Ye Religion Thread

[[BTF]EyEsTrAiN]

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, none will suffice." 

I've heard that before, can you tell me who said it? It's true regardless of which side of discussion you're on.

I apologize if I'm being wayyy too nit-picky here...

But I'm not convinced of the general truth of the claim, "for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice."  (And hopefully this is something I can state without appearing to have been trapped by irony. )

But anyway, here are two examples of ways I think the claim that "no explanation will suffice", fails for rationilists.

1. We've already seen historical examples of 'belief' which have only survived until the necessary explanation was achieved.  For example, Ptolemy and Newton believing a divine agency must be constantly regulating the motion of the planets.  But Laplace finally achieved an explanation which sufficed!  And so that particular species of belief vanishes as the explanation is understood.  Thus I think we must be clear and specific about which species of belief it is being claimed "no explanation will suffice".

2. Even if we're narrowing the claim to focus solely on the specific question of the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscent god, I still think the claim "no explanation will suffice" should fail to be strictly true for rationalists.  Such a god, on a whim, could obviously provide endless and overwhelming evidence for its existence.  For instance, it could trivially announce itself to all mankind oneday, saying, "Hi, this is God speaking. I've decided that henceforth there will be no more disease. Additionally, from now on, natural cataclysms such as hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and earthquakes will no longer occur in populated areas." And 'make it so'.  Rationalists would then be obliged to observe, wow, apparently there is some sort of supernatural god. I wonder how its supernatural physics work... (etc.)

So it doesn't seem that saying, although pithy, really works very well as phrased.  I think it would more truthfully be amended to:

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, sufficient evidence will suffice."  

No?


Regards,

I always just took the quote at face value. I had originally heard it in a David Blane video (a magician).

On religion, the first part seems to apply, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary". True believers in whatever faith, will believe without any concrete evidence (i.e. God himself touching your forehead and you are healed of all ills). It is a matter of faith. On the other hand, if you have someone who does not believe in a particular faith, they might have the need for some type of concrete evidence of facts to support the faith another has in a 'God' in order to understand, or 'believe'.

Of all things to prove, or disprove, the question of if there is a 'God' is one of the most unsolvable in my opinion. "For those that do not, none will suffice." If there is no way to concretely prove there is a 'God', no explanation from someone of 'faith' in that 'God' will suffice as an answer. If I can't believe it unless I have evidence, and there is no way to get that evidence, it must not exist? Its a question of having faith versus having evidence.

If there was a box on the table, completely sealed, and I told you the secrets of the universe were in that box, you could believe it, or you could not. If you asked how I came to that conclusion and I said, "I have faith that all there is to know is in that box," but you had no way of opening the box to see for yourself, would the lack of evidence or inability to open the box keep you from making your own hypothesis of what the box contains, even if you could never know for sure? Rationally, you could say since the box is so small, there is no possible way for it to hold the secrets of the universe, but even that is a act of 'faith', since you can't open the box to see.  

That is what it is like to prove or disprove 'God' in my opinion. Just a sealed box that no one can open, but anyone is free to believe it contains something, or free to believe it contains nothing.

 

[deft]

Now imagine hundreds of thousands of boxes each with people claiming theirs holds the answers.

[[BTF]EyEsTrAiN]

Now imagine hundreds of thousands of boxes each with people claiming theirs holds the answers.

Or just one box with hundreds of millions of people claiming to know what is inside. 

[quadz]

Of all things to prove, or disprove, the question of if there is a 'God' is one of the most unsolvable in my opinion. "For those that do not, none will suffice." If there is no way to concretely prove there is a 'God', no explanation from someone of 'faith' in that 'God' will suffice as an answer. If I can't believe it unless I have evidence, and there is no way to get that evidence, it must not exist? Its a question of having faith versus having evidence.

Thanks for clarifying.  I mostly agree, except that since we can't in principle prove a negative, I don't think that particular angle on whether 'God' exists or not turns out to be very interesting.  (Like, we also can't prove the whole universe wasn't created 17 seconds ago with all our memories intact, and then set in motion.  But we don't tend to lose sleep over the fact we can't disprove that.)

More interesting to me is the advancement of discovery illuminating the apparent lack of need for a supernatural agency to have regulated or influenced either the cosmic or biological evolution of our universe.

We are moving toward having natural explanations for the unfoldment of the cosmos and evolution of life, all the way back to within a microsecond of the big bang.  Despite gaps in our knowledge, it appears to be trending toward the eventuality that we will see no need for god to have done anything but fine tune a few initial constants.

