exhibit more bad behaviors.
Therefore, if religion is worse than physical/sexual abuse, why aren't all these kids acting up and acting worse than their non-believing counterparts?
-
Actually, the topic is Dawkins' apparent lack of scientific backing to his claim that religion (particularly Christianity) is child abuse.
This study from UNC consistently shows that teens who value religious faith and frequently attend church have lower instances of bad behavior than those who don't see faith as being that important and attend church sparingly.
Per Dawkins claim, religion is WORSE than being molested (which happened to him by a parishioner) or physically beaten. Physically/sexually abused children tend to exhibit more bad behaviors.
Therefore, if religion is worse than physical/sexual abuse, why aren't all these kids acting up and acting worse than their non-believing counterparts?
You're right of course, I was talking about my post that got responded to.
His claims in the above regards are also ludicrous of course.
-
I really don't understand why there is so much buzz about Dawkins, it's not like he tells us anything new. He just repeats the simplest and most unprofound critique of religion there is and combines it with his delusions of grandeur. How he claims to "convert" people to atheism with his simplistic, reductionistic nonsense in the preamble of "God Delusion" is just plain goofy.
I agree. I saw him in an interview and was not impressed.
-
The topic was what argument does Dawkins have against any form of God. He has none.
A serious critique of religion as performed by the great philospohic and theologic thinkers is valid of course.
Pantheistic or not, the discussion makes no sense as long as we are lost in the trap of scientific positivism.
We will always talk at cross-purpose.
god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.
The unmoved mover? utter garbage, spinoza is the only thing worth worth a damn. What trap of positivism, logical positivism includes reason and is the correct paradigm. No other paradigm has any evidence for its existence whatsoever.
present me one argument for the existence of anything immaterial, anything spiritual, ANYTHING a rational argument, to empirical evidence.
-
god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.
The unmoved mover? utter garbage, spinoza is the only thing worth worth a damn. What trap of positivism, logical positivism includes reason and is the correct paradigm. No other paradigm has any evidence for its existence whatsoever.
present me one argument for the existence of anything immaterial, anything spiritual, ANYTHING a rational argument, to empirical evidence.
There is no scientific prove of God. That's what you are looking for, I assume. Simply because science is not concerned with that topic. Only the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Dawkins, Atkins, Sagan, etc. think it is.
Science does not explain anything in reality. Science e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is. These are philosophical topics. Science only takes certain concepts as a given, turns them into a model and produces theories within these models. It's impossible that with such a method you will ever be able to explain reality or answer its great questions.
The trap of scientific positivists is that they think there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects of it. That however is easily refuted by simple logic, as done in the aforementioned thread. As long as you are in this position and I am in mine, we will talk at cross-purpose. That's what I meant.
-
There is no scientific prove of God. That's what you are looking for, I assume. Simply because science is not concerned with that topic. Only the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Dawkins, Atkins, Sagan, etc. think it is.
Science does not explain anything in reality. Science e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is. These are philosophical topics. Science only takes certain concepts as a given, turns them into a model and produces theories within these models. It's impossible that with such a method you will ever be able to explain reality or answer its great questions.
The trap of scientific positivists is that they think there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects of it. That however is easily refuted by simple logic, as done in the aforementioned thread. As long as you are in this position and I am in mine, we will talk at cross-purpose. That's what I meant.
You avoided my question, provide any philosophical argument for the existence of a god. First define what you mean by god then support your contention with any form of reason you choose. You are wrong in that science does not deal with god, if an intelligent being intervenes and operates within our natural world he is subject to science. If he performs miracles he is subject to science. Also if science can explain all that is worth explaining that leaves god without a job. Again god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms, provide some and id be happy to change my stance.
-
You avoided my question, provide any philosophical argument for the existence of a god. First define what you mean by god then support your contention with any form of reason you choose. You are wrong in that science does not deal with god, if an intelligent being intervenes and operates within our natural world he is subject to science. If he performs miracles he is subject to science. Also if science can explain all that is worth explaining that leaves god without a job. Again god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms, provide some and id be happy to change my stance.
Asking for a philosophical argument for the existence of God is like asking for the knowledge that fills libraries. If you want a definition of God, read spiritual scripture. All we can do in such a thread is scratch on the surface. As to your argument regarding science, I already said, science doesn't explain anything. It e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is.
-
Asking for a philosophical argument for the existence of God is like asking for the knowledge that fills libraries. If you want a definition of God, read spiritual scripture. All we can do in such a thread is scratch on the surface. As to your argument regarding science, I already said, science doesn't explain anything. It e.g. does not explain what space, time, or matter is.
there are no good philosophical arguments for god, thats why there has been no improvment on ancient writings on theology, no new arguments, nothing that hasnt been refuted. You side step every quesiton posed to you, give me your favorite philosophical argument for the existence of god.
Philosophically a omnipotent, omnipresent all loving god CANNOT exist, this can be proven through reason. Science explains how things work, your insistence that it doesnt means little. I know how reflexes work because science has explained what happens physiologically and in the nervous system. There is nothign to explain that science cant. Give me one valid question that science can not answer that is worth answering.
You keep side stepping my questions, provide and argument for god, define god and tell me a question that science cant or concevibly answer. I hope your question doesnt start with a why.
-
there are no good philosophical arguments for god, thats why there has been no improvment on ancient writings on theology, no new arguments, nothing that hasnt been refuted. You side step every quesiton posed to you, give me your favorite philosophical argument for the existence of god.
Philosophically a omnipotent, omnipresent all loving god CANNOT exist, this can be proven through reason. Science explains how things work, your insistence that it doesnt means little. I know how reflexes work because science has explained what happens physiologically and in the nervous system. There is nothign to explain that science cant. Give me one valid question that science can not answer that is worth answering.
You keep side stepping my questions, provide and argument for god, define god and tell me a question that science cant or concevibly answer. I hope your question doesnt start with a why.
I have already given examples of what science can't explain (space, time, matter). Again, read the mentioned thread, everything has already been discussed there.
-
I have already given examples of what science can't explain (space, time, matter). Again, read the mentioned thread, everything has already been discussed there.
why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.
-
How about that the number of "Christian" divorces are the same as non religious divorces in rate? If making that commitment before God's eyes is so important to them and to God, then why divorce? Let me guess, maybe it's because people are people whether they are Christians or not. Christians always tout that humanity would be better off with God, yet half of them can't stay married even with God in there lives. ::) Not to mention that research is now showing religious men cheat more than non religious men.
-
why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.
:D :D :D
Wasn't me who decided to stop the discussion. Kinda unfair to request that, right?
-
god is a failed hypothesis without any axioms. Name one philospohic or theologian that presented any arguments worth anything for the existence of an ominipresent, omnipostent, all loving god. Or a cosmic intelligence that actively participates in creation. Any philosophical argument you like, who aquinas, maimondes? all jibberish and easy to refute, an argument without axioms is no argument at all.
I'll name four:
Dr. D. James Kennedy, 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 20th Century; founder of Knox Theological Seminary.
Dr. Bruce Metzger, Professor Emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary
Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
Dr. Walter Brown, Center for Scientific Creation
-
why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter. Im sure its not to much trouble to state the reasons here rather then me read the thread over.
Perhaps a better question to ask is why believing that matter has always existed isn't a problem but believing that God has always existed is such
-
why cant science explain matter? There are no emergent properties of matter and a reductionist model would describe every aspect of matter.
Just wanted to answer this question. Science can never explain what matter is made of. The current model of it is the quark model. But a quark is nothing else than a set of mathematical formulas describing certain scientific aspects of matter. It does not and can never explain what matter is "made of".
-
Perhaps a better question to ask is why believing that matter has always existed isn't a problem but believing that God has always existed is such
one is a law, the other a proposition which complicates things further, the former simplifies things, applying occams razor we see that your proposition is false, or far less likely.
-
one is a law, the other a proposition which complicates things further, the former simplifies things, applying occams razor we see that your proposition is false, or far less likely.
Laws are made by sentient beings. So, who made the laws, with regards to matter (or, better yet, who made the matter itself)?
-
Laws are made by sentient beings. So, who made the laws, with regards to matter (or, better yet, who made the matter itself)?
what? this is utter gibberish. Nothing can make matter, that is the law, we have observed that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Why do you assume that there needs to be sentience or that this law must have been broken? Cant you see your obvious fallacy and utter lack of argumentation. Why does matter have to be made? The laws of the universe are just mathematical concepts of how the world works, they are not laws wrt justice for example, yours is a false analogy.
Its like asking who made gravity, who made oxygen its not a valid question.
on top of that you would have to provide evidence of the law being broken, evidence of how god made matter, in his matter factory? along with the obvious question, who made god if matter was not eternal (it is according to every bit of evidence we have) then god cannot be either, why is he exempt from this infinite regress. Also your using a hyper complex being to explain a less complex phenomenon, something that makes the question more difficult rather then simpler.
