All I'm saying is that the current trend of science, which has always been the trend of science, is an increase in general human knowledge and understanding. Never has this knowledge or understanding provided a supernatural explanation, but only a natural one.
Alright, not to nitpick (...ok, yes, to nitpick), but I see this argument made a little too frequently by my fellow atheists, either as a straw man or as something usable as such by our opposition. Science has never come to a supernatural conclusion because science cannot come to a supernatural conclusion. Even in the days when scientists were, by and large, god-fearing and devoutly religious, they recognized this. Any supernatural conclusion is, um, well...supernatural, i.e. existing outside nature, and thus not addressable by science. This does not disprove the supernatural, and even scientists can only have opinions about things which are not falsifiable.
That being said, in response to the main point of the OP, get the fuck off the intelligent design thing. If you have a gnostic viewpoint on it, then just say as much. ID is and has always been more of a political tool than a philosophy. By casting in your lot with those assholes and lunatics you make people less likely to take you seriously (make no mistake, the vast majority of people educated enough to think about it hold these people in very low regard). Yes, I know it's ad hominem, but it's also human nature. On the other hand, if you're a new earth creationist, I can only gape at you, and look flabbergasted. Also, the use of the term theory to encompass both evolution and ID in the same sentence has absolutely got to stop. Seriously. Now. Keep it up, and I'll kick you off my Internet.
Alright, not to nitpick (...ok, yes, to nitpick), but I see this argument made a little too frequently by my fellow atheists, either as a straw man or as something usable as such by our opposition. Science has never come to a supernatural conclusion because sciencecannotcome to a supernatural conclusion. Even in the days when scientists were, by and large, god-fearing and devoutly religious, they recognized this. Any supernatural conclusion is, um, well...supernatural, i.e. existing outside nature, and thus not addressable by science. This does not disprove the supernatural, and even scientists can only have opinions about things which are not falsifiable.
Exactly. Science exists only in the natural world; if anything were to exist outisde of that realm, there is inherently no way for the scientific method to evaluate its existence or lack thereof.
Again, science has its limits. You cannot evaluate every argument in a scientific fashion.
Alright, not to nitpick (...ok, yes, to nitpick), but I see this argument made a little too frequently by my fellow atheists, either as a straw man or as something usable as such by our opposition. Science has never come to a supernatural conclusion because sciencecannotcome to a supernatural conclusion. Even in the days when scientists were, by and large, god-fearing and devoutly religious, they recognized this. Any supernatural conclusion is, um, well...supernatural, i.e. existing outside nature, and thus not addressable by science. This does not disprove the supernatural, and even scientists can only have opinions about things which are not falsifiable.
Exactly. Science exists only in the natural world; if anything were to exist outside of that realm, there is inherently no way for the scientific method to evaluate its existence or lack thereof.
Again, science has its limits. You cannot evaluate every argument in a scientific fashion.
That's true, but it's also slightly misleading.
If someone has supernatural telekinesis powers, we couldn't use the scientific method to figure out how their telekinesis works. The workings of the telekinesis are, supposedly, entirely within the supernatural realm. That is a realm we can not observe, and where all the science we know is thrown out the window.
However, we can use the scientific method to detect the effects of the telekinesis in the natural world. We can tell someone to use their telekinesis to make some rocks float. If the rocks float, we can attempt to detect the force which causes the rocks to float, or appear to float. If we are unable to scientifically identify a natural force at work, that leaves open the possibility of the existence of a supernatural force.
We will never be able to say for sure, with science, what that supernatural force is, how it works or if it even exists. Using science all we can do is detect whether or not there is a possibility of a supernatural force affecting the natural world. So far, in every case where someone has supposedly found a supernatural force at work, science has discovered a natural explanation. If you can break that trend, you are eligible for the grand prize of one million US dollars.
However, we can use the scientific method to detect the effects of the telekinesis in the natural world.
There is a very basic assumption you're making in that statement: that a force with supernatural effects would effect the natural world in, well, a natural way. If we've gone so far as to say that a power exists in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to assume that it would affect the world in a way that you could observe naturally.
