Science and Faith

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:22 pm

Likewise, I don't see why there needs to be a presupposition of chaos, or rather of a chaos that needed interference to be organized. I think organization, perfection and at the same time change are just manifestations of universal constants/variables. In other words, why does there have to be a presupposition of interference?

I find that a lot of it boils down to the 'greatness of human being', not sure if it does in this case, but I personally don't see this as either unexpected or even inherently unlikely. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that being in the human sense is the result of semi-accidental (rather, probabilistic) variation.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:23 pm

requiett wrote:
Kalium wrote:Oh, and the burden of proof is always on the positive. That is to say the logical assumption must be atheistic, and the burden of proof is to prove the theistic.
Why is that so? Have we come any closer to proving that God doesn't exist rather than him not existing? This view you present is very "Age of Enlightnment" era, which is obsolete and outdated. Science was used as a tool of freeing us from the tyranny of church as government, not freeing us from the belief in God.

It's called "formal logic", req. It's how formal logic works. The presumption is always in the negative, and the burden of the proof always rests on the positive.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:23 pm

requiett wrote: Why is that so? Have we come any closer to proving that God doesn't exist rather than him not existing? This view you present is very "Age of Enlightnment" era, which is obsolete and outdated. Science was used as a tool of freeing us from the tyranny of church as government, not freeing us from the belief in God.

Alright, here we are. The usual "burden of proof" argument.

It doesn't work. Absence is unmarked. Presence is marked. There is no burden of proof on the unmarked position.

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:27 pm

The dictionary defintes faith as such:

faith /feɪθ/
–noun

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

If I am correct, what you are implying, Kalium, is that we are better off, as a society, without faith in a supreme deity. You presented this case to us here today, so the burden of proof lies with you. Prove to us that we are better off without the concept of God.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:43 pm

Think of all the time and money thrown at religion. All of that could be used for more socially or economically productive purposes.

Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

Proof? Hardly, but demonstrations of not insignificant consequence.

Largely what I am implying is that we are better off without faith being used to justify claims about objective reality. Having faith will not stop a rock falling, and it will not stop fossils from existing.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:45 pm

There is a simple proof. Where does our view fail to account for the world as it actually (as we know it) is? There are no systematic presuppositions made other than the existence of logic & (relative) order and the position is entirely flexible in the face of new variables and evidence. On the other hand the religious position makes a systematic presupposition (of a specific and presumably definable factor's presence in the system) and which has (so far in this particular discussion) presented a position that is unclear as regards to logic, presents no evidence and relies on a dangerously projectable constant (that is, a constant that on faith could be imposed as a projection of a social construct).

Stop using this argument. It's annoying.

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:49 pm

Kalium wrote:Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

May I ask what socially and ecomically viable purposes NASA and Hadron colliders serve?

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:53 pm

requiett wrote:
Kalium wrote:Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.
May I ask what socially and ecomically viable purposes NASA and Hadron colliders serve?

Science is economically viable. Quite a bit of pure research eventually has applications. Just because you cannot immediately see them does not render them impossible or non-existent.

Besides, someone (a lot of someones, really) gets paid to build that stuff.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:55 pm

That's a pretty buttheaded argument to make. Aside from NASA's obvious relevance to military-related research, the contributions they have made to anything from physics (which translates into both actual and potential applications - our technology is built on our knowledge of the laws of physics, you know) to experimental biology (producing modified seeds in space) to concrete work with manufacturing applications (e.g. experiments with high-definition lasers in vacuum conditions), I think they've been very useful.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:56 pm

And let's not forget that the internets you're sitting on is in large part thanks to satellite technology permitted by the space program