-
what? this is utter gibberish. Nothing can make matter, that is the law, we have observed that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Why do you assume that there needs to be sentience or that this law must have been broken? Cant you see your obvious fallacy and utter lack of argumentation. Why does matter have to be made? The laws of the universe are just mathematical concepts of how the world works, they are not laws wrt justice for example, yours is a false analogy.
Key words: WE have observed. We are finite human beings, limited by natural laws. A supernatural being is not constrained by such.
Once again, you think matter has always existed; a Christian believes that God has always existed. What's the difference?
on top of that you would have to provide evidence of the law being broken, evidence of how god made matter, in his matter factory? along with the obvious question, who made god if matter was not eternal (it is according to every bit of evidence we have) then god cannot be either, why is he exempt from this infinite regress. Also your using a hyper complex being to explain a less complex phenomenon, something that makes the question more difficult rather then simpler.
The simple fact is we both believe that something has ALWAYS existed. One more time, the difference between non-sentient matter always existing and a sentient God alwasy existing is........
-
Key words: WE have observed. We are finite human beings, limited by natural laws. A supernatural being is not constrained by such.
Once again, you think matter has always existed; a Christian believes that God has always existed. What's the difference?
The simple fact is we both believe that something has ALWAYS existed. One more time, the difference between non-sentient matter always existing and a sentient God alwasy existing is........
ridiculous. What is there other then WE, give me some evidence, your offering your own beleifs which have no basis in reality.
"Key words: WE have observed. We are finite human beings, limited by natural laws. A supernatural being is not constrained by such.
Once again, you think matter has always existed; a Christian believes that God has always existed. What's the difference?"
one is a LAW, which proves that matter has always existed, there is PROOF. you have a hyper complex answer that adds more then it answers and is at odds with the observable universe. Sure what difference ::)
"A supernatural being is not constrained by such."
this is a funny quote because it implies you a finite being, that is natural understands what a supernatural infinite being can or cannot do, oh the arrogance. The fallacy in this is so obvious a child could spot it.
"The simple fact is we both believe that something has ALWAYS existed. One more time, the difference between non-sentient matter always existing and a sentient God alwasy existing is........"
Ive given you the difference, YOUR answer has no evidence and further complicates the matter. It fails occams razor, is at odds with reason and contains no evidence. Also your beleif has no axioms therefore is not even a valid argument.
Matter has always existed this is a fact, just like there are two sexes or the sky being blue. Say your right, a god did it, why your god anyhow?
Also, you see complexity in the universe and decide that it is improbable that such a thing could arise randomly, however what you posit is that a super complex being made it. Your argument and every other intellgent creationists argument fails by its own blade. If complexity demands an answer, then surely super complexity requires one and could possibly not have arose randomly, it requires an even more elegant answer. God must of had a creator, since complexity is a symptom of design, yet this ridiculous position held by creationists leads us to an infinite regress. However, my answer has non of these pitfalls, explains existence quite simply and has more evidence then you can imagine on its side.
Pretty sure theres a difference, can you see it now or you will continue on and ignore these fundemental flaws in your argument and logic. ::)
-
Nothing can make matter, that is the law, we have observed that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Since this is a new argument, I want to chime in, if I may.
First of all, scientifically speaking, what cannot be created or destroyed is energy, not matter. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, or better, matter (again, scientifically speaking) is a form of energy. All scientific theories, of course.
However, that is irrelevant to the philosophic question "what is matter and where does it come from". You could only formulate a scientific theory which says "since we have never observed energy being created, the amount of energy which exists today, must have existed as long as we think 'time' has existed".
1. Energy in this context however, only represents the scientific aspects of matter - a set of formulas.
2. Science cannot deliver arguments that show there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects (that's simple logic).
3. Time is a human concept. It is essential to science by definition, meaning it is not defined from within science.
4. Even if 1-3 would not be true (which they obviously are), the concept of creation is not bound to the concept of time.
5. The concept of creation emerges from the very definition of the word "existence". Science can say nothing about it.
That's exactly what I mean by the trap of scientific positivism: using words like "creation" and "existence" (or even "space", "time", or "matter") in a context not permissible to a serious scientist. This automatically makes him a pseudo-philosopher. Here are some quotes from Stephen Hawking, one of the posterboys of scientific positivism, who at least has recoginzed what I layed out here:
A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
A scientific theory can never be proven.
A scientist cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
For a scientist, the question of existence has no meaning.
As scientists, we cannot determine what is real.
-
Since this is a new argument, I want to chime in, if I may.
First of all, scientifically speaking, what cannot be created or destroyed is energy, not matter. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, or better, matter (again, scientifically speaking) is a form of energy. All scientific theories, of course.
However, that is irrelevant to the philosophic question "what is matter and where does it come from". You could only formulate a scientific theory which says "since we have never observed energy being created, the amount of energy which exists today, must have existed as long as we think 'time' has existed".
1. Energy in this context however, only represents the scientific aspects of matter - a set of formulas.
2. Science cannot deliver arguments that show there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects (that's simple logic).
3. Time is a human concept. It is essential to science by definition, meaning it is not defined from within science.
4. Even if 1-3 would not be true (which they obviously are), the concept of creation is not bound to the concept of time.
5. The concept of creation emerges from the very definition of the word "existence". Science can say nothing about it.
That's exactly what I mean by the trap of scientific positivism: using words like "creation" and "existence" (or even "space", "time", or "matter") in a context not permissible to a serious scientist. This automatically makes him a pseudo-philosopher. Here are some quotes from Stephen Hawking, one of the posterboys of scientific positivism, who at least has recoginzed what I layed out here:
A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
A scientific theory can never be proven.
A scientist cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
For a scientist, the question of existence has no meaning.
As scientists, we cannot determine what is real.
"Since this is a new argument, I want to chime in, if I may.
First of all, scientifically speaking, what cannot be created or destroyed is energy, not matter. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, or better, matter (again, scientifically speaking) is a form of energy. All scientific theories, of course."
same conclusion can be drawn, all that has ever existed is all that there is today, derived from this LAW, not theory as a theory is a collection of facts a model if you will. This is a theory which has never been falsified.
"However, that is irrelevant to the philosophic question "what is matter and where does it come from". You could only formulate a scientific theory which says "since we have never observed energy being created, the amount of energy which exists today, must have existed as long as we think 'time' has existed"."
your philosophical question is moot, matter came from no where, You are making an unfounded assumption that goes against the laws of physics. Time cannot exist without matter.
"1. Energy in this context however, only represents the scientific aspects of matter - a set of formulas.
2. Science cannot deliver arguments that show there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects (that's simple logic).
3. Time is a human concept. It is essential to science by definition, meaning it is not defined from within science.
4. Even if 1-3 would not be true (which they obviously are), the concept of creation is not bound to the concept of time.
5. The concept of creation emerges from the very definition of the word "existence". Science can say nothing about it.
That's exactly what I mean by the trap of scientific positivism: using words like "creation" and "existence" (or even "space", "time", or "matter") in a context not permissible to a serious scientist. This automatically makes him a pseudo-philosopher. Here are some quotes from Stephen Hawking, one of the posterboys of scientific positivism, who at least has recoginzed what I layed out here:"
what is there other then the scientific aspects of matter? Name one thing.
2. sure, why do you assume there is more to the world then the observable? or at least the quantifiable? what evidence do you have. What rational argument do you have?
3. Time is a dimension, it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect.
4. yes it is. without time action cannot occur since it is a pre-requisite of acting. Without time no ACT of creation could occur.
Many people would disagree with what hawking has laid out. Sure no one can say what our purpose is, why we exist etc.. but these questions are likely irrelavant, just like the questions you are posing. There is nothing other then the observable,quantifiable or reason or senses. We can experience reality through the full use of our being.
what are you arguing anyway? are you suggesting that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, that there is some immaterial existence, that an intelligent being created us?
Im not sure what your position is.
-
what is there other then the scientific aspects of matter? Name one thing.
2. sure, why do you assume there is more to the world then the observable? or at least the quantifiable? what evidence do you have. What rational argument do you have?
3. Time is a dimension, it exis
*Falls asleep*
-
"Since this is a new argument, I want to chime in, if I may.
First of all, scientifically speaking, what cannot be created or destroyed is energy, not matter. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, or better, matter (again, scientifically speaking) is a form of energy. All scientific theories, of course."
same conclusion can be drawn, all that has ever existed is all that there is today, derived from this LAW, not theory as a theory is a collection of facts a model if you will. This is a theory which has never been falsified.