And though all of that says nothing about whether we can prove there's no god, I think it does say something interesting.


Regards,

quadz

[deft]

Sure eyestrain, both describe religion.

[quadz]

DeathStalker (and others )

Here's a pretty nice evolutionary tree, with timeline annotations:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg

Important to remember, is these evolutionary relationships are verified (cross-checked) in multiple ways.

For example, not only by the age and location of the fossils, but also by genetic ancestry of non-extinct species.  (If I recall correctly there are something like six independent verification methods.)  

Everything cross-checks. So essentially, if evolution didn't happen, then God sat there over the past 3.8 billion years simulating an exact mirror image unfoldment of what evolution is described to be.

And if so... what's the difference?


Regards,

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.

Apart from the mountains and mountains of such evidence?

And i'm pretty sure no one actually observed any either. So therefor Evolution should go aswell based on that.

Um, no.  There is as much archaeological evidence that evolution happened, as there is that ancient Greece existed.^[1]  Does the theory of ancient Greece's existence have to "go aswell" ?


Regards,

absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.

Apart from the mountains and mountains of such evidence?

And i'm pretty sure no one actually observed any either. So therefor Evolution should go aswell based on that.

Um, no.  There is as much archaeological evidence that evolution happened, as there is that ancient Greece existed.^[1]  Does the theory of ancient Greece's existence have to "go aswell" ?


Regards,

for real, i'm no quadz ass kisser. this was straight ownage

- absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.
- In actuallity the theory of Evolution is so full of holes, you trully have to have faith to honestly believe it.
- Last i read it was still just a "theory".

Seeing posts like this make me cringe..its 2008. Read a book, do research on the internet..something.

It doesn't matter.
The point is that scientists are trying to cram their theory down peoples throat.
If the school board's vote passes ALL kids will be "required" to have the "THEORY" of evolution crammed down thier throats as fact since science classes are required also.
That was the original point of my post to begin with.

And the other point i was trying to make

More than 400 (public and private university) professors took the survey.  They say: they believe teaching kids concepts-- other than evolution-- "harms" their college readiness and makes them less able to compete for jobs in the future.

is that on what scientific proof, observation, or evidence is there that "if" they study other theories or study any arguments against evolution they will be too stupid to go to college or get a good job.

And yes quadz, i've watched the Discovery channel show archaeological discoveries of a small bone that they said must have been part of a bigger creature that started out as something else and through evolution turned into 12 different creatures before it finally became what they discovered in the first place.
They know, because their scientists.

 

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

DeathStalker (and others )

Here's a pretty nice evolutionary tree, with timeline annotations:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg

Important to remember, is these evolutionary relationships are verified (cross-checked) in multiple ways.

For example, not only by the age and location of the fossils, but also by genetic ancestry of non-extinct species.  (If I recall correctly there are something like six independent verification methods.) 

Everything cross-checks. So essentially, if evolution didn't happen, then God sat there over the past 3.8 billion years simulating an exact mirror image unfoldment of what evolution is described to be.

And if so... what's the difference?


Regards,

Well In all honesty the argument is:
Evolution vs intelligent design or (creationalism)

scientists believe Evolution only.
Creationalists believe everything to be to perfect and complex for everything to have "just worked out" through evolution.
Well to be perfectly honest, I believe both.
I believe "some" evolution did occur, but just not to the extreme most scientists feel.
But what I believe most about it is that evolution was the 'tool" in an intelligent design.
For me personally that explains both theories. The theory of evolution AND the theory that everything is to perfect and complex to have just worked out.
So in short Evolution could not have worked out as well as it did without an intelligent design behind it.

But that’s just my opinion and belief.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Deft you make no sence at all man.
First you say this

if there was a creator, the universe should look as it is today, a creator would account for all the "why" questions, the perceived perfection of the universe, etc. evolution doesn't suffice. evolution would be a nice method used by god, just like starting the universe out an expanding it into life.

and this

when science provides better answers you can support your beliefs with a strong case (no reasonable doubt), until then a theory of a simple beginnings is a nice thought, but that's all it is. the probablities if god exists are not are as bogus as saying someone saying god exists, and I know it. we don't have the evidence, that's just the way it is.

and this

there is no good scientific evidence concerning how the universe initially came to be, so this isn't nearly as strong of a point he makes it out to be. i would trust my instincts, especially after reviewing the evidence to the contrary, and realizing it supports my beliefs (that there is a god, concerned with human behavior, something like we our the center of the universe)

and this

real "proof" will never be found for either side, but for now, i think i'll stick to NOT believing in the improbable, that the universe (and what may lie beyond) as we know it was created by mere chance.  afterall, there was just one big explosion and everything turned out wonderfully  lol idiots

Nut then you turn right around and say this ?????