In other words, claims of the supernatural must always be left to speculation, because there really is no way to test them. Science doesn't even pay attention to these things. Now, if someone tries to prove that they have telekinetic powers scientifically, you can go ahead and tear their research apart, because it's wrong. That, however, does not defeat the idea itself, because the idea itself is untestable. All you can do is beat down people that try to show it to be testable.
However, we can use the scientific method to detect the effects of the telekinesis in the natural world.
There is a very basic assumption you're making in that statement: that a force with supernatural effects would effect the natural world in, well, a natural way. If we've gone so far as to say that a power exists in a supernatural realm, there is no reason to assume that it would affect the world in a way that you could observe naturally.
In other words, claims of the supernatural must always be left to speculation, because there really is no way to test them. Science doesn't even pay attention to these things. Now, if someone tries to prove that they have telekinetic powers scientifically, you can go ahead and tear their research apart, because it's wrong. That, however, does not defeat the idea itself, because the idea itself is untestable. All you can do is beat down people that try to show it to be testable.
If someone makes a specific supernatural claim that involves some sort of effect on the natural world, like moving physical objects, you can test to see if those objects physically move. You can also test to see if those objects are moving due to already explained natural forces or if there are natural illusions at work. If you find natural forces or illusions at work you can completely shoot down any suggestion of telekinesis at work.
Just like Rym's news about the magic water from the tree. People thought that there was magic water coming from the tree. A simple investigation found the water was coming from a pipe. Therefore, the water was not coming from some magical source. You can't test magic, but you can find nature which displaces the possibility of magic. The exception is, of course, when the magic has no effect on the natural world. In those cases it doesn't matter whether or not the magic exists or not, because it doesn't do anything.
My 2 cents: anything you define to be "undetectable" or "supernatural" is, by your definition, unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be evaluated by science. I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster relies heavily on this.
If someone makes a specific supernatural claim that involves some sort of effect on the natural world, like moving physical objects, you can test to see if those objects physically move. You can also test to see if those objects are moving due to already explained natural forces or if there are natural illusions at work. If you find natural forces or illusions at work you can completely shoot down any suggestion of telekinesis at work.
If someone makes a claim that something they cause to happen in the natural world has demonstrably supernatural causes, they're an idiot, plain and simple. However, at some point in a discussion like this, it becomes necessary to define what a miracle is. Is it a miracle if a bush catches fire and starts talking to you? Maybe...check behind the bush. Is it a miracle if, after losing all your money to a con-artist preacher, you find a winning lottery ticket on the street? That's a more interesting question.
Non-religious folk will say "no, it's just dumb luck," but some religious types will be inclined to say that it is; that their deity caused the highly improbable to happen in their benefit. Of course, these views are not entirely contradictory. I still have (somewhere) my College Physics textbook which, in the introduction, hedges its bets against offending fundamentalists by saying "Science answers the question of 'how', religion answers the question of 'why'." So long as both fields stay within those lines, religion and science do not have to run afoul of each other. Of course, fundies screaming for literal interpretation of Genesis and atheists using the same interpretations to say the Christian bible contradicts fact will probably exist until one group or the other disappears, but we few enlightened scholars and message-board zealots can, hopefully, keep this distinction in mind.
The fact is, when science and religion are kept within their respective domains, further knowledge of the universe will only bolster both groups: Deists and Theists will see more evidence of the power and wonder of their god-concept, and scientists will see even more questions to answer.
Oh, and, to at least give a nod to the original topic...Intelligent Design is especially foul as a belief system, because it uses [bad|junk|voodoo|pseudo] science to attempt to "debunk" actual, real science. This sort of thing teaches people that the search for knowledge of the natural world is not only futile, but counter-productive...a dangerous falsehood, to say the least, and a wonderful example of what happens when religion oversteps its bounds.
Aren't miracles just things that can't be explained by science yet?
I mean, 200 years ago television would have been considered witchcraft and Rupert Murdoch would have been burned at the stake. One day I'm sure someone will find that some events of telekinesis or telepathy were bona fide and caused by excess tachyon emissions or some shit.
Aren't miracles just things that can't be explained by science yet? I mean, 200 years ago television would have been considered witchcraft and Rupert Murdoch would have been burned at the stake. One day I'm sure someone will find that some events of telekinesis or telepathy were bona fide and caused by excess tachyon emissions or some shit.
