The Profound difference between the Religious World View and the Scientific One:

[Deicide]

There is a profound difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate analysis of the facts and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking and only then looking to see if it can survive contact with the facts. Given the gaps in science and given the elasticity of religious thinking, it will always be possible to reconcile the most gratuitous nonsense with our modern scientific world view. This is not the same thing as having scientific reasons to believe in god.

Discuss...

[Deicide]

Indeed.

[Decker]

That's why creationists are doomed.  They work backwards.  They try to fit the data to a preconceived religious conclusion. 

Sort of like what Bush did in the run up to the Iraq war.

[columbusdude82]

Religion is our first, our worst, and our stupidest attempt to make sense of the world around us.

Evolution worked on one group of African apes, the hominids, very fast: it enlarged their brains almost instantaneously in evolutionary time.

Overnight, our ancestors woke up with large brains that asked the big questions, yet there were no answers to be found. Hence were invented the gods, spirits, fairies, demons, and other imaginary friends and foes...

The more science advances, the emptier the heavens and hells and spirit worlds become.

God's days are numbered, and the time will come when our descendants will laugh at us for fearing that ridiculous fraud like we laugh at our ancestors for believing the superstitions of their times.

[MCWAY]

Religion is our first, our worst, and our stupidest attempt to make sense of the world around us.

Evolution worked on one group of African apes, the hominids, very fast: it enlarged their brains almost instantaneously in evolutionary time.

Overnight, our ancestors woke up with large brains that asked the big questions, yet there were no answers to be found. Hence were invented the gods, spirits, fairies, demons, and other imaginary friends and foes...

The more science advances, the emptier the heavens and hells and spirit worlds become.

God's days are numbered, and the time will come when our descendants will laugh at us for fearing that ridiculous fraud like we laugh at our ancestors for believing the superstitions of their times.

That was supposed to have happened centuries ago with the so-called "Enlightenment" period. Alas, it was not to be!!

Scientific advances have hardly "numbered" the days of God. In fact, as I've been discussing on another thread, it appears that one particular scientific arena has a nifty habit of verifyiing accounts from a pesky old 66-chapter book, that skeptics once claimed didn't happen, never existed, or were fabricated.

That's why creationists are doomed.  They work backwards.  They try to fit the data to a preconceived religious conclusion. 

The same can be said of evolution, which by admission by many evolutionists (i.e. George Wald), was developed with the "preconceived" conclusion that there is no God.

[Straw Man]

Without actually adhering to a strict fundamentalist religious view - can't one have a sense of wonder and mystery and perhap even a belief in a higher order or power while still being fully grounded in our current scientific understanding of the world.

I don't see any reason for these two beliefs (again not a fundie world view) to be mutually exclusive

Personally, I believe that as our science continues to improve it will reach and offer explanations for areas that we now consider paranormal/spiritual (not religious i.e not random, moralistic rule following)

[Necrosis]

Without actually adhering to a strict fundamentalist religious view - can't one have a sense of wonder and mystery and perhap even a belief in a higher order or power while still being fully grounded in our current scientific understanding of the world.

I don't see any reason for these two beliefs (again not a fundie world view) to be mutually exclusive

Personally, I believe that as our science continues to improve it will reach and offer explanations for areas that we now consider paranormal/spiritual (not religious i.e not random, moralistic rule following)

great post, i think there is some emergent properties in the universe and do to a friends suggestion i have been reading godels incompleteness theorem which kind of leads to some central organizing principle within a system.

i think there is a reason we are alive, that is why there is something rather then nothing, i just dont think its benevolent.

[Deicide]

great post, i think there is some emergent properties in the universe and do to a friends suggestion i have been reading godels incompleteness theorem which kind of leads to some central organizing principle within a system.

i think there is a reason we are alive, that is why there is something rather then nothing, i just dont think its benevolent.

Whatever reason it might be, it cannot be inferred from the natural structure or happenings of the universe. It needs to fabricated or falsely attributed to something that simply is not the case. Perhaps we will reach a stage where this changes, based on concrete evidence, until then however, it is only wishful thinking to believe there is a purpose to the universe that is discernible to man and involves man.

[Necrosis]

Whatever reason it might be, it cannot be inferred from the natural structure or happenings of the universe. It needs to fabricated or falsely attributed to something that simply is not the case. Perhaps we will reach a stage where this changes, based on concrete evidence, until then however, it is only wishful thinking to believe there is a purpose to the universe that is discernible to man and involves man.

i agree, its certainly wishful thinking and my views on life change with the evidence or my increasing knowledge of the evidence.

i dont think man has anything to do with it, i just think existence has a reason. that reason could just be to exist in itself.