"However, that is irrelevant to the philosophic question "what is matter and where does it come from". You could only formulate a scientific theory which says "since we have never observed energy being created, the amount of energy which exists today, must have existed as long as we think 'time' has existed"."
your philosophical question is moot, matter came from no where, You are making an unfounded assumption that goes against the laws of physics. Time cannot exist without matter.
"1. Energy in this context however, only represents the scientific aspects of matter - a set of formulas.
2. Science cannot deliver arguments that show there is nothing to the world other than scientific aspects (that's simple logic).
3. Time is a human concept. It is essential to science by definition, meaning it is not defined from within science.
4. Even if 1-3 would not be true (which they obviously are), the concept of creation is not bound to the concept of time.
5. The concept of creation emerges from the very definition of the word "existence". Science can say nothing about it.
That's exactly what I mean by the trap of scientific positivism: using words like "creation" and "existence" (or even "space", "time", or "matter") in a context not permissible to a serious scientist. This automatically makes him a pseudo-philosopher. Here are some quotes from Stephen Hawking, one of the posterboys of scientific positivism, who at least has recoginzed what I layed out here:"
what is there other then the scientific aspects of matter? Name one thing.
2. sure, why do you assume there is more to the world then the observable? or at least the quantifiable? what evidence do you have. What rational argument do you have?
3. Time is a dimension, it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect.
4. yes it is. without time action cannot occur since it is a pre-requisite of acting. Without time no ACT of creation could occur.
Many people would disagree with what hawking has laid out. Sure no one can say what our purpose is, why we exist etc.. but these questions are likely irrelavant, just like the questions you are posing. There is nothing other then the observable,quantifiable or reason or senses. We can experience reality through the full use of our being.
what are you arguing anyway? are you suggesting that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong, that there is some immaterial existence, that an intelligent being created us?
Im not sure what your position is.
Please learn how to quote :D
It's just like I said, your arguments (especially your statements about time) are a mixture of pseudo-science and pseudo-philosphy because they are based on opinions which go against the very definition of science. Please show me a definition of science which says that space and time are not essential to science but are in fact defined from within science. In the other thread, I repeatedly challenged everybody to come up with a scientific explanation of what space and time are. Nobody was able to do it. It is impossible, because they are essential to science. It doesn't make any sense to argue against you as long as you don't agree with the very definition of what you are trying to defend.
Despite these shortcomings, I will nevertheless make an attempt towards one of your statements to show what I mean: "Time is a dimension, it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect".
If we look at the first part of that statement, "Time is a dimension", it is nothing but the definition of one possible model, science makes of time to be able to formulate theories. The four dimensional "space-time" is the resulting model. There are other models of course (e.g. 10 or 11 dimensional), but that's beside the point. The point is, you think by repeating the definition of one possible scientific model of time, you would explain what it is (time), when in fact the making of the model is nothing but a reduction (= model) of the human concept of time, which (this concept) is essential to science and therefore logically not explained from within.
Second part of your statement: "it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect". Scientifically speaking, there is no link between "cause and effect" and the current models of time, science uses. Rather, with the current models of time, experiments exists which show that cause and effect are sometimes reversed within those models. So as a scientist, one would have to argue, that this part of your statement is simply wrong -> the argument would have to be classified as pseudo-science, since it is based on opinion and not on actual scientific findings.
The only domain where this second part of your statement would make any sense is the philosophic domain, where you could e.g. argue that the concept of time is necessary for a human being in order to be able to experience the phenomenon of cause and effect, etc. You partly indicated that this is what you really meant by saying "based on logic" and not "based on science", with logic just being a precondition to science, but of course not being equal to it. However, since you believe that your statement is in fact still legitimated through science (which as shown it is not), it would have to be classified as pseudo-philosophy.
See what I mean? The problem is that most of your statements are like that. Some of them are philosophically debatable, but that doesn't make any sense as long as you think they are based in science. (However, if you are interested, I can still respond to all the statements you made.)
You cannot really disagree with what Hawking says about science, his statements are directly derived from the definition of science. The argument, that questions outside of science are irrelevant, is a valid argument - for a scientist. But that's just a logic consequence of the reduction to certain questions through the restrictive definition of science in the first place.
-
Please learn how to quote :D
It's just like I said, your arguments (especially your statements about time) are a mixture of pseudo-science and pseudo-philosphy because they are based on opinions which go against the very definition of science. Please show me a definition of science which says that space and time are not essential to science but are in fact defined from within science. In the other thread, I repeatedly challenged everybody to come up with a scientific explanation of what space and time are. Nobody was able to do it. It is impossible, because they are essential to science. It doesn't make any sense to argue against you as long as you don't agree with the very definition of what you are trying to defend.
Despite these shortcomings, I will nevertheless make an attempt towards one of your statements to show what I mean: "Time is a dimension, it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect".
If we look at the first part of that statement, "Time is a dimension", it is nothing but the definition of one possible model, science makes of time to be able to formulate theories. The four dimensional "space-time" is the resulting model. There are other models of course (e.g. 10 or 11 dimensional), but that's beside the point. The point is, you think by repeating the definition of one possible scientific model of time, you would explain what it is (time), when in fact the making of the model is nothing but a reduction (= model) of the human concept of time, which (this concept) is essential to science and therefore logically not explained from within.
Second part of your statement: "it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect". Scientifically speaking, there is no link between "cause and effect" and the current models of time, science uses. Rather, with the current models of time, experiments exists which show that cause and effect are sometimes reversed within those models. So as a scientist, one would have to argue, that this part of your statement is simply wrong -> the argument would have to be classified as pseudo-science, since it is based on opinion and not on actual scientific findings.
The only domain where this second part of your statement would make any sense is the philosophic domain, where you could e.g. argue that the concept of time is necessary for a human being in order to be able to experience the phenomenon of cause and effect, etc. You partly indicated that this is what you really meant by saying "based on logic" and not "based on science", with logic just being a precondition to science, but of course not being equal to it. However, since you believe that your statement is in fact still legitimated through science (which as shown it is not), it would have to be classified as pseudo-philosophy.
See what I mean? The problem is that most of your statements are like that. Some of them are philosophically debatable, but that doesn't make any sense as long as you think they are based in science. (However, if you are interested, I can still respond to all the statements you made.)
You cannot really disagree with what Hawking says about science, his statements are directly derived from the definition of science. The argument, that questions outside of science are irrelevant, is a valid argument - for a scientist. But that's just a logic consequence of the reduction to certain questions through the restrictive definition of science in the first place.
Hawking has suggested that time is imaginary, there is debate i agree. Please show one readily avalible example of retrograde causation, i agree quantum models do negate our experience of cause and effect to some degree, however the theory of relativity and the quantum model are incompatible so we know they are wrong, guess we will have to wait for gut.
You havent argued for your position just danced around the definition of science and theory. It is obvious a theory can never be proven since it is a working model that must be avalible to falsification. Laws are different, the law of thermodynamics states that all that is , is all there was.
please argue this point, you did not you just when on a broad attack of science and philosophy. I asked you for specific arguments of what you beleive, in any form and recieved none. Also i know how to quote im just to lazy. eg.
"Since this is a new argument, I want to chime in, if I may.
First of all, scientifically speaking, what cannot be created or destroyed is energy, not matter. Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa, or better, matter (again, scientifically speaking) is a form of energy. All scientific theories, of course."
same conclusion can be drawn, all that has ever existed is all that there is today, derived from this LAW, not theory as a theory is a collection of facts a model if you will. This is a theory which has never been falsified.
"However, that is irrelevant to the philosophic question "what is matter and where does it come from". You could only formulate a scientific theory which says "since we have never observed energy being created, the amount of energy which exists today, must have existed as long as we think 'time' has existed"."
Again your question rests on no axioms and is begging the question. Lets minimize the items we are arguing about. Stick to this new argument as you said above. What good evidence do you have that all that has existed as always existed?
-
"Second part of your statement: "it exists, based on logic, namely cause and effect". Scientifically speaking, there is no link between "cause and effect" and the current models of time, science uses. Rather, with the current models of time, experiments exists which show that cause and effect are sometimes reversed within those models. So as a scientist, one would have to argue, that this part of your statement is simply wrong -> the argument would have to be classified as pseudo-science, since it is based on opinion and not on actual scientific findings."
Sorry for not quoting but this is a prime example of contradiction by you. Philosophy is the use of reason to understand the world, hence cause and effect exists to reason. For example thomas aquinas used causation in his argument for god being the uncaused cause. Reason has failed here, as does logic, by your example. Science has shown that effects can be there own causes and causes can be retrograde, or that there is no cause at all. I said logic in my quote, aka philosophical inspection, you falsified my contention with science, yet do the opposite in other paragraphs.
just stick to the argument i presented, offer evidence for your position as your not consistent with your arguments.
