4 ms·

You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathe

You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathematician by the way so I know the distinction). Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really. We only have models. And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly. You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means. What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed. It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does not explain anything new, but poses more questions. Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity etc. This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not interfere in it any more. And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.

think-large 14y ago
Wow, very well written. I have a lot of respect for you. Scientific models are man made abstractions on a reality that we cannot prove. You obviously put a lot of faith into those man made abstractions. To say that a theistic god is a man made invention is an assumption on who created it. That would be distinctly eliminating the possibility of alien life forms. Also you misuse Occam's Razor. It can't disprove anything without empirical data. The bible is a man-made invention. The stories in it are disseminated by men. That does not disprove that there is a God who can interact with the real world in some way or other. It just means that as scientific knowledge refines their theories so must religion. Also a few points, I'm an Aerospace Engineer. I know that there are tools that expand what our senses can observe, but they still must display information in a way that we can observe. I'm curious though, would you mind clarifying this statement. >>It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). What about a hypothesis of a deistic God makes it no longer needed? If you move away from the physical sciences into those that study the human psyche, you'll see that much is left unexplained. It could be argued (albeit blindly) that any such hypothesis is no longer needed. Natural sciences and behavioral sciences have no business explaining away each other. Religion is a behavioral science. You may deem behavioral science as superfluous, but it can't be cut away. At least not yet.
- super_mario 14y ago
  Occam's razor was never meant to prove anything. It is a principle of economy of assumptions or hypothesis. In essence it says don't assume more than you have to explain certain phenomena. This is what I mean. We now have a good idea how universe itself can come from nothing, we don't need the god hypothesis to explain that one last ultimate question (why is there something rather than nothing. There is something because something is more stable than nothing). Our ancestors certainly didn't have that knowledge and for them god seemed necessary to "explain" this. Even though such god did not really explain anything, it just shifted the question further to where did god come from. Did he spontaneously come from nothing? Did he always exist? And why can't we just forgo such hypothesis (this is where Occam's economy principle comes in) and just assume universe itself either always existed or come into being from nothing (which is what current physical theory suggests). Why posit an intelligent being capable of creating universes, which raises more questions about where did this intelligence itself come from, rather than assume the same thing about the dumb matter (i.e. universe) itself. I hope this clarifies what I meant above. This whole argument is shortened into "deistic god can neither be proved nor disproved, but we no longer need him to kick off the universe for us. We now know how that too can happen without god". However, I have nothing against deistic god. People who want to believe in deistic god will not receive any objection from me. I'm primarily gnostic (I know there is no theistic god) anti-theist (I don't think religion is a force for good in the world). Religion is not about deistic god. Religion is about people who not only know there is a god, with certainty, but they know his mind, what he wants us to do. It is this argument from certainty (which all arguments from faith are), that can easily be disproved. Note that I have not actually offered proof in my posts, the time and space and the forum itself are not the right places to do this. But I can recommend a lot of literature on this subject that go into great depth if you care to look at the evidence we do have.
  - think-large 14y ago
    I'd love to get any references you have. I enjoy learning from anyone who can keep an open mind. I do have to say that your comment about sheep herders, while funny (and accurate) was a little over the top. Deistic or Theistic, if someone doesn't suck at religion I think that they should be left alone. Especially if that leads them to give money to the poor, teach in developing nations, etc. While it can be argued that those things have negative effects I've also seen some of the good that comes from it first hand. I love this comic. I believe it sums up most of what I think about religion. The only thing I would change is the one where the father is teaching his daughter. There does need to be room for a parent to "express" belief to his children and acceptance when the children differ from the parent. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion Agnostic and atheistic beliefs can be added to the above comic as well. :-) That being said, if you see someone sucking at their religion please school them and tell them I'm asking them not to make the rest of us look bad.

think-large 14y ago

Wow, very well written. I have a lot of respect for you. Scientific models are man made abstractions on a reality that we cannot prove. You obviously put a lot of faith into those man made abstractions. To say that a theistic god is a man made invention is an assumption on who created it. That would be distinctly eliminating the possibility of alien life forms. Also you misuse Occam's Razor. It can't disprove anything without empirical data. The bible is a man-made invention. The stories in it are disseminated by men. That does not disprove that there is a God who can interact with the real world in some way or other. It just means that as scientific knowledge refines their theories so must religion. Also a few points, I'm an Aerospace Engineer. I know that there are tools that expand what our senses can observe, but they still must display information in a way that we can observe. I'm curious though, would you mind clarifying this statement. >>It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). What about a hypothesis of a deistic God makes it no longer needed? If you move away from the physical sciences into those that study the human psyche, you'll see that much is left unexplained. It could be argued (albeit blindly) that any such hypothesis is no longer needed. Natural sciences and behavioral sciences have no business explaining away each other. Religion is a behavioral science. You may deem behavioral science as superfluous, but it can't be cut away. At least not yet.

super_mario 14y ago
Occam's razor was never meant to prove anything. It is a principle of economy of assumptions or hypothesis. In essence it says don't assume more than you have to explain certain phenomena. This is what I mean. We now have a good idea how universe itself can come from nothing, we don't need the god hypothesis to explain that one last ultimate question (why is there something rather than nothing. There is something because something is more stable than nothing). Our ancestors certainly didn't have that knowledge and for them god seemed necessary to "explain" this. Even though such god did not really explain anything, it just shifted the question further to where did god come from. Did he spontaneously come from nothing? Did he always exist? And why can't we just forgo such hypothesis (this is where Occam's economy principle comes in) and just assume universe itself either always existed or come into being from nothing (which is what current physical theory suggests). Why posit an intelligent being capable of creating universes, which raises more questions about where did this intelligence itself come from, rather than assume the same thing about the dumb matter (i.e. universe) itself. I hope this clarifies what I meant above. This whole argument is shortened into "deistic god can neither be proved nor disproved, but we no longer need him to kick off the universe for us. We now know how that too can happen without god". However, I have nothing against deistic god. People who want to believe in deistic god will not receive any objection from me. I'm primarily gnostic (I know there is no theistic god) anti-theist (I don't think religion is a force for good in the world). Religion is not about deistic god. Religion is about people who not only know there is a god, with certainty, but they know his mind, what he wants us to do. It is this argument from certainty (which all arguments from faith are), that can easily be disproved. Note that I have not actually offered proof in my posts, the time and space and the forum itself are not the right places to do this. But I can recommend a lot of literature on this subject that go into great depth if you care to look at the evidence we do have.
- think-large 14y ago
  I'd love to get any references you have. I enjoy learning from anyone who can keep an open mind. I do have to say that your comment about sheep herders, while funny (and accurate) was a little over the top. Deistic or Theistic, if someone doesn't suck at religion I think that they should be left alone. Especially if that leads them to give money to the poor, teach in developing nations, etc. While it can be argued that those things have negative effects I've also seen some of the good that comes from it first hand. I love this comic. I believe it sums up most of what I think about religion. The only thing I would change is the one where the father is teaching his daughter. There does need to be room for a parent to "express" belief to his children and acceptance when the children differ from the parent. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion Agnostic and atheistic beliefs can be added to the above comic as well. :-) That being said, if you see someone sucking at their religion please school them and tell them I'm asking them not to make the rest of us look bad.