TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Science vs Religion round #8397

Go To

BlueChameleon Unknown from Unknown Since: Nov, 2010
Unknown
#151: Jul 27th 2011 at 2:27:22 PM

Sorry, another thought occurred to me when revisiting your reply. It intrigued me.

> "Personal experience and lack of counter-evidence are considered a good argument for a great many things that lots of people accept. Free Will, True Love, Universal Standards of Artistic Merit, Inner Beauty, and a whole host of other things, all of which are characterized by being subjective, not objective, sets of beliefs."

1. The fact that lots of people accept them is not in itself proof of their validity. It also doesn’t help your case that the things you chose are either controversial or, sooner or later, objectively based.

2. The controversial one is Free Will, a weighty topic in its own right. Compatibilism and Determinism are things that many people accept, too. Not a lot, it has to be said, but enough to make one cautious about being decisive.

3. And Universal Standards of Artistic Merit and Inner Beauty – I presume you mean aesthetic appreciation. It is subjective in the sense that what one person calls beautiful someone else calls hideous and a third person has no feeling either way. But it is also objective in that I could, in theory if not in practice, study their brains and find the differences between them.

4. As for True Love: > "If you could comprehensively map out and explain in neurological terms the experience of falling in love, would that make the experience any less "true" (before you answer, consider what people mean by "true" in that context)."

I honestly do not understand what you mean here. What meaning of “true” is this you are referring to? Genuine? Not false? Realistic? Love is love. I can fake love by acting a certain way. I could take drugs that mimic the physiological features of love. The reason it ain't genuine is because my brain isn't thinking "I'm in love with X". You need all three to have "true love".

edited 27th Jul '11 3:07:06 PM by BlueChameleon

deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#152: Jul 27th 2011 at 2:41:15 PM

aagh, I leave for a day and I go and get misinterpreted.

I dislike the "God did it" explanation because it's self-proving. It's not something anyone can respond to, prove, or disprove. Any situation in which you could say "God did it" you could replace equally with "a wizard did it."

My point is, saying "everything is the way it is is because God did it!" is not an argument. I might as well respond by saying "bibble ibble dibble ding."

You don't start with the assumption that your interpretation is correct, and then make arguments that only work if your interpretation is correct. That's not how discussions work.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#153: Jul 27th 2011 at 2:59:49 PM

@BC: Before moving on, I want to make the important distinction between arguments intended to convince someone else, and explaining one's beliefs so that if the other still isn't convinced, they at least know you aren't being irrational. My goal is the second one. I don't believe in trying to convert people. Either they feel the presence of something spiritual in the world, or they don't. If they don't, you have about as much chance of convincing them to change their minds as you would of convincing a blind person to suddenly see.

Bottom line- you should be skeptical. Now then...

"Why Not" I must be missing something. I dont see how what the scientists in your scenario did would affect how the High Furies interpret their traditions.

"But how can I take it on trust if someone else then claims the opposite? Am I supposed to take their testimony on trust as well? How do I resolve the contradiction?"

Well, since we are talking about subjective beliefs anyway, you should trust your own introspection. If your inner experiences differ from mine, you should be trusting your own, not mine, or anyone else's. And if they tell you that nothing exists but the material universe, then so be it.

"1. The fact that lots of people accept them is not in itself proof of their validity. Supposing psychologists who studied people in group tasks found that the majority tend to get the questions wrong repeatedly?"

I'm not sure how psychologists could conclude that the subjective values and beliefs of a group of people are "wrong." Everyone is right regarding how they feel. Provided your beliefs have no implication for phenomena in the external material world "validity" seems the wrong concept to apply.

"2. The controversial one is Free Will, a weighty topic in its own right. Compatibilism and Determinism are things that many people accept, too. Not a lot, it has to be said, but enough to make one cautious about being decisive."

Caution is all very well and good, but there are critics who reject theism out of hand, as being inherently irrational. My point is that belief in God is no more irrational than belief in Free Will (although the two do not necessarily go together).

"3. And Universal Standards of Artistic Merit and Inner Beauty – I presume you mean aesthetic appreciation. It is subjective in the sense that what one person calls beautiful someone else calls hideous and a third person has no feeling either way. But it is also objective in that I could, in theory if not in practice, study their brains and find the differences between them."