-
Hawking has suggested that time is imaginary, there is debate i agree. Please show one readily avalible example of retrograde causation, i agree quantum models do negate our experience of cause and effect to some degree, however the theory of relativity and the quantum model are incompatible so we know they are wrong, guess we will have to wait for gut.
The main point was not that (resp. if) there is actually such reverse causation. The main point is that in a certain scientific model, such findings are possible. Whether the used model of "time", "cause", and "effect" makes any philosophic sense in this case is of no concern to science at all. Science is always only concerned with measurable scientific aspects of the world. The imaginations which are in the back of a scientists mind (what's the "cause", what's the "effect", etc.) can help to find new theories but are not essential to the purpose of science.
You havent argued for your position just danced around the definition of science and theory. It is obvious a theory can never be proven since it is a working model that must be avalible to falsification. Laws are different, the law of thermodynamics states that all that is , is all there was.
Your statement regarding thermodynamics is obviously an inapplicable generalization. And of course, this "law" is also nothing but a theory. However, the main point was not that science only produces theories.
I don't dance around at all. I explained why your repetition of a definition of a scientific model can never be accepted as an explanation. Such a claim is just plain illogical.
please argue this point, you did not you just when on a broad attack of science and philosophy. I asked you for specific arguments of what you beleive, in any form and recieved none.
...
Sorry for not quoting but this is a prime example of contradiction by you. Philosophy is the use of reason to understand the world, hence cause and effect exists to reason. For example thomas aquinas used causation in his argument for god being the uncaused cause. Reason has failed here, as does logic, by your example. Science has shown that effects can be there own causes and causes can be retrograde, or that there is no cause at all. I said logic in my quote, aka philosophical inspection, you falsified my contention with science, yet do the opposite in other paragraphs.
just stick to the argument i presented, offer evidence for your position as your not consistent with your arguments.
First of all, science has shown none of the above. All of that are just imaginations behind mathematical formulas. As said before, these imaginations are completely irrelevant for pure science.
Are you saying that some of your arguments are in fact philosophic arguments?
I never said that you cannot philosophically argue against the existance of a creator.
What's problematic is just pseudo-philosophy. What cannot be accepted are arguments that are believed to be based in science, for the simple logic reasons I presented here and in the other thread.
IMO it's in fact you who is dancing around the main question: Is there more to the world than just its scientific aspects? If this knot is untied, the real discussion can start. Before that we will lose ourselves i huge, unexact constructs always switching between pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy, as this thread clearly demonstrates.
At this point I can only again refer to the other thread, where I already brought my arguments why there must be more to the world than just its scientific aspects. Since you were the one who stopped arguing there, my laziness wins. ;D
-
The main point was not that (resp. if) there is actually such reverse causation. The main point is that in a certain scientific model, such findings are possible. Whether the used model of "time", "cause", and "effect" makes any philosophic sense in this case is of no concern to science at all. Science is always only concerned with measurable scientific aspects of the world. The imaginations which are in the back of a scientists mind (what's the "cause", what's the "effect", etc.) can help to find new theories but are not essential to the purpose of science.
Your statement regarding thermodynamics is obviously an inapplicable generalization. And of course, this "law" is also nothing but a theory. However, the main point was not that science only produces theories.
I don't dance around at all. I explained why your repetition of a definition of a scientific model can never be accepted as an explanation. Such a claim is just plain illogical.
First of all, science has shown none of the above. All of that are just imaginations behind mathematical formulas. As said before, these imaginations are completely irrelevant for pure science.
Are you saying that some of your arguments are in fact philosophic arguments?
I never said that you cannot philosophically argue against the existance of a creator.
What's problematic is just pseudo-philosophy. What cannot be accepted are arguments that are believed to be based in science, for the simple logic reasons I presented here and in the other thread.
IMO it's in fact you who is dancing around the main question: Is there more to the world than just its scientific aspects? If this knot is untied, the real discussion can start. Before that we will lose ourselves i huge, unexact constructs always switching between pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy, as this thread clearly demonstrates.
At this point I can only again refer to the other thread, where I already brought my arguments why there must be more to the world than just its scientific aspects. Since you were the one who stopped arguing there, my laziness wins. ;D
a Law is not a theory, please understand the words you are using. It is not a generalization it is a fact. All that has ever existed still exists, based on this law.
based on philosophy the argument of a creator is impossible as described in the bible and illogical based on the fact that it doesnt have any axioms. Something is eternal, it is the answer to why something exists rather then nothing, i agree with aquinas on this one, something exists which is its essense to exist. This thing is energy, proven through factual tests.
"Your statement regarding thermodynamics is obviously an inapplicable generalization. And of course, this "law" is also nothing but a theory. However, the main point was not that science only produces theories.
I don't dance around at all. I explained why your repetition of a definition of a scientific model can never be accepted as an explanation. Such a claim is just plain illogical."
A LAW is not a theory, stop repeating this error. Science can tell us how questions, the only questions worth asking. It can talk about creation if it was a material event, however creation never occured based use of logic and reason.
-
a Law is not a theory, please understand the words you are using. It is not a generalization it is a fact. All that has ever existed still exists, based on this law.
I understand the words I'm using. Yes, there is a definition of a "scientific law". A "scientific law" can be falsified at any point in time, just like a theory, although it is very unlikely. If you don't think that's correct, please show me a definition of "scientific law" that claims it would be an absolute fact. This is e.g. what Wikipedia says about it:
"Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them."
But again, that was not the main point. I agree that scientific laws are unlikely to be disproven, and could therefore be called quasi-facts. But their explanatory power is restricted to the scientific aspects of the world they talk about.
based on philosophy the argument of a creator is impossible as described in the bible and illogical based on the fact that it doesnt have any axioms. Something is eternal, it is the answer to why something exists rather then nothing, i agree with aquinas on this one, something exists which is its essense to exist. This thing is energy, proven through factual tests.
Those are all philosophical arguments. None of it is based in science. The last statement is however typical pseudo-philosphy, since believed to be based in science, obviously extending the scientific concept of "energy" to something beyond the scientific scope.
A LAW is not a theory, stop repeating this error. Science can tell us how questions, the only questions worth asking. It can talk about creation if it was a material event, however creation never occured based use of logic and reason.
Regarding "LAW", please see above.
The "how" vs. "why" question thingy is just a catch phrase (I believe) of Atkins. Typical, unexact pseudo-philosophy that explains absolutely nothing. The "how", Atkins talks about is just a scientific "how", of course. And the claim that only "how" questions are valid, is an absolute claim that quite obviously can never be derived from science, hence contradicting everything he says about philosophy. Deicide actually has posted a video, where Atkins gets absolutely destroyed by a question of a philosopher on that topic. Maybe I can dig up the video.
Again, the crux of the matter is the question "Is there more to the world than its scientific aspects?". In the other thread I presented a simple logic deduction which proves beyond doubt that the answer is yes.
-
I understand the words I'm using. Yes, there is a definition of a "scientific law". A "scientific law" can be falsified at any point in time, just like a theory, although it is very unlikely. If you don't think that's correct, please show me a definition of "scientific law" that claims it would be an absolute fact. This is e.g. what Wikipedia says about it:
"Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them."
sure but a law is not a theory, it is a fact for all intensive purposes , it is usually categorized above thoeries in predictive power, any of the most accepted theories lack the predictive power of laws. Law of gravity is a fact, however it could be falsified but it is highly unlikely. It something ever floated up insted of falling down this would falsify it, we see the laws of thermodynamics, gravity etc.. in action everyday, this is the type of predictive power we are examining. What insights do you have into creation? Sure they explain parts of the world in which they conform, and they conform to what has existed, answer, all that there is.
Those are all philosophical arguments. None of it is based in science. The last statement is however typical pseudo-philosphy, since believed to be based in science, obviously extending the scientific concept of "energy" to something beyond the scientific scope.
Regarding "LAW", please see above.
The "how" vs. "why" question thingy is just a catch phrase (I believe) of Atkins. Typical, unexact pseudo-philosophy that explains absolutely nothing. The "how", Atkins talks about is just a scientific "how", of course. And the claim that only "how" questions are valid, is an absolute claim that quite obviously can never be derived from science, hence contradicting everything he says about philosophy. Deicide actually has posted a video, where Atkins gets absolutely destroyed by a question of a philosopher on that topic. Maybe I can dig up the video.
Again, the crux of the matter is the question "Is there more to the world than its scientific aspects?". In the other thread I presented a simple logic deduction which proves beyond doubt that the answer is yes.
why questions rest on unfounded presumptions which have not been proven leading to faulty logic,arguments and reason. They are garbage. How questions get to the crux of the matter and offer us explanatory power.
We get it, science cannot explain the NATURE of existence, it cannot describe love, it cannot reduce your feelings to x amount of serotonin, it cannot explain some of the apparent emergent phenomenon.