That sort of explaination is an example of religion filling a role it shouldn't. The reason fundies fear science is exactly that they use it to fill in the gaps in their knowledge, and science takes away the "margins" in which their "faith" exists. Since their beliefs are static, they feel challenged when these things happen. If, instead, they used religion as a compass and a motivation to, oh, say, be good to each other (that is, to behave in a christ-like fashion), they'd not be threatened by any "encroachment" of science. The real problem for these people, however, is that their "faith," well, isn't. They need absolute, easy to digest factoids they can regurgitate against an enemy that they need to exist in order to give reason to their existence.
</rant>
No, miracles are not simply the unexplained of whatever era you happen to exist in. Those are just unknowns. I'm finding this position harder and harder to justify, since I don't believe in miracles of any sort, but any faith that uses the holes in science to explain itself, or relies on argumentum ad ignorantiam is destined to run into problems as that ignorance disappears. To answer succinctly, no, unknowns are not miracles, and people who believe they are are wrong, and substituting willful ignorance for faith.
It's so nice living in a country that is 99 percent christian free! Although the altruism of the many Christians is awesome, and I believe religion has helped a lot of people out... it's really just made up lies from a past generations by people who want to control each other and stay in control.
The REALLY scary thing is that life is just this strange electrical exchanges happening in our brains and one day it will stop and we will die. What will happen after is a complete mystery which may never be solved, and I don't really want the suprise to be ruined. (Although most likely from what I can ascertain from experiences, it will be a lot like before I was born, which was absolutely nothing.)
My biblical texts are Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Monty Python stuff. Go on believing in what you believe in, cause it probably just doesn't matter that much in the end. The only thing I'm against is people not living their lives the fullest, and people not allowing other people to do the same.
If, instead, they used religion as a compass and a motivation to, oh, say, be good to each other (that is, to behave in a christ-like fashion), they'd not be threatened by any "encroachment" of science. The real problem for these people, however, is that their "faith," well, isn't. They need absolute, easy to digest factoids they can regurgitate against an enemy that they need to exist in order to give reason to their existence.
Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if people actually practiced the lessons of their religions rather than simply using them as tools to push an agenda? Maybe then we could have some goddamn reason in the world.
Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if people actually practiced the lessons of their religions rather than simply using them as tools to push an agenda?
You mean lessons like "break any of these rules and you'll burn in hell" or "everyone must convert or perish?" I don't think there's a single good lesson in religion that can't be derived from simple common sense, compassion, and kindness. Why even bother with the religion part of the lesson?
Yeah, those would be the lessons I'm talking about. Take out the "burn in hell" stuff, that's designed to scare people into obedience, and most religions generally preach good things when you get down to it.
Why bother with the religion part? Well, religions generally evolved as stories told to demonstrate societally held principals; it's one of the oldest and easiest ways to convey a point, so long as you get it. Think about fables for a second; they're small stories told to demonstrate a principle about which one might speak. You can tell someone something all day, but if you can demonstrate it or illustrate it, the point tends to take more easily. It's simply the way in which people learn, and illustrative stories are one of the most fundamental ways to convey information.
It's a powerful tool, and when misused, it breeds fear and ignorance, which is the real problem with religion these days. Rather than being used as a guiding tool or as an item of intellectual consideration, religions are generally used to push a political agenda. I analogize most religions to the way labor unions are in the US; they started off with the best intentions, but have now metamorphosed into a self-sustaining beast with its own goals in mind.
I don't think there's a single good lesson in religion that can't be derived from simple common sense, compassion, and kindness. Why even bother with the religion part of the lesson?
I agree wholeheartedly...at least for those of us who've taken the time to sit down and think about it. There is a common misperception that atheists are immoral, and a common statement that our morality is "subjective." Of course, all morality is subjective, as can be easily illustrated to any rational person. What separates theistic from secular morality is that the first is fear-based, the second is rational. It's all well and good to suggest everyone in the world develop their own morality without relying on a cheat-sheet like religion (and, personally, I think the ensuing chaos would be better, in the long run, than the current solution), but that simply is not how the world works. Most people need to be told what to do, and that means having their ethical studies done for them. My suggestion is that, as long as religion is filling that role, it should do it thoroughly and without the introduction of politics. Do I think the morals introduced by religion are very good? No. But if the christians, in particular, would stick to the teachings of their Messiah, they'd be much more tolerable.