Heh, that wont be very convincing to some professional artists I know. Just because you can find the neurological source of an experience, says nothing about where that experience ultimately comes from. Many people are convinced that artistic standards exist outside of any human mind (I'm not one of them).

The "True Love" thing is just an extension of that. People believe that their love exists in some sense outside of themselves. Not as some material phenomenon that could be studied by science, but nevertheless independently.

"If you could comprehensively map out and explain in electronics terms the workings of a radio, would that make the transmission any less “true” (before you answer, consider what people mean by "true" in that context)."

Ha. Very interesting. The answer is "No", because the radio isn't the source of the transmission. It's only acting as a translating device between electronic and audible phenomena. If I claimed something similar was happening with the "God mechanism" in the brain, what would your reply be? We cant independently detect the "spiritual radio waves" without using the brain, so we appear to be back where we started.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
BlueChameleon Unknown from Unknown Since: Nov, 2010
Unknown
#154: Jul 27th 2011 at 3:36:07 PM

Phew ... I don't know about you, but I'm getting a headache. Don't get me wrong, I like this discussion, but this is starting to delve into philosophy, and I find that tricky at the best of times.

Oh, and I also edited my response earlier. Sorry - you quoted a bit of it I got rid of. My fault - I was trying to trim my original post down because even I was starting not to like my own long posts.

I don't believe in trying to convert people. Either they feel the presence of something spiritual in the world, or they don't. If they don't, you have about as much chance of convincing them to change their minds as you would of convincing a blind person to suddenly see. Bottom line- you should be skeptical.

I'm going to not take that blind-person metaphor too literally and just assume you were trying to find a useful analogy, because I don't think you meant it in the perjorative sense it often evokes. But otherwise thanks for making it clear.

I must be missing something. I dont see how what the scientists in your scenario did would affect how the High Furies interpret their traditions.

Oh, in my hypothetical case it didn't. But it could have done. For example, some of the High Furies might have said "you know what, now I think of it, I never thought there really was a realm of fury in the first place". It's like learning; it was an opportunity to reconsider their interpretation.

Well, since we are talking about subjective beliefs anyway, you should trust your own introspection. If your inner experiences differ from mine, you should be trusting your own, not mine, or anyone else's. And if they tell you that nothing exists but the material universe, then so be it.

OK, I think I see now. You mean that part of us that doesn't get shared with others, like an inner self or something? I still feel a bit insecure about it, though. I mean, suppose for instance I've been wrong this whole time and there really is a spiritual realm? Supposing I am who I am today because everything in the universe was arranged to shape me into that kind of person? Put like that, I don't know how far I can trust my introspection. Isn't it limited? sad

I do think, though, that values and experience do not stand outside of the material universe. Life doesn't stand apart from bodies. They are one and the same. Values and experience are like personal relationships. They have a material basis, but emerge out of that; the material basis can't be separated from it except in our language.

Sorry, this is an inadequate response, I admit it, but I'm going to take a break right now and give my eyes a rest. If you post a reply, I can answer it later or tomorrow - just don't expect a quick reply, OK?

edited 27th Jul '11 3:43:26 PM by BlueChameleon

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#155: Jul 27th 2011 at 6:01:38 PM

This has been a productive conversation, and more open and respectful that these kind of discussions often are. Thanks for being very understanding. I'll just sum up a little by asking if we agree that the validity of faith in God cannot be tested by science, and making predictions about the material world isn't the business of religion? Since we do want to stay on topic.

Sorry about the "blind" part, I wasn't trying to disparage your perceptive abilities. It's a metaphore I often use with some of the more... aggressive atheists. I should have used a different one with you.

"You mean that part of us that doesn't get shared with others, like an inner self or something? I still feel a bit insecure about it, though. I mean, suppose for instance I've been wrong this whole time and there really is a spiritual realm? Supposing I am who I am today because everything in the universe was arranged to shape me into that kind of person? Put like that, I don't know how far I can trust my introspection. Isn't it limited?"