[Deicide]

The big misconception is that science and religion compete against each other, and this believe, strangly enough, is filled by people coming from both ends. Discussions like that always seem to turn out as huge constructs on a very fragile fundament. I think it's always better to build the fundament first. And this usually means simplifying the subject as far as possible.

The basic question is, does the world only consist of its scientific aspects? If the answer to this question is Yes, all religion, spirituality, philosophy, free will, consciousness, etc. is obsolete. That is because, in this case it is all just programs running in biochemical computers residing in biomechanical machines. So as soon as you say yes to that question, there is no need to debate religion anymore.

If however, your answer to that question is No, you cannot argue anymore with 'scientific evidence' vs. 'religious fantasies'. Because in this case, we are more than just our scientific representation, and thus, what we essentially are is not a subject to science at all.

Now there's an intellectual trap, many scientists fall into without noticing. They believe that scientifically they can prove that there is nothing else to the world than science. This is of course not possible since science only deals with scientific aspects in the first place.

IMO the only possible answer to the original question is No. There are many ways to show that there must be more to the world than its scientific representation. One is that in order for something to manifest, there must be 'something' by which means such existance can emerge, which itself is not part of manifested form. This is dictated by logic and simply by our language.

Welcome, Agnostic Apologist! 

[Deicide]

Care to elaborate? One thing is sure, science will and can never answer any of the substantial questions of life, like 'where do we come from'. This is not a question of time, it is a matter of principle. How should a scientific answer to that question look like?

I disagree. 'Where do we come from' is an easily answered question. We are animals, poorly evolved primates. We evolved through the same processes that all animals have. There, question answered. What you choose to do with the answer is up to you.

[Necrosis]

Care to elaborate? One thing is sure, science will and can never answer any of the substantial questions of life, like 'where do we come from'. This is not a question of time, it is a matter of principle. How should a scientific answer to that question look like?

this question is pointless really, we come from no where. its begging an answer.

[Deicide]

this question is pointless really, we come from no where. its begging an answer.

My point exactly.

For some reason people think that such questions have valid answers or even any answers at all!

Most 'why' questions are ultimately useless and unanswerable; questions are best begun with a how, not a why.

[loco]

The big misconception is that science and religion compete against each other, and this believe, strangly enough, is filled by people coming from both ends. Discussions like that always seem to turn out as huge constructs on a very fragile fundament. I think it's always better to build the fundament first. And this usually means simplifying the subject as far as possible.

The basic question is, does the world only consist of its scientific aspects? If the answer to this question is Yes, all religion, spirituality, philosophy, free will, consciousness, etc. is obsolete. That is because, in this case it is all just programs running in biochemical computers residing in biomechanical machines. So as soon as you say yes to that question, there is no need to debate religion anymore.

If however, your answer to that question is No, you cannot argue anymore with 'scientific evidence' vs. 'religious fantasies'. Because in this case, we are more than just our scientific representation, and thus, what we essentially are is not a subject to science at all.

Now there's an intellectual trap, many scientists fall into without noticing. They believe that scientifically they can prove that there is nothing else to the world than science. This is of course not possible since science only deals with scientific aspects in the first place.

IMO the only possible answer to the original question is No. There are many ways to show that there must be more to the world than its scientific representation. One is that in order for something to manifest, there must be 'something' by which means such existance can emerge, which itself is not part of manifested form. This is dictated by logic and simply by our language.

Good post!  Welcome to the board, wavelength!   

[Deicide]

Good post!  Welcome to the board, wavelength!   

The post was addressed and answered fundy.

[Deicide]

IMO this is not an answer to the question. When you try to answer the question biologically, you will always end up with the next question: Where do animals come from, etc. At some point you will end up with the question of the beginning of the universe or better, with the question of existance itself. How do you want to answer this question scientifically? All theories that are out there can never answer the final question. E.g. where did the big bang come from, etc.

However, I think we do not have to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.

You have just answered your own question.

Why questions, as I have stated, particularly those concerning existence, are useless because the answer will always have to be contrived. Start every question with a how, not a why.

Ich weiss, dass Du dies verstehst...

Warum-Fragen, wie schon gesagt, insbesondere jene, die mit menschlichem Dasein zu tun haben, sind zwecklos und ohne Antwort, da deren Antwort stets erfunden werden muss. Fang jede Frage mit einem Wie an, nicht einem Warum.