Of course, none of this will happen, because people need something to demonize and blame for their problems (e.g., the homosexuals are destroying this nation, satanists are making our children smoke dope, etc.). What's the solution? I don't know...I think this sort of behavior may be genetic, so perhaps a bit of genocide is in order :-p
/edit: anyone else notice that it was post #42 that suggested HHGTTG as a religious text?
I don't think there's a single good lesson in religion that can't be derived from simple common sense, compassion, and kindness. Why even bother with the religion part of the lesson?
I agree wholeheartedly...at least for those of us who've taken the time to sit down and think about it. There is a common misperception that atheists are immoral, and a common statement that our morality is "subjective." Of course, all morality is subjective, as can be easily illustrated to any rational person. What separates theistic from secular morality is that the first is fear-based, the second is rational. It's all well and good to suggest everyone in the world develop their own morality without relying on a cheat-sheet like religion (and, personally, I think the ensuing chaos would be better, in the long run, than the current solution), but that simply is not how the world works. Most people need to be told what to do, and that means having their ethical studies done for them. My suggestion is that, as long as religion is filling that role, it should do it thoroughly and without the introduction of politics. Do I think the morals introduced by religion are very good? No. But if the christians, in particular, would stick to the teachings of their Messiah, they'd be much more tolerable.
Of course, none of this will happen, because people need something to demonize and blame for their problems (e.g., the homosexuals are destroying this nation, satanists are making our children smoke dope, etc.). What's the solution? I don't know...I think this sort of behavior may be genetic, so perhaps a bit of genocide is in order :-p
/edit: anyone else notice that it was post #42 that suggested HHGTTG as a religious text?
Those coincidences with the 42nd post seem to be a frequent occurrence on this forum. Perhaps that is due to the workings of some supernatural entity trying to tell us that our forum holds the answers to life, the universe and everything.
Never mind, that's preposterous. There's no supernatural entity at work. We've already scientifically determined that Rym and myself hold the answers to life, the universe and everything.
Those coincidences with the 42nd post seem to be a frequent occurrence on this forum. Perhaps that is due to the workings of some supernatural entity trying to tell us that our forum holds the answers to life, the universe and everything.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself there. The forum is growing nicely, but we still haven't figured out some very basic questions...among them, "If there's no God, who pushes up the next kleenexTM?"
I am not, however, completely disinclined to believe that Douglas Adams is watching over us all, and helping the FSM in the careful application of his noodly appendage.
/edit: dammit, I took too long to post...either that or Scott needs to try working...it can be strangely liberating to be productive at one's job. In answer: Rym and Scott, love ya both, but you got nothin' on Zaphod, let alone his creator.
A Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument and I've stayed out of it! Must be a record. What this board really needs is some hardcore Intelligent Design advocites. It's much more fun to argue with stupid people then these "Can Science understand something that is Supernatural and whether it would still be supernatural if Science explained it" type of questions ^_^
A Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument and I've stayed out of it! Must be a record. What this board really needs is some hardcore Intelligent Design advocites. It's much more fun to argue with stupid people then these "Can Science understand something that is Supernatural and whether it would still be supernatural if Science explained it" type of questions ^_^
Yeah, I could go for a true flamewar. Flamewars among like-minded people aren't nearly as entertaining as smart people flaming asshats.
I found an angel buried in my back yard. Can James Dobson come and verify that it means the Jews buried the dinosaur bones in 1954? Run, James, run! Seven-day creationism is real! Bring the 700 Club!
A Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument and I've stayed out of it! Must be a record. What this board really needs is some hardcore Intelligent Design advocites. It's much more fun to argue with stupid people then these "Can Science understand something that is Supernatural and whether it would still be supernatural if Science explained it" type of questions ^_^
The problem with that is that any ID proponent would be too much of a Luddite to properly use a computer.
I agree wholeheartedly...at least for those of us who've taken the time to sit down and think about it. ...What separates theistic from secular morality is that the first is fear-based, the second is rational. ...Do I think the morals introduced by religion are very good? No. But if the christians, in particular, would stick to the teachings of their Messiah, they'd be much more tolerable.