Yes, it is. It's also all we have. Just remember that there really is no "wrong" when it comes to inner experiences. You may learn more about yourself through introspection, you may refine your feelings or develop more sophisticated attitudes over time, but at the end of the day, you feel what you feel, and there isn't any point in trying to feel something that isn't there. I certainly don't believe that God, if there is one, is going to punish someone for an honest mistake. It may even be what you are meant to believe. But in any case, we have little choice but to trust ourselves.

edited 27th Jul '11 6:02:01 PM by DeMarquis

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#156: Jul 27th 2011 at 7:05:09 PM

Hope this hasn't already been covered in the first 75 posts . . .

I believe that religion is best understood as a part of philosophy. Philosophy cannot say "the real world is like this"—only observation can. Philosophy instead says what the real world should be like, and what we should do to make it that way.

With religion comes at least some obligation to follow certain rules. These may or may not be the same rules that an atheist follows, as what helps in a hypothetical world to come may do harm in this world. I cannot ask any religious individual to act solely in terms of what does the most good in this world. Aren't I therefore obligated to at least try to change their minds, so as to get them to work towards good in this world?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#157: Jul 27th 2011 at 9:41:24 PM

Why does everyone assume that science and the belief in a higher power have to be mutually exclusive?

If my impending graduation is any indication, they don't tongue

Because it is so much more awesome to say "This apparently random set of equations describe everything", rater than "God put all of this together deliberately just for us."

Basically, it spoils the awesome if someone designed the Marigolds.

God being there spoils it. A computer processor isn't as impressive as a cell, is it?

From an atheist stance, the cell just sort of bumbled its way into existence over millions of years of sheer statistical chance. The processor is something we got working damn well ourselves in a matter of tens of years.

From the theist stance, an awesome dude constructed and set into motion the most epic machine ever and holy shit look at this thing over here, how do you come up with this?.

What's the point of $20bn particle accelerators when you can just ask Him?

Because having a particle accelerator is still awesome, of course. There's a difference between reading an answer, and seeing it for oneself. And even when all is said and done and the scientists are finally bored of crashing particles together, someone will use the thing to play the Tetris theme with exploding antimatter.

edited 27th Jul '11 9:43:56 PM by Pykrete

BlueChameleon Unknown from Unknown Since: Nov, 2010
Unknown
#158: Jul 28th 2011 at 1:59:04 AM

@De Marquis: This has been an insightful conversation for me, I must say. Thank you very much.smile

Yes, you are right. To be honest, given the subjectivity we were talking about, I think religion as one person's private matter is fine. Even with going to church and similar social gatherings, I guess it's more like an art-appreciation society in some respects, where people with common views and interests can come together and enjoy each others' company. Besides, if we're going to be open minded, the best way to go about it is to give ourselves and each other the information, as much as possible, and then let each other come to our own conclusions, whatever we choose. Not by force or by trickery, but by open discussion. When it comes to our own interpretations, of course. I'd feel a little uneasy if real world facts and things like the planet, animals and disease were treated the same way.

Sorry about the "blind" part, I wasn't trying to disparage your perceptive abilities. It's a metaphore I often use with some of the more... aggressive atheists. I should have used a different one with you.

That's alright. I see what you mean. We are kind of blind when it comes to each other's viewpoints for the simple fact that we can never be sure about other people's experiences, so perhaps it was more appropriate than you think.

Yes, it is. It's also all we have. Just remember that there really is no "wrong" when it comes to inner experiences ... at the end of the day, you feel what you feel, and there isn't any point in trying to feel something that isn't there. I certainly don't believe that God, if there is one, is going to punish someone for an honest mistake. It may even be what you are meant to believe. But in any case, we have little choice but to trust ourselves.

It makes a lot of sense when you put it like that, even kind of tautologous (in a good way, of course!). We know what we know, we feel what we feel.

@ feotakahari I believe that religion is best understood as a part of philosophy. Philosophy cannot say "the real world is like this"—only observation can. Philosophy instead says what the real world should be like, and what we should do to make it that way.

