4 ms·

>Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant

>Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Well, we're going a little too deep in mixing trivial examples with significant real-world issues, which I think, beyond a certain point, just gets us off track. Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. Now, your evidence is evolving and is incomplete. In fact, scientific evidence has been overturned by more evidence. There have even been cases wherein the Bible was presumed wrong, but later corroborated by archaeological evidence. The state of science hadn't yet caught up to the reality that the Bible had already documented. And, suffice it to say, there are many scientists who, at a certain point, draw the conclusion that there is some sort of intelligent design behind our universe. Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. There are also fundamental, observable laws of physics that must be broken in order to accommodate a spontaneous eruption of the universe. That is, accepted science contradicts itself. In some cases, the science is predicated upon assumptions that cannot yet be proven. That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved. All of this to say that taking a position of assuredness in one's belief in something in the face of incomplete knowledge is the same, irrespective of some subjective measure of "degree of evidence" that one side or the other would like to impose. Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right. Likewise, subjecting to ridicule those whose beliefs don't align with your own is short-sighted and destructive on either side. In my opinion, the scientist's mind remains open until conclusive proof is in. Now, you may choose not to believe in Islam or Christianity, etc. because you have no proof of their truth. But, the most you can say about them is there's not enough evidence to convince you. You simply cannot conclude that they are wrong if you are applying those same "laws" of evidence to which you subscribe.

tomp 12y ago
> Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. [...] Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evidence to disclaim their belief, just as I don't need evidence to disclaim the belief of unicorns; the person making a proposition should present a proof. Edit: Mind you, I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. Basically: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. > That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved. No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Even gravity is not "proven"; it's only "demonstrated" to such a degree that we reasonably believe it's foolish to believe anything else. > Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right. This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? There is no "they" who could be "right"; there are different fractions of people, having different, incompatible but equally irrational beliefs (Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, Hindu god(s), ...). Each of these theories could be true, and if one is true all others are necessarily false (including atheism). Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >There is no compelling evidence Compelling, of course, is a subjective word. So, you mean to say that there is no evidence that compels you. But, certainly, you are aware of eyewitness accounts of, say, Jesus' life and work, as well as archaeological evidence. You can choose not to be compelled by the evidence, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. And, you obviously cannot claim that it fails to compel others. >I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. It's pretty stunning that, to your mind, nothing exists unless it can be proven. Again, I take you back to that trite and cliche notion that you cannot prove your own existence. Alone, that statement would be pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I say this here only because the utter paucity in what any of us knows should undermine your confidence in imposing your own beliefs at least somewhat? But, keeping it to the physical world, you are arguing, essentially, that you can explain (or prove) each and every thing that you observe. >No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Measurements are mere interpretations of what is "demonstrated". There is faith in science the moment we draw a conclusion predicated upon something that we cannot fully explain, but can only observe. In fact, religion itself has served this very role for millennia. Some of our most accepted and consequential theories (e.g. Big Bang itself) are predicated on things that we cannot yet explain. In fact, we make "allowances" for some of these things that are themselves yet proven. Yeah, it's the best scientific explanation we have so far. But, I think it's a bit presumptuous to go bashing people over the head with it. >This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? Well, I wonder, if you allow that any God created the universe, whether the discussion about which God dissolve into pure meaninglessness? That is, if you acknowledge the existence of a God that created the Universe (and you), then are you really in a position to quibble about God's nature if you're not willing to consider the "evidence" from those who claim to know? But, any one of these, all of these, or none of these could be correct. There could be some truth that reconciles all of these, as much as some unknown about dark matter or gravity or time could unify physics. >Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false. Yeah, I think I may have come across one of the most famous "mental tricks" in the world from time-to-time! Seriously, it actually has an interesting history with regard to religion and its namesake, who was actually a Christian. You should look it up.

tomp 12y ago

> Here's the main point: there are large groups of people who believe in something for which they believe there is compelling evidence. You disagree with them, based on your evidence. [...] Their belief is derived in full weight of and respect for the scientific evidence. No. There is no compelling evidence; there is even less scientific evidence (if you believe the contrary, please present it). And I don't need evidence to disclaim their belief, just as I don't need evidence to disclaim the belief of unicorns; the person making a proposition should present a proof. Edit: Mind you, I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. Basically: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. > That is, there is a measure of something akin to faith involved. No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Even gravity is not "proven"; it's only "demonstrated" to such a degree that we reasonably believe it's foolish to believe anything else. > Your certainty that they are wrong is exactly as valid as their certainty that they are right. This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? There is no "they" who could be "right"; there are different fractions of people, having different, incompatible but equally irrational beliefs (Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, Hindu god(s), ...). Each of these theories could be true, and if one is true all others are necessarily false (including atheism). Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>There is no compelling evidence Compelling, of course, is a subjective word. So, you mean to say that there is no evidence that compels you. But, certainly, you are aware of eyewitness accounts of, say, Jesus' life and work, as well as archaeological evidence. You can choose not to be compelled by the evidence, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. And, you obviously cannot claim that it fails to compel others. >I fully believe that unicorns could exist. But if you claim they do exist, I will call you on your bullshit, and demand you present a proof. It's pretty stunning that, to your mind, nothing exists unless it can be proven. Again, I take you back to that trite and cliche notion that you cannot prove your own existence. Alone, that statement would be pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but I say this here only because the utter paucity in what any of us knows should undermine your confidence in imposing your own beliefs at least somewhat? But, keeping it to the physical world, you are arguing, essentially, that you can explain (or prove) each and every thing that you observe. >No, you don't understand science. There is not faith. There are only measurements. Measurements are mere interpretations of what is "demonstrated". There is faith in science the moment we draw a conclusion predicated upon something that we cannot fully explain, but can only observe. In fact, religion itself has served this very role for millennia. Some of our most accepted and consequential theories (e.g. Big Bang itself) are predicated on things that we cannot yet explain. In fact, we make "allowances" for some of these things that are themselves yet proven. Yeah, it's the best scientific explanation we have so far. But, I think it's a bit presumptuous to go bashing people over the head with it. >This is the other part of my argument; even if we assume that the universe and everything in it was created by God, the question is, which God? Well, I wonder, if you allow that any God created the universe, whether the discussion about which God dissolve into pure meaninglessness? That is, if you acknowledge the existence of a God that created the Universe (and you), then are you really in a position to quibble about God's nature if you're not willing to consider the "evidence" from those who claim to know? But, any one of these, all of these, or none of these could be correct. There could be some truth that reconciles all of these, as much as some unknown about dark matter or gravity or time could unify physics. >Occam's Razor, a mental trick commonly applied in science, suggests that all religions are false. Yeah, I think I may have come across one of the most famous "mental tricks" in the world from time-to-time! Seriously, it actually has an interesting history with regard to religion and its namesake, who was actually a Christian. You should look it up.