[Deicide]

This is basically the world view of the enlightenment. The basic statement is 'there is no absolute truth'. It stems from their believe that truth can only be found in science and since absolute truth can never be found there (by definition of science), it cannot be found at all.

The problem with the statement 'there is no absolute truth' is that it is self-contradictory.

We are still working within the framework that truth cannot be quantified or qualified, which in science, it can.

Die Anthropologie hat schon mehrmals die Grundlagen der Religion und deren Rolle in der Welt geklaert.

[MMC78]

e to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.

Fuck off noob!  That better?

Your arguments rests on a presumptuous assumption, namely that consciousness exists.  Why don't you define consciousness for me?  You're also falling into the classic trap of defining a god of the gaps.  We don't understand consciousness therefore it must be created by god and be beyond science...

[Deicide]

Fuck off noob!  That better?

Your arguments rests on a presumptuous assumption, namely that consciousness exists.  Why don't you define consciousness for me?  You're also falling into the classic trap of defining a god of the gaps.  We don't understand consciousness therefore it must be created by god and be beyond science...

That too....

[Deicide]

I think some disambiguation must take place here. First of all, science does not produce any truth, it produces scientific theories based on certain (always partial) models of the world. Scientific findings are of course based on 'empirical facts', which can be quantified. The scientific method is very simple and beautiful, but is restricted to producing theories about scientific aspects of the world. 

Of course, if one is content with that, that's fine. As soon as you want to go beyond these boundaries, you have no other choice than turning to philosophy or theology. IMO, as soon as you talk about things like consciousness, intelligence, ethics, God, etc., you must leave the realm of science. It is a misconception that philosophy and theology are not based on reality, the difference is just that they do not come with the stringent restrictions of natural science.

No offense but Anthropologie is as wishy-washy as a science can get. Most of the time it is a weird combination of history, biology, sociology, science and a bunch of other stuff, trying to imitate philosophy. The problem is that when you investigate religion merely in a historic or sociologic context, you are determined to miss the point in the first place.

Bei Zeus, woher kommst Du Mann!

[Deicide]

Thanks  ;DIt's a given fact that consciousness exists, simply because I know that I am conscious, which is the very definition of it. You know that you exist, don't you? Even if we argue that the world around us may or may not exist, even if it would all be just a dream, there is still a conscious entity experiencing this dream. The argument that consciousness could be an illusion is self-contradictory. That is because I must already pre-assume a conscious entity which could be tricked into thinking it is conscious.Not at all. First of all, I did not say that we don't understand consciousness. I said it cannot be explained scientifically. It can of course be tackled philosophically. And I am very well aware of the fact that this does not necessarily prove the existance of God, I never said that. But you cannot rule out the possibility by means of science.

Fuck off European scumbag!



(let's see if he will finally reveal his country of origin)....

[Deicide]

Good question 

Was ist mit der Geheimnistuerei?

Tu viens d'ou alors?!

[Deicide]

I meant the question in a holistic sense 
I am from Austria. Not that I think it matters much.

It does matter because you eat Weisswurst mit suessem Senf....and we all know what that means.....

[Deicide]

Da muss ich dich enttäuschen, das sind die Bayern. Wir fressen Wiener Schnitzel und G'selchtes mit Sauerkraut 

Gotta disapoint you there, those are the bavarians. We eat Wiener Schnitzel and cured pork with sauerkraut 
Well, OK sometimes we do eat Weisswurst, but I can't stand it.

I think now we're off-topic as far as it can get.

You are wrong...Weisswurst is integral to understanding the nature of Dasein...

[MMC78]

Thanks  ;DIt's a given fact that consciousness exists, simply because I know that I am conscious, which is the very definition of it. You know that you exist, don't you? Even if we argue that the world around us may or may not exist, even if it would all be just a dream, there is still a conscious entity experiencing this dream. The argument that consciousness could be an illusion is self-contradictory. That is because I must already pre-assume a conscious entity which could be tricked into thinking it is conscious.Not at all. First of all, I did not say that we don't understand consciousness. I said it cannot be explained scientifically. It can of course be tackled philosophically. And I am very well aware of the fact that this does not necessarily prove the existance of God, I never said that. But you cannot rule out the possibility by means of science.

We fundamentally disagree.  Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought.  That's something many non human species including computer programs can do.  You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there.  Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one.  As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus.

You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence.  In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.

My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit.  Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide.  Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.