Yeah, I kept thinking religion was a subset of philosophy. Science is a subset of philosophy, too. It can't proceed unless it takes certain assumptions as true, like valuing evidence, observation, parsimony, Ockham's Razor etc. That's not a bad thing, of course, and I don't mean that you should dismiss it on these grounds - it's proven to be a very successful branch of philosophy, and of course it's possible to get bad philosophy as well as good - there are some philosophies that make more sense or are more practical than others. I think philosophy is more about trying to get past the obvious and trying not to take things for granted, even if it does make my head spin at times.

edited 28th Jul '11 2:02:43 AM by BlueChameleon

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#159: Jul 28th 2011 at 5:10:04 AM

@Pykrete: and the atheist/agnostic stance on it is more interesting to me. Wanna know why?

the fact that its such a low chance for something like basic cellular formation to occur, yet that given how vast the universe is, it was inevitably going to happen, along with the idea that organisms themselves can improve and vary themselves over generations, is an absolutely amazing testamant to just how lucky humanity got, and to just how amazing the laws of physics are.

Throw God in, and suddenly everything only works because he says so, and therefore stops working the second he gets bored with them working that way. To a Theist, science is interesting because they get to appreciate what their God did. To someone who isnt a true believer, Throwing God in tends to mean that the rules are arbitrary and theres suddenly far less reason to research if the rules could theoretically change at any time.

edited 28th Jul '11 5:11:54 AM by Midgetsnowman

Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#160: Jul 28th 2011 at 11:25:41 AM

Hooray. I finally get an explanation. One that still makes no sense to me, but hey it's all I've got.

I am not certain as to why the rules being arbitrary means that there is less reason to study things...Then again I feel that, for myself, the primary reason to study anything at all is "Because I can" and "It amuses me to do so". So I will end up doing things like watching people in the mall just to learn about these random strangers even though this information is entirely useless.

Because I can.

Though I guess you could use it for writing or acting or some such, but...Stuff.

I feel that the rules being things that can just be arbitrarily changed on us gives me more incentive and reason to study things. It might be gone tomorrow. I should study all of it now even if it's pointless and just gets wiped from existence. The fragility of the thing makes it that much more precious and that much more interesting to dive into. Because I must learn and study for the simple act of learning and studying.

Also I am bothered by agnostic being tacked onto atheism like that...The agnostic polytheist in me cries out in protest to this. Even though my gods are more like sufficiently advanced aliens and even though the vast majority of them don't care about humanity at all.

Why should they? They have god orgies to attend and wars of their own to fight. If you were a powerful being of some other species would you really give a damn about humanity and be treating them as the most important things in the universe? More than likely the answer is no.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#161: Jul 28th 2011 at 7:23:00 PM

I've been watching this "God makes the universe less interesting" discussion and I find it somewhat ironic. It reminds me of several "Materialism gives you no reason to find meaning in life" discussions where atheists declare that they can find meaning in a materialistic universe quite easily, thank you. Is this the same thing, in reverse? Theists can find reasons to study phenomena scientifically just fine even if, theoretically, God could just change the laws of nature any time he wants to. The fact is that over billions of years, as near as we can determine, he never has. So study away my friends, God made the universe lawful and predictable.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#162: Jul 28th 2011 at 7:38:25 PM

I've been watching the argument with mild annoyance, since I think it's a bit silly and it seemed to spring from a comment I made. It is, basically, the reverse of the classic "if you're a materialist, how can you find meaning in the universe?" argument, which is dumb because anyone can find any meaning they so choose.

Blue Chameleon and De Marquis discussion was much more interesting, but I admit I haven't sat down to read all of it in detail just yet. Perhaps I will now.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
Blurring One just might from one hill away to the regular Bigfoot jungle. Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
One just might
#163: Jul 28th 2011 at 8:45:30 PM

@deathjavu

I must admit that I made a bad argument. I do believe however, disproving God through science is pointless because in my opinion it is made with a faulty assumption of God's nature.

edited 28th Jul '11 8:55:57 PM by Blurring

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#164: Jul 28th 2011 at 8:54:30 PM

[up]

Disproving God through science is impossible anyhow.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#165: Jul 29th 2011 at 3:32:15 AM

[up]Yes and no.

Technically, if a god (thise means any god) exist and can be observed by scientific means and fits into definitions of "god", science can prove that a god exist. This, however, moves said god from "matter of faith" to "fact of reality", where upon question is not "do you believe in God". In this case, question should be "do you believe that God is the ultimate authority in universe".