I gotta say that I highly disagree with the assumption that those who choose religion are somehow less intelligent or less thoughtful than atheists. There are some dumb ass atheists out there. I am a Catholic who chooses to follow the tenets of the faith (mostly). I choose to do right or wrong based upon it being right or wrong, not the fear of going to hell. I doubt seriously that you could find one remotely rational person of faith that would avoid wrong-doing to keep out of hell. It's an asinine statement to assume that faith can not include rational thought.
Of course, none of this will happen, because people need something to demonize and blame for their problems (e.g., the homosexuals are destroying this nation, satanists are making our children smoke dope, etc.). What's the solution? I don't know...I think this sort of behavior may be genetic, so perhaps a bit of genocide is in order :-p
And, aren't you just blaming Christians for everyone's problems? Demonizing those who have faith makes you just like those in your examples. Trying to shove atheism down people's throats is exactly the same as shoving religion down thier throats.
Ah, here's the marinara sauce! The power of pasta compels you! The power of pasta compels you! The power of pasta compels you! The power of pasta compels you!
Comments
That being said, in response to the main point of the OP, get the fuck off the intelligent design thing. If you have a gnostic viewpoint on it, then just say as much. ID is and has always been more of a political tool than a philosophy. By casting in your lot with those assholes and lunatics you make people less likely to take you seriously (make no mistake, the vast majority of people educated enough to think about it hold these people in very low regard). Yes, I know it's ad hominem, but it's also human nature. On the other hand, if you're a new earth creationist, I can only gape at you, and look flabbergasted. Also, the use of the term theory to encompass both evolution and ID in the same sentence has absolutely got to stop. Seriously. Now. Keep it up, and I'll kick you off my Internet.
Again, science has its limits. You cannot evaluate every argument in a scientific fashion.
If someone has supernatural telekinesis powers, we couldn't use the scientific method to figure out how their telekinesis works. The workings of the telekinesis are, supposedly, entirely within the supernatural realm. That is a realm we can not observe, and where all the science we know is thrown out the window.
However, we can use the scientific method to detect the effects of the telekinesis in the natural world. We can tell someone to use their telekinesis to make some rocks float. If the rocks float, we can attempt to detect the force which causes the rocks to float, or appear to float. If we are unable to scientifically identify a natural force at work, that leaves open the possibility of the existence of a supernatural force.
We will never be able to say for sure, with science, what that supernatural force is, how it works or if it even exists. Using science all we can do is detect whether or not there is a possibility of a supernatural force affecting the natural world. So far, in every case where someone has supposedly found a supernatural force at work, science has discovered a natural explanation. If you can break that trend, you are eligible for the grand prize of one million US dollars.
In other words, claims of the supernatural must always be left to speculation, because there really is no way to test them. Science doesn't even pay attention to these things. Now, if someone tries to prove that they have telekinetic powers scientifically, you can go ahead and tear their research apart, because it's wrong. That, however, does not defeat the idea itself, because the idea itself is untestable. All you can do is beat down people that try to show it to be testable.
Just like Rym's news about the magic water from the tree. People thought that there was magic water coming from the tree. A simple investigation found the water was coming from a pipe. Therefore, the water was not coming from some magical source. You can't test magic, but you can find nature which displaces the possibility of magic. The exception is, of course, when the magic has no effect on the natural world. In those cases it doesn't matter whether or not the magic exists or not, because it doesn't do anything.
Non-religious folk will say "no, it's just dumb luck," but some religious types will be inclined to say that it is; that their deity caused the highly improbable to happen in their benefit. Of course, these views are not entirely contradictory. I still have (somewhere) my College Physics textbook which, in the introduction, hedges its bets against offending fundamentalists by saying "Science answers the question of 'how', religion answers the question of 'why'." So long as both fields stay within those lines, religion and science do not have to run afoul of each other. Of course, fundies screaming for literal interpretation of Genesis and atheists using the same interpretations to say the Christian bible contradicts fact will probably exist until one group or the other disappears, but we few enlightened scholars and message-board zealots can, hopefully, keep this distinction in mind.