Get back to the argument. What argument do you have which negates the laws of thermodynamics? why do you beleive there was a creation at all? what evidence, whether through reason or objective evidence.
Your argument is akin to arguing about gravity. I say things drop to the ground because of gravity, you say god. I offer this law and evidence and you talk about limitations of science. You say "but why do things drop at all, why is there gravity?" a totally worthless question. It drops because of gravity, nothing else is needed to explain it. Philosophy can say nothing about our existence in reality if you attribute this existence to an omnipotent, infinite, eternal being something unknowable. I dont want you to argue this point if you dont address the point above. Offer alternative evidence, or your belief at least.
-
*Falls asleep*
im not sure what your getting at. The material, reductionist model is our current paradigm ripe with evidence. If you think there is more to matter then the observable or preceptive be my geust. Give me just one example backed by real evidence.
-
Wavelength isn't particularly good at convincing people to buy into his arguments. He does do an excellent job of showing why philosophy and science have diverged into two completely separate fields.
Out of context, I'd guess the following statements would have been made by a sophomore philosophy student:
"A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
A scientific theory can never be proven.
A scientist cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
For a scientist, the question of existence has no meaning.
As scientists, we cannot determine what is real."
You can do better. Are you still in university or have you graduated?
-
Wavelength isn't particularly good at convincing people to buy into his arguments. He does do an excellent job of showing why philosophy and science have diverged into two completely separate fields.
Out of context, I'd guess the following statements would have been made by a sophomore philosophy student:
"A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
A scientific theory can never be proven.
A scientist cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
For a scientist, the question of existence has no meaning.
As scientists, we cannot determine what is real."
You can do better. Are you still in university or have you graduated?
Haha MMC78, at least your memory seems to be intact! :D
The statements were taken from a thread (several month ago) that was never concluded. All of these (non-literally) quotes are in fact by Stephen Hawking from the book "Universe in a Nutshell". Funny enough, nobody who posted in this thread recognized them as such. ;)
If you think I'm not good at convincing people, show me one incident in the history of this board where someone really convinced someone else of his world view. In my opinion, that's practically impossible due to certain properties of the human mind. :)
-
sure but a law is not a theory, it is a fact for all intensive purposes , it is usually categorized above thoeries in predictive power, any of the most accepted theories lack the predictive power of laws. Law of gravity is a fact, however it could be falsified but it is highly unlikely. It something ever floated up insted of falling down this would falsify it, we see the laws of thermodynamics, gravity etc.. in action everyday, this is the type of predictive power we are examining. What insights do you have into creation? Sure they explain parts of the world in which they conform, and they conform to what has existed, answer, all that there is.
Yes I know that scientifically speaking, "theories" are distinguished from "laws" by certain properties. However, they share the two main properties: They are not absolute truths (although in case of "laws" very unlikely to be disproven) and they are restricted to the measurable, scientific aspects they talk about, which, as mentioned, is my main point.
What do you mean by "what insights do I have into creation"? Do you mean creation in general, as in if there is such a thing?
The scientific laws of thermodynamics, like all scientific laws and theories, talk about measurable, scientific quantities. Attempts to extend their meaning beyond those restrictions (e.g. to "all that exists") must be classified as pseudo-philosophy and are rightfully critizised as such.
why questions rest on unfounded presumptions which have not been proven leading to faulty logic,arguments and reason. They are garbage. How questions get to the crux of the matter and offer us explanatory power.
Is that an absolute truth? Is that a philosophic statement?
I'm not saying, one cannot argue in such a way. But this is a philosophic argument which has no basis in science whatsoever. As I said, the "how", Atkins talks about, is only a scientific "how". A scientist simply is not concerned with real "how" questions just as he is not concerned with real "why" questions. The how-why controversy is typical pseudo-philosophy.
We get it, science cannot explain the NATURE of existence, it cannot describe love, it cannot reduce your feelings to x amount of serotonin, it cannot explain some of the apparent emergent phenomenon.
So you don't think e.g. love can be reduced to neuronal activities in the brain? I was under the impression that this was your opinion.
Get back to the argument. What argument do you have which negates the laws of thermodynamics? why do you beleive there was a creation at all? what evidence, whether through reason or objective evidence.
Your argument is akin to arguing about gravity. I say things drop to the ground because of gravity, you say god. I offer this law and evidence and you talk about limitations of science. You say "but why do things drop at all, why is there gravity?" a totally worthless question. It drops because of gravity, nothing else is needed to explain it. Philosophy can say nothing about our existence in reality if you attribute this existence to an omnipotent, infinite, eternal being something unknowable. I dont want you to argue this point if you dont address the point above. Offer alternative evidence, or your belief at least.
I don't have any arguments against any scientifc law. That's not how science works. The only argument I could have would be if - as a scientist - I really could observe e.g. things falling up. I totally agree with you on that point.
The point is that the scientific description of gravity (set of formulas) does not compete at all with the philosophic explanation of a divine creator. Only if what is called the "gravitational field" is misunderstood as something beyond this set of formulas (meaning a real, invisible "force-field", somehow magically drawing things together), and God is misunderstood as a super-humanoid (somehow having setup all those magic forces), the two can be compared as competitive world views. In this case, you are right, I would rather do without such a creator. The magic fields are enough in themselves, no need for the next "why" or "how".
My argument for a "creator" is simple. The word "existence" clearly requires something by which means forms can emerge into it. There simply would be nothing able to be aware of form, if all there was would be form itself. The consciousness allowing us to experience (formal) reality must be based in something beyond (resp. "before") it. All philosophic arguments of course, which may be disputed philosophically.
The divine attributes (omnipotent, infinite, eternal, personal/impersonal) you listed, are, as everything said about the divine, only pointers to it. As stated e.g. in the bible, there is no direct "picture" of God.
-
Yes I know that scientifically speaking, "theories" are distinguished from "laws" by certain properties. However, they share the two main properties: They are not absolute truths (although in case of "laws" very unlikely to be disproven) and they are restricted to the measurable, scientific aspects they talk about, which, as mentioned, is my main point.
What do you mean by "what insights do I have into creation"? Do you mean creation in general, as in if there is such a thing?
The scientific laws of thermodynamics, like all scientific laws and theories, talk about measurable, scientific quantities. Attempts to extend their meaning beyond those restrictions (e.g. to "all that exists") must be classified as pseudo-philosophy and are rightfully critizised as such.
Is that an absolute truth? Is that a philosophic statement?
I'm not saying, one cannot argue in such a way. But this is a philosophic argument which has no basis in science whatsoever. As I said, the "how", Atkins talks about, is only a scientific "how". A scientist simply is not concerned with real "how" questions just as he is not concerned with real "why" questions. The how-why controversy is typical pseudo-philosophy.
So you don't think e.g. love can be reduced to neuronal activities in the brain? I was under the impression that this was your opinion.
I don't have any arguments against any scientifc law. That's not how science works. The only argument I could have would be if - as a scientist - I really could observe e.g. things falling up. I totally agree with you on that point.
The point is that the scientific description of gravity (set of formulas) does not compete at all with the philosophic explanation of a divine creator. Only if what is called the "gravitational field" is misunderstood as something beyond this set of formulas (meaning a real, invisible "force-field", somehow magically drawing things together), and God is misunderstood as a super-humanoid (somehow having setup all those magic forces), the two can be compared as competitive world views. In this case, you are right, I would rather do without such a creator. The magic fields are enough in themselves, no need for the next "why" or "how".
My argument for a "creator" is simple. The word "existence" clearly requires something by which means forms can emerge into it. There simply would be nothing able to be aware of form, if all there was would be form itself. The consciousness allowing us to experience (formal) reality must be based in something beyond (resp. "before") it. All philosophic arguments of course, which may be disputed philosophically.
The divine attributes (omnipotent, infinite, eternal, personal/impersonal) you listed, are, as everything said about the divine, only pointers to it. As stated e.g. in the bible, there is no direct "picture" of God.
i dont know dude, you seem to not be offering any arguments.
for example you say laws are absolute truths, name one absolute truth? they are as close to absolute as one can fine ime. For example, the truth that you exist is fickle in that a schizo or multiple personality disorder sufferer shows how the I inside the body can be mistaken. Your whole reality could be a farce, our whole reality. So again, a law is an objective truth per se that hasnt changed and is verifiable by all humans at all times.
You are also wrong in that
"The scientific laws of thermodynamics, like all scientific laws and theories, talk about measurable, scientific quantities. Attempts to extend their meaning beyond those restrictions (e.g. to "all that exists") must be classified as pseudo-philosophy and are rightfully critizised as such."
it is exactly what it states. Since matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed all the energy in our system is all that there ever was. You can not add or take away energy from this system, it always remains the same, hence the obvious deduction.