- absolutely NO macro evolutionary evidence exists.
- In actuallity the theory of Evolution is so full of holes, you trully have to have faith to honestly believe it.
- Last i read it was still just a "theory".

Seeing posts like this make me cringe..its 2008. Read a book, do research on the internet..something.

  man.
LOL make up your mind, pick something and stick with it. 

[quadz]

It doesn't matter.
The point is that scientists are trying to cram their theory down peoples throat.
If the school board's vote passes ALL kids will be "required" to have the "THEORY" of evolution crammed down thier throats as fact since science classes are required also.

Uh.

If the school board's vote passes ALL kids will be "required" to have the "THEORY" of gravity crammed down thier throats as fact since science classes are required also.

Theory of gravity.

Theory of relativity.

Quantum field theory.

Going into palpitations over the idea of a "THEORY" being taught in science class, belies a fundamental--and if you'll excuse me, frankly appalling lack of understanding of what science is or why it's important.

Consider, for example, this remarkable list of supersceded scientific theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

Despite these theories having since been replaced by more accurate theories, it doesn't mean those earlier theories should not have been taught when they represented the best hypothses going that fit the available data.

The best current "THEORY" is exactly what is supposed to be taught in science class.


Regards,

[metaL]

lol. here it comes...

[quadz]

Well In all honesty the argument is:
Evolution vs intelligent design or (creationalism)

scientists believe Evolution only.
Creationalists believe everything to be to perfect and complex for everything to have "just worked out" through evolution.
Well to be perfectly honest, I believe both.
I believe "some" evolution did occur, but just not to the extreme most scientists feel.
But what I believe most about it is that evolution was the 'tool" in an intelligent design.
For me personally that explains both theories. The theory of evolution AND the theory that everything is to perfect and complex to have just worked out.

The latter is not a scientific theory.  It's an argument from incredulity.

Please explain how the scientific method can be applied to develop the conjecture that "everything is to perfect and complex to have just worked out", into a scientific theory.

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ... Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. ... Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

And remember, one should be able to use your theory to make actual predictions about what we will find when we dig in the ground, or when we look under a microscope.  If your theory can't make any predictions, or predicts the wrong results, there is a problem.

Did you honestly think one can just make up anything that one wishes to be true, or believes ought to be true, and skip the entire scientific method, and claim that whatever this conjecture is should be considered equivalent and taught alongside genuine science?

Again: argument from incredulity is not equal to scientific theory.


Regards,

quadz

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

If the school board's vote passes ALL kids will be "required" to have the "THEORY" of gravity crammed down thier throats as fact since science classes are required also.

Theory of gravity.

Theory of relativity.

Quantum field theory.

heh, OK mabey I did get a little pissy there.
But believe me, I have a good understanding of what science is and why it's important.

Despite these theories having since been replaced by more accurate theories, it doesn't mean those earlier theories should not have been taught when they represented the best hypothses going that fit the available data.

The best current "THEORY" is exactly what is supposed to be taught in science class.

And yes I know and agree with this too.

But when you talk about the origin of man you are talking about something runs extremely deep and controversial.

There are different theories about the origin of man.
Should they be denied knowledge of those theories and ideas???
After all School is about learning all things, not just what suites a specific group of people.
I guess the question now would be: If ONLY evolution should be taught in science class should there be an alternative class that can be taken along side of their required science class?
And if so, what would the class be called?

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

The theory of evolution AND the theory that everything is to perfect and complex to have just worked out.

The latter is not a scientific theory.  It's an argument from incredulity.

Of coarse it isn't.
Hmm, never really recall calling it a Scientific theory.
I've searched the quote several times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=incredulity&go=Go
No article title matches
No page with that title exists.

[deft]

I don't even know where to begin.  You keep quoting the word theory as if it doesn't mean anything, which makes me think you don't know what a scientific theory is.  Those quotes you have of me aren't even me, I simply copy/pasted them from previous posts in this thread.  The only one I actually said was the last one.

Edit:  I'll save you the time of using google.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.