The fact is, when science and religion are kept within their respective domains, further knowledge of the universe will only bolster both groups: Deists and Theists will see more evidence of the power and wonder of their god-concept, and scientists will see even more questions to answer.
Oh, and, to at least give a nod to the original topic...Intelligent Design is especially foul as a belief system, because it uses [bad|junk|voodoo|pseudo] science to attempt to "debunk" actual, real science. This sort of thing teaches people that the search for knowledge of the natural world is not only futile, but counter-productive...a dangerous falsehood, to say the least, and a wonderful example of what happens when religion oversteps its bounds.
I mean, 200 years ago television would have been considered witchcraft and Rupert Murdoch would have been burned at the stake. One day I'm sure someone will find that some events of telekinesis or telepathy were bona fide and caused by excess tachyon emissions or some shit.
</rant>
No, miracles are not simply the unexplained of whatever era you happen to exist in. Those are just unknowns. I'm finding this position harder and harder to justify, since I don't believe in miracles of any sort, but any faith that uses the holes in science to explain itself, or relies on argumentum ad ignorantiam is destined to run into problems as that ignorance disappears. To answer succinctly, no, unknowns are not miracles, and people who believe they are are wrong, and substituting willful ignorance for faith.
The REALLY scary thing is that life is just this strange electrical exchanges happening in our brains and one day it will stop and we will die. What will happen after is a complete mystery which may never be solved, and I don't really want the suprise to be ruined. (Although most likely from what I can ascertain from experiences, it will be a lot like before I was born, which was absolutely nothing.)
My biblical texts are Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Monty Python stuff. Go on believing in what you believe in, cause it probably just doesn't matter that much in the end. The only thing I'm against is people not living their lives the fullest, and people not allowing other people to do the same.
Why bother with the religion part? Well, religions generally evolved as stories told to demonstrate societally held principals; it's one of the oldest and easiest ways to convey a point, so long as you get it. Think about fables for a second; they're small stories told to demonstrate a principle about which one might speak. You can tell someone something all day, but if you can demonstrate it or illustrate it, the point tends to take more easily. It's simply the way in which people learn, and illustrative stories are one of the most fundamental ways to convey information.
It's a powerful tool, and when misused, it breeds fear and ignorance, which is the real problem with religion these days. Rather than being used as a guiding tool or as an item of intellectual consideration, religions are generally used to push a political agenda. I analogize most religions to the way labor unions are in the US; they started off with the best intentions, but have now metamorphosed into a self-sustaining beast with its own goals in mind.
Of course, none of this will happen, because people need something to demonize and blame for their problems (e.g., the homosexuals are destroying this nation, satanists are making our children smoke dope, etc.). What's the solution? I don't know...I think this sort of behavior may be genetic, so perhaps a bit of genocide is in order :-p
/edit: anyone else notice that it was post #42 that suggested HHGTTG as a religious text?
I am not, however, completely disinclined to believe that Douglas Adams is watching over us all, and helping the FSM in the careful application of his noodly appendage.
/edit: dammit, I took too long to post...either that or Scott needs to try working...it can be strangely liberating to be productive at one's job. In answer: Rym and Scott, love ya both, but you got nothin' on Zaphod, let alone his creator.
This message was brought to you by New York State tax dollars: putting your money to good use ensuring that Fark is browsed regularly.
I found an angel buried in my back yard. Can James Dobson come and verify that it means the Jews buried the dinosaur bones in 1954? Run, James, run! Seven-day creationism is real! Bring the 700 Club!
And Jason, thanks, but it's just not the same.
I gotta say that I highly disagree with the assumption that those who choose religion are somehow less intelligent or less thoughtful than atheists. There are some dumb ass atheists out there. I am a Catholic who chooses to follow the tenets of the faith (mostly). I choose to do right or wrong based upon it being right or wrong, not the fear of going to hell. I doubt seriously that you could find one remotely rational person of faith that would avoid wrong-doing to keep out of hell. It's an asinine statement to assume that faith can not include rational thought.
And, aren't you just blaming Christians for everyone's problems? Demonizing those who have faith makes you just like those in your examples. Trying to shove atheism down people's throats is exactly the same as shoving religion down thier throats.