"My argument for a "creator" is simple. The word "existence" clearly requires something by which means forms can emerge into it. There simply would be nothing able to be aware of form, if all there was would be form itself. The consciousness allowing us to experience (formal) reality must be based in something beyond (resp. "before") it. All philosophic arguments of course, which may be disputed philosophically.
The divine attributes (omnipotent, infinite, eternal, personal/impersonal) you listed, are, as everything said about the divine, only pointers to it. As stated e.g. in the bible, there is no direct "picture" of God."
so your argument for god is that there is inherent consciousness in form or matter i assume. This assumption is based on what? current consciousness? have you read much on complexity and bootstrapping? consciousness can emerge from increasing complexity, look at autocatalytic theory, or other theories of complexity. Consciousness is a by-product of increasing complexity. reality doesnt have to be based on something beyond, you sound like aristotle taking about shadows on a cave wall. Reality contradicts this, we dont know of anything beyond, there is no evidence and there would be if this something beyond interacted with us to create reality. The fact that there is no evidence tells us that we need nothing more then what we have to experience reality and that this is in fact reality.
the last statement is pure conjecture. You have no idea if they are pointers or attributes. All attributes we ascribe or dont ascribe are incorrect because by virture of its nature the supernatural is completely unknowable. So nothing can be said of God besides what we can gather from creation if it was created by a god.
he is super complex, or more complex then the universe
he is more improbable then the universe existing by "chance"
very powerful
is both good and evil, is not perfect as this world is based on polarity.
these are some pointers i could think of but because he is supernatural they all could be wrong, its a whole different ballgame. Anytime you speak of outside our system you open pandoras box and further complicate things, making any argument of something outside reality completely useless and more complicated offering less explanation and more questions.
-
i dont know dude, you seem to not be offering any arguments.
for example you say laws are absolute truths, name one absolute truth? they are as close to absolute as one can fine ime. For example, the truth that you exist is fickle in that a schizo or multiple personality disorder sufferer shows how the I inside the body can be mistaken. Your whole reality could be a farce, our whole reality. So again, a law is an objective truth per se that hasnt changed and is verifiable by all humans at all times.
You can twist it anyway you like, a scientific "law" is by definition not an absolute truth.
Are you saying there is no absolute truth?
And if so, what scientific method leads you to that conclusion?
"The scientific laws of thermodynamics, like all scientific laws and theories, talk about measurable, scientific quantities. Attempts to extend their meaning beyond those restrictions (e.g. to "all that exists") must be classified as pseudo-philosophy and are rightfully critizised as such."
it is exactly what it states. Since matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed all the energy in our system is all that there ever was. You can not add or take away energy from this system, it always remains the same, hence the obvious deduction.
Again, it's energy, not matter, but that's beside the point. Scientifically, energy is defined by formulas containing measurable scientific quantities. That's all it is, and that's exactly the scientific scope of thermodynamics. For some reason, you think that this scientific concept of energy should be all that exists in the world? How can that be? It's nothing but a scientifc concept defined by formulas. Or is this a misunderstanding?
so your argument for god is that there is inherent consciousness in form or matter i assume. This assumption is based on what? current consciousness? have you read much on complexity and bootstrapping? consciousness can emerge from increasing complexity, look at autocatalytic theory, or other theories of complexity. Consciousness is a by-product of increasing complexity. reality doesnt have to be based on something beyond, you sound like aristotle taking about shadows on a cave wall. Reality contradicts this, we dont know of anything beyond, there is no evidence and there would be if this something beyond interacted with us to create reality. The fact that there is no evidence tells us that we need nothing more then what we have to experience reality and that this is in fact reality.
the last statement is pure conjecture. You have no idea if they are pointers or attributes. All attributes we ascribe or dont ascribe are incorrect because by virture of its nature the supernatural is completely unknowable. So nothing can be said of God besides what we can gather from creation if it was created by a god.
he is super complex, or more complex then the universe
he is more improbable then the universe existing by "chance"
very powerful
is both good and evil, is not perfect as this world is based on polarity.
these are some pointers i could think of but because he is supernatural they all could be wrong, its a whole different ballgame. Anytime you speak of outside our system you open pandoras box and further complicate things, making any argument of something outside reality completely useless and more complicated offering less explanation and more questions.
You didn't answer my question:
"So you don't think e.g. love can be reduced to neuronal activities in the brain? I was under the impression that this was your opinion."
If you think consciousness is just a "by-product" of complexity, surely it's the same with love?
This was elaborately discussed, again in the other thread. It really makes no sense to start from zero. But to make it short, quite obviously, I do not think that consciousness is a by-product of complexity and have demonstrated how this can be proven. You can find all the requested evidence in the other thread. You can easily find it, it's right before your famous quote. ;)
Regarding your statements about "pointers" vs. "attributes", the bible (just like every essential spiritual scripture) clearly states that God cannot be described directly. A direct consequence is that every attribute given to him can only be a pointer but not the literal truth.
Regarding your last paragraph, it's no wonder the thinking mind has problems comprehending the divine. That comes with the nature of it, and that's why all spiritual scripture speaks to something in us that goes beyond it (the thinking mind).
BTW, I thought you must be studying. :D
-
You can twist it anyway you like, a scientific "law" is by definition not an absolute truth.
Are you saying there is no absolute truth?
And if so, what scientific method leads you to that conclusion?
Again, it's energy, not matter, but that's beside the point. Scientifically, energy is defined by formulas containing measurable scientific quantities. That's all it is, and that's exactly the scientific scope of thermodynamics. For some reason, you think that this scientific concept of energy should be all that exists in the world? How can that be? It's nothing but a scientifc concept defined by formulas. Or is this a misunderstanding?
You didn't answer my question:
"So you don't think e.g. love can be reduced to neuronal activities in the brain? I was under the impression that this was your opinion."
If you think consciousness is just a "by-product" of complexity, surely it's the same with love?
This was elaborately discussed, again in the other thread. It really makes no sense to start from zero. But to make it short, quite obviously, I do not think that consciousness is a by-product of complexity and have demonstrated how this can be proven. You can find all the requested evidence in the other thread. You can easily find it, it's right before your famous quote. ;)
Regarding your statements about "pointers" vs. "attributes", the bible (just like every essential spiritual scripture) clearly states that God cannot be described directly. A direct consequence is that every attribute given to him can only be a pointer but not the literal truth.
Regarding your last paragraph, it's no wonder the thinking mind has problems comprehending the divine. That comes with the nature of it, and that's why all spiritual scripture speaks to something in us that goes beyond it (the thinking mind).
BTW, I thought you must be studying. :D
meh on the studying i have alot of exams next week though, 9 in total, im just tired as fuck and not in the mood to study. :D ;D
You can twist it anyway you like, a scientific "law" is by definition not an absolute truth.
Are you saying there is no absolute truth?
And if so, what scientific method leads you to that conclusion?
Again, it's energy, not matter, but that's beside the point. Scientifically, energy is defined by formulas containing measurable scientific quantities. That's all it is, and that's exactly the scientific scope of thermodynamics. For some reason, you think that this scientific concept of energy should be all that exists in the world? How can that be? It's nothing but a scientifc concept defined by formulas. Or is this a misunderstanding?
I used logic for your first question
i realize this, energy is converted into matter and this occured when baryonic matter was formed in one of the epochs, i forget which one as i havent read much cosmology lately.
are you saying that energy doesnt exist because it is expressed conceptually by mathematic formulas? if so i can see why the confusion. It exists regardless of our observation, our experiments and mathematics which define our world have explained how it operates. Matter, dark matter, dark energy, energy all exist. What other then energy exists? since matter is condensed energy? This is the material world mind you.
You didn't answer my question:
"So you don't think e.g. love can be reduced to neuronal activities in the brain? I was under the impression that this was your opinion."
If you think consciousness is just a "by-product" of complexity, surely it's the same with love?
This was elaborately discussed, again in the other thread. It really makes no sense to start from zero. But to make it short, quite obviously, I do not think that consciousness is a by-product of complexity and have demonstrated how this can be proven. You can find all the requested evidence in the other thread. You can easily find it, it's right before your famous quote. ;)
Regarding your statements about "pointers" vs. "attributes", the bible (just like every essential spiritual scripture) clearly states that God cannot be described directly. A direct consequence is that every attribute given to him can only be a pointer but not the literal truth.
Regarding your last paragraph, it's no wonder the thinking mind has problems comprehending the divine. That comes with the nature of it, and that's why all spiritual scripture speaks to something in us that goes beyond it (the thinking mind).
BTW, I thought you must be studying. :D
love is a process we havent mapped i was being hyperbolic to get across the point that i understand you want to ask questions like "why is there matter, where did it come from", or as i see it pointless questions that have no axiomatic truth.
no attributes are pointers, the infinite and eternal is COMPLETELY unknowable to the finite and temporal.
you still havent given me one good reason to first assume that there is something to the world other then the material, or that which is made up of matter or energy.