Then it goes to philosophy whenever god is a god anymore.

edited 29th Jul '11 3:32:44 AM by Mandemo

BlueChameleon Unknown from Unknown Since: Nov, 2010
Unknown
#166: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:42:23 AM

@ deathjavu: I've been watching the argument with mild annoyance, since I think it's a bit silly and it seemed to spring from a comment I made. It is, basically, the reverse of the classic "if you're a materialist, how can you find meaning in the universe?" argument, which is dumb because anyone can find any meaning they so choose.

I have to admit, that "purposeless materialist" gibe is something I don't like to see in discussions. It's as if the people on one side want the other side to be miserable.

@ Mandemo: Technically, if a god (thise means any god) exist and can be observed by scientific means and fits into definitions of "god", science can prove that a god exist. This, however, moves said god from "matter of faith" to "fact of reality", where upon question is not "do you believe in God". In this case, question should be "do you believe that God is the ultimate authority in universe".

Pretty much what you said.

edited 29th Jul '11 11:44:15 AM by BlueChameleon

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#167: Jul 29th 2011 at 6:04:22 PM

My point was that if the only direct connection God has to the universe is through the internal experience of believers then science still cant test it.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
BlueChameleon Unknown from Unknown Since: Nov, 2010
Unknown
#168: Jul 30th 2011 at 2:38:36 AM

[up] That holds very well until someone claims it can go further and actually influence the world.

Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#169: Jul 30th 2011 at 6:10:02 AM

I believe "Science can't test it" claims are weak. Let's go back, how about 200 years? Now say "atoms exist". Someone says "you can't prove it". Now we can prove it. As science marches on, more and more accurate methods and more ways to measure something are invented. Whenver it will be ever possible to measure the internal experience of believers, is another. Science can't measure them now, but what can we know about 200 years into future?

Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#170: Jul 30th 2011 at 10:32:41 AM

[up] "Atoms exist" could be and always could be tested. If Brownian motion was pointed out to the Ancient Greeks, they'd probably arrive at material atomic theory. (Though not the atomic theory of chemistry, that's more complicated.) Science isn't just valid on Earth; it's valid through all of space and time, and the only reason we didn't have it in the past is because nobody had had the idea/prerequisites. tongue

[up][up][up] This idea can be tested simply by working through what constitutes an "experience" via reductionist science. You're going to hit God if and only if you find that experience is something other than layered computation.

edited 30th Jul '11 2:04:30 PM by Yej

Signed Always Right Since: Dec, 2009
Always Right
#171: Jul 30th 2011 at 12:38:44 PM

I believe "Science can't test it" claims are weak. Let's go back, how about 200 years? Now say "atoms exist". Someone says "you can't prove it". Now we can prove it. As science marches on, more and more accurate methods and more ways to measure something are invented. Whenver it will be ever possible to measure the internal experience of believers, is another. Science can't measure them now, but what can we know about 200 years into future?

Technically people did manage to "prove" the exist of atoms even a long time ago. Only difference is the proof isn't as strong and obvious(MICROSCOPES!) as it is now.

There are all sorts of models and theories that relied on the existence of atoms.

Now trying to scientifically prove the existence of an all powerful fairy that created anything and everything...is a whole another story. Whether something like that exists or not means very little when it can't even be physically tested, with models or other methods.

edited 30th Jul '11 12:39:42 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#172: Jul 30th 2011 at 2:51:04 PM

it can't even be physically tested with models

This statement seems suspect to me, although I can't say exactly why.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Mandemo Since: Apr, 2010
#173: Jul 31st 2011 at 1:48:45 AM

[up][up]Indeed, people had "proven" atoms, but my point was that the hard evidence was missing. people relied on it, unable to give 100% proof. Same with belief of a god. People rely on the fact that he/she/it must exist and have some proof(internal experiences, holy books etc.) but hard solid evidence is lacking.

I can't say we will or not find proof of god, but it is possible that if said god exist and can be observed by any means, it is possible for one day to produce scientific evidence of said god. Which bring back question "is said god ultimate authority in the universe?"

Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#174: Jul 31st 2011 at 4:03:25 AM

IMO, the answer to that is a clear no. The ultimate authority in the universe is mathematic modelling. tongue

edited 31st Jul '11 4:03:36 AM by Yej

Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#175: Jul 31st 2011 at 5:35:45 AM

[up][up]

The problem starts at "how do you observe something that lives outside the bounds of reality as we can perceive it?"


Total posts: 304
Top