That there is a divine creator. Not one good reason, not even anything close to an argument mind you.
-
are you saying that energy doesnt exist because it is expressed conceptually by mathematic formulas? if so i can see why the confusion. It exists regardless of our observation, our experiments and mathematics which define our world have explained how it operates. Matter, dark matter, dark energy, energy all exist. What other then energy exists? since matter is condensed energy? This is the material world mind you.
Science is not concerned with what exists. Science says nothing about it. All the things you mention are just imaginations behind scientific theories. These imaginations can be exchanged randomly, the scientifc theory remains completely unaffected by it. I also brought examples of that in the other thread. Just imagine invisible leprechauns pushing objects around instead of a "gravitational field". If the scientifically observed motion of the objects is the same, the imagaination behind it is completely arbitrary. I don't know what imaginations form in your head when you think about things like "energy", "dark matter", etc. In any case, for a pure scientist, those imaginations are completely irrelevant. Science doesn't (and cannot) say if any of these imaginary things really exist. That's simply not the purpose of science. People who think it is, are pseudo-philosophers and not scientists. As I said, such imaginations are not forbidden of course, they can help in moving things around and finding new theories. However, they must not be confused with reality.
love is a process we havent mapped i was being hyperbolic to get across the point that i understand you want to ask questions like "why is there matter, where did it come from", or as i see it pointless questions that have no axiomatic truth.
This was your statement:
"science cannot explain the NATURE of existence, it cannot describe love, it cannot reduce your feelings to x amount of serotonin, it cannot explain some of the apparent emergent phenomenon"
True or false?
no attributes are pointers, the infinite and eternal is COMPLETELY unknowable to the finite and temporal.
you still havent given me one good reason to first assume that there is something to the world other then the material, or that which is made up of matter or energy.
That there is a divine creator. Not one good reason, not even anything close to an argument mind you.
As I said, we're getting ahead of ourselves. You cannot accept my arguments because your definition of the terms you use is different from mine.
I wasn't talking about the material vs. the immaterial. This is again pseudo-philosophy of scientists who believe science would say anything about the material. It does not, it says absolutely nothing about what is real, be it material or immaterial.
If you think this is not correct, please explain to me in scientific terms, using only scientific methods, what "the material" is, what "reality" is, what "matter" is and what "energy" is.
BTW, you also haven't answered my question if you think that there is no absolute truth...
-
Science is not concerned with what exists. Science says nothing about it. All the things you mention are just imaginations behind scientific theories. These imaginations can be exchanged randomly, the scientifc theory remains completely unaffected by it. I also brought examples of that in the other thread. Just imagine invisible leprechauns pushing objects around instead of a "gravitational field". If the scientifically observed motion of the objects is the same, the imagaination behind it is completely arbitrary. I don't know what imaginations form in your head when you think about things like "energy", "dark matter", etc. In any case, for a pure scientist, those imaginations are completely irrelevant. Science doesn't (and cannot) say if any of these imaginary things really exist. That's simply not the purpose of science. People who think it is, are pseudo-philosophers and not scientists. As I said, such imaginations are not forbidden of course, they can help in moving things around and finding new theories. However, they must not be confused with reality.
This was your statement:
"science cannot explain the NATURE of existence, it cannot describe love, it cannot reduce your feelings to x amount of serotonin, it cannot explain some of the apparent emergent phenomenon"
True or false?
As I said, we're getting ahead of ourselves. You cannot accept my arguments because your definition of the terms you use is different from mine.
I wasn't talking about the material vs. the immaterial. This is again pseudo-philosophy of scientists who believe science would say anything about the material. It does not, it says absolutely nothing about what is real, be it material or immaterial.
If you think this is not correct, please explain to me in scientific terms, using only scientific methods, what "the material" is, what "reality" is, what "matter" is and what "energy" is.
BTW, you also haven't answered my question if you think that there is no absolute truth...
no evidence of leprechauns or anything else. What then can tell us what exists?Philosophy, no.
-
i also dont accept your definitions because your not defining anything, just telling what the scientific method cant do and offering no explanation for how to go out defining what is real. Looks pretty pseudo-intellectual to me to be honest.
your pretty much throwing your hands up and saying all is unknowable.
-
no evidence of leprechauns or anything else. What then can tell us what exists?Philosophy, no.
There is also no scientific evidence for the existence of a gravitational field. That's just a name given to a set of formulas. My scientific evidence for the leprachauns is exactly the same as yours: the observed movement of objects. Since they are invisible, just like your field, that's all we can observe.
I agree that naming it a "field" instead of "an army of invisible leprachauns" provides an easier imagination for the mind. The point was that it doesn't matter one bit for the purpose of science. As I said, most scientists, like e.g. Hawking, would agree with me on that one. The others are pseudo-philosophers.
-
i also dont accept your definitions because your not defining anything, just telling what the scientific method cant do and offering no explanation for how to go out defining what is real. Looks pretty pseudo-intellectual to me to be honest.
your pretty much throwing your hands up and saying all is unknowable.
Ha, there it is again. :D :D :D
You forgot to add "huge clusterfuck" this time, though. ;D
-
There is also no scientific evidence for the existence of a gravitational field. That's just a name given to a set of formulas. My scientific evidence for the leprachauns is exactly the same as yours: the observed movement of objects. Since they are invisible, just like your field, that's all we can observe.
I agree that naming it a "field" instead of "an army of invisible leprachauns" provides an easier imagination for the mind. The point was that it doesn't matter one bit for the purpose of science. As I said, most scientists, like e.g. Hawking, would agree with me on that one. The others are pseudo-philosophers.
i dont know dude, gravity is the description of the process and the mathematics are the how. Gravity is also caused by the relative mass of objects. We know this since we can increase or decrease the effect of gravity or strength. Your explanation is adding something, ie invisible leprechauns, we must then describe leprechauns, but we have already described weight, and einstein came up with some neat mathematics in the theory of relativity to describe the gravity of large objects.
If you think both are the same then your mistaken. You are adding unfounded and confounding variables to the equation, not even close.
-
i dont know dude, gravity is the description of the process and the mathematics are the how. Gravity is also caused by the relative mass of objects. We know this since we can increase or decrease the effect of gravity or strength. Your explanation is adding something, ie invisible leprechauns, we must then describe leprechauns, but we have already described weight, and einstein came up with some neat mathematics in the theory of relativity to describe the gravity of large objects.
If you think both are the same then your mistaken. You are adding unfounded and confounding variables to the equation, not even close.
What you require of me would be to describe things about my imagination that are not relevant to the scientific theory. I could very well ask you just the same about your magic, invisible field, which somehow manages to draw objects together based on their mass, etc. That's just as mind boggling (if not more so) as intelligent leprachauns with a plan.
The point is, it is just a name, or an imagination. If you think it is more than that, tell me, from a scientific point of view, what exactly is added to the set of formulas by naming them a "field". Everything you will be able to come up with must be outside the scope of science.
-
What you require of me would be to describe things about my imagination that are not relevant to the scientific theory. I could very well ask you just the same about your magic, invisible field, which somehow manages to draw objects together based on their mass, etc. That's just as mind boggling (if not more so) as intelligent leprachauns with a plan.
The point is, it is just a name, or an imagination. If you think it is more than that, tell me, from a scientific point of view, what exactly is added to the set of formulas by naming them a "field". Everything you will be able to come up with must be outside the scope of science.
why do you think they called it a field, why is there "plasma" physics. One is adding info, especially intelligent movement, the other supported by the theory of relativity which has mathematics based on the fact that space is like a fabric, the math wouldnt work if it wasnt.
so what can science do according to you?
-
why do you think they called it a field, why is there "plasma" physics. One is adding info, especially intelligent movement, the other supported by the theory of relativity which has mathematics based on the fact that space is like a fabric, the math wouldnt work if it wasnt.
All just imaginations. Doesn't change the fact that it's just names, which, scientifically speaking, add nothing to the set of formulas.
so what can science do according to you?
Science is the basis for modern applications (computers, modern medicine, automation, etc.).
Science debunks superstitions about scientific aspects of the world.
Science, within its boundaries, delivers a very beautiful description of the world. The beauty stems from its simplicity.
-
All just imaginations. Doesn't change the fact that it's just names, which, scientifically speaking, add nothing to the set of formulas.
Science is the basis for modern applications (computers, modern medicine, automation, etc.).
Science debunks superstitions about scientific aspects of the world.
Science, within its boundaries, delivers a very beautiful description of the world. The beauty stems from its simplicity.
WHAT
simplicity? ya when i think of the world i see simplicity, barring the massive amounts of details in small processes like photosynthesis.
the names refer to the differet properties of the objects which are described. If you think an intellgence is more beleivable then a field which has a conceptual and even abstract framework in theoretics and mathematics thats your deal.
-
WHAT
simplicity? ya when i think of the world i see simplicity, barring the massive amounts of details in small processes like photosynthesis.
the names refer to the differet properties of the objects which are described. If you think an intellgence is more beleivable then a field which has a conceptual and even abstract framework in theoretics and mathematics thats your deal.
I was referring to the simplicity of its methods, not the obvious complexity of its outcome.
The point is not what imagination is more believable. The point is that it is arbitrary for the resulting scientific theory. The only thing essential to science is if the theories match the observation (also a quote from "Universe in a Nutshell"). But as I said, a certain imagination can be more useful than another in finding new theories or extending an existing theory. The "field" as in a mathematical concept is OK of course.
-
I was referring to the simplicity of its methods, not the obvious complexity of its outcome.
The point is not what imagination is more believable. The point is that it is arbitrary for the resulting scientific theory. The only thing essential to science is if the theories match the observation (also a quote from "Universe in a Nutshell"). But as I said, a certain imagination can be more useful than another in finding new theories or extending an existing theory. The "field" as in a mathematical concept is OK of course.
Not really disagreeing with that.
You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.
-
You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.
You said "material world" and "all that exists". The error is not the scientific law itself (which I fully accept), the errors are confusing the scientific/mathematical concepts of energy with any of the other terms you use (including your image of "energy"), and confusing the holistic human concept of time with a certain scientific abstraction used in scientific laws.
-
Not really disagreeing with that.
You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.
usmokepole, is that you? You changed to Necrosis? :)
-
usmokepole, is that you? You changed to Necrosis? :)
yes sir. Thought you knew that? :D
-
yes sir. Thought you knew that? :D
No, I didn't know, but now I do. ;D
-
You said "material world" and "all that exists". The error is not the scientific law itself (which I fully accept), the errors are confusing the scientific/mathematical concepts of energy with any of the other terms you use (including your image of "energy"), and confusing the holistic human concept of time with a certain scientific abstraction used in scientific laws.
i dont trust human inquistion more then objective evidence. I dont trust philosophy more then science, i cant think of one good philosophical argument presented by theism, and i see it as a waste of resources.
-
i dont trust human inquistion more then objective evidence. I dont trust philosophy more then science, i cant think of one good philosophical argument presented by theism, and i see it as a waste of resources.
Yet you constantly resort to philosophy, apparently without even noticing. That's pseudo-philosophy.
There is no need for "trust" in science at all. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Everything else must be done by something beyond science, whether you "trust" in the results or not.
-
Yet you constantly resort to philosophy, apparently without even noticing. That's pseudo-philosophy.
There is no need for "trust" in science at all. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Everything else must be done by something beyond science, whether you "trust" in the results or not.
like what. Logic, reason are useful tools but also falible, why do you assume they are more valid the objective evidence gathered through perceptions. I dont thing any theologian can offer more insight into the nature of the cosmos moreso then a particle physicist.
-
like what. Logic, reason are useful tools but also falible, why do you assume they are more valid the objective evidence gathered through perceptions. I dont thing any theologian can offer more insight into the nature of the cosmos moreso then a particle physicist.
We're running round in circles. Let's just agree to disagree.
-
yes sir. Thought you knew that? :D
I knew these comments sounded familiar. Name change? I thought the wedding was a couple of years from now ;D .
-
I knew these comments sounded familiar. Name change? I thought the wedding was a couple of years from now ;D .
LOL!
-
Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.
-
Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.
it is
-
Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.
it is
Then, why aren't all these allegedly abused children committing such deviant acts at the same rate as (or higher than) those who were physically/sexually abused, especially, since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination (Christianity, in particular) is worse?
That's the question asked initially on this thread. All the graph and stats done from that UNC study consistently show a lower level of crime/offense-committing among those who deem church attendance as important and are taught religious values ("indoctrinated", as it were).
As the author of the site mentioned, where are Dawkins' scientific studies to back his claims? So far, it seems that his views are skewed significantly by his being molested as a kid. Furthermore, few Christians of which I know say that their faith and becoming (or remaining) a Christian are based on fear of burning in hell.
-
Then, why aren't all these allegedly abused children committing such deviant acts at the same rate as (or higher than) those who were physically/sexually abused, especially, since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination (Christianity, in particular) is worse?
I don't know that they are not.
IF they are not, I don't think that this means that it is any less abusive. I've seen the fear in the eyes of children who are told that they will burn in hell if they are bad, and this is abusive.
That's the question asked initially on this thread. All the graph and stats done from that UNC study consistently show a lower level of crime/offense-committing among those who deem church attendance as important and are taught religious values ("indoctrinated", as it were).
Church attendance and religious values aren't indoctrination. Not the kind that I'm talking about which occurs in hardcore churches or a lot of catholic schools. I went to a religious school also and it was quite moderate and there was no "hell fire and brimstone" sermons meant to put fear in me.
As the author of the site mentioned, where are Dawkins' scientific studies to back his claims? So far, it seems that his views are skewed significantly by his being molested as a kid. Furthermore, few Christians of which I know say that their faith and becoming (or remaining) a Christian are based on fear of burning in hell.
Richard Dawkins was never "molested" as a child. He mentions a time where, in an Anglican school, he was fondled by his Latin teacher, but he says that as creepy as this experience was, it doesn't compare to being convinced that your friends or family will burn in hell for eternity.
From an article by Richard Dawkins:
Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the squash court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile.
So basically, if an adult fondling a 9 year old is child abuse (and it is), then so is telling a 9 year old that they will burn in hell if they are bad or that their friends and family who are not religious will burn in hell for all eternity. Since Dawkins brushes off his experience with his Latin teacher as skin-crawling and creepy, I doubt it had any influence on his becoming an atheist.
But then again, It's always easy to try to say that Richard Dawkins is only an atheist because of that experience. It's an Ad Hominem sort of thing intended to make all of his arguments seem less convincing. Essentially irrelevant.
-
I don't know that they are not.
IF they are not, I don't think that this means that it is any less abusive. I've seen the fear in the eyes of children who are told that they will burn in hell if they are bad, and this is abusive.
Church attendance and religious values aren't indoctrination. Not the kind that I'm talking about which occurs in hardcore churches or a lot of catholic schools. I went to a religious school also and it was quite moderate and there was no "hell fire and brimstone" sermons meant to put fear in me.
EXACTLY!!! As I said, few (if any) I know became or remained Christians, due to a fear of the lake of fire.
Richard Dawkins was never "molested" as a child. He mentions a time where, in an Anglican school, he was fondled by his Latin teacher, but he says that as creepy as this experience was, it doesn't compare to being convinced that your friends or family will burn in hell for eternity.
I read that (in fact, there's a link to that article on the site that I used for this thread). Last time I checked, a 9-year-old being fondled by a grown man COUNTS as being molested.
If a man does that to my kids, he's going to the hospital and I'm going to jail.
So basically, if an adult fondling a 9 year old is child abuse (and it is), then so is telling a 9 year old that they will burn in hell if they are bad or that their friends and family who are not religious will burn in hell for all eternity. Since Dawkins brushes off his experience with his Latin teacher as skin-crawling and creepy, I doubt it had any influence on his becoming an atheist.
But then again, It's always easy to try to say that Richard Dawkins is only an atheist because of that experience. It's an Ad Hominem sort of thing intended to make all of his arguments seem less convincing. Essentially irrelevant.
I didn't claim that his being fondled/molested (or whatever you want to call it) was the SOLE reason for his views. But, you can't deny that such an incident played a significant role in shaping such views.
Where I take exception is his claim that a child being taught religious beliefs (speficially those of the Christian faith) is on the same level of his molestation, in terms of being abuse. If he were just talking about the whole "fear of hell and brimstone" thing, he could become a member of a denomination that teaches hell as a permanent destruction of the wicked, not an everlasting lake of fire.
-
EXACTLY!!! As I said, few (if any) I know became or remained Christians, due to a fear of the lake of fire.
I read that (in fact, there's a link to that article on the site that I used for this thread). Last time I checked, a 9-year-old being fondled by a grown man COUNTS as being molested.
If a man does that to my kids, he's going to the hospital and I'm going to jail.
I didn't claim that his being fondled/molested (or whatever you want to call it) was the SOLE reason for his views. But, you can't deny that such an incident played a significant role in shaping such views.
Where I take exception is his claim that a child being taught religious beliefs (speficially those of the Christian faith) is on the same level of his molestation, in terms of being abuse. If he were just talking about the whole "fear of hell and brimstone" thing, he could become a member of a denomination that teaches hell as a permanent destruction of the wicked, not an everlasting lake of fire.
I doubt it. There are plenty of people who were molested by priests who still are religious.
Also, Telling kids that their non-religious family will be "permanently destructed" is also abusive.
-