Topic: Health and Religion - page 57. (Read 210871 times)
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence."
Consider his statement where he quotes you:
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands.
At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years.
Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be.
If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.
Please badecker, you need to stop talking about science, you already made a fool of yourself enough times, don't you think? Or should I link the post where you fucked up? No one cares about your opinion tbh.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence."
Consider his statement where he quotes you:
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands.
At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years.
Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be.
If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html
'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.
Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?
Astargath I was going to compliment you on the quality of your response when I saw the quotation marks. As a rule of thumb it is always best to cite the source and give credit when quoting people.
In any case it appears the author is not the one you linked above but John W. Loftus a former Christian turned atheist writer who has published several books about his opposition to Christianity.
Loftus Writings:
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/12/does-science-invalidate-religious.html?m=1
In any event I take the position that Mr. Loftus is mistaken regarding the bolded comment above.
I highlighted the reasons why in the Scientific Discoveries by Religion Thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19431179
I do not want to clutter this thread up with things I have posted elsewhere but I would draw your attention to my first and third post in that thread where I draw from the writings of John C. Wright and Bruce Charlton who challenge Mr. Loftus position. Charlton and Wright are also both writers and former atheist turned Christians so they make for good opponents to hold up against Loftus.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanity
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago.
Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.
...One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work".
Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?
https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foes
Quote from: John C. Murphy
There are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from?
Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendom
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/
Quote from: John C. Wright
The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
- The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
- This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
- Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
- The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
- Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
- Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
- Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
- Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton.
Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html
'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.
Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?
Third, when I speak about science undercutting the believability in miracles and prayer, Christians will usually claim that science isn't so great. It cannot understand everything. Why do they have to do this? It may not be able to explain everything, but it has explained so much that a 15 century church person would probably lose his faith by merely being brought into our era. So many of his beliefs would be overturned at once.
Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future?
Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works.
Take prayer as just one example. The American Heart Journal (April 2006) reported on a scientific study of patients who had heart by-pass surgery who were separated into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn’t know it. Group 2 received no prayers and didn’t know it (the control group). Group 3 received prayers and did know it. Groups 1 and 3 were prayed for by different congregations throughout America. The results were very clear. There was no difference between the patients who were prayed for and those who were not prayed for. Moreover, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not know they were being prayed for.
It's very interesting that Christians must downplay science. They always have. They always will. Sad, really.''
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, if all the assumptions are true then flying unicorns exist therefore it's logical to believe in flying unicorns, well guess what, it's not, that's not how it works. If you want to believe in your god, go ahead but don't try to tell people that your belief is logical because it's not, you only believe in that specific god because you were taught that way, you haven't studied all religions and all gods to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
Actually, because my faith in God isn't perfect in this life, I DO have a touch of atheism. In similar ways you have much faith in God, even though you try to deny it. It is inherent in both of us.
Turn, now, while you have the chance, to strengthen the little faith in God that you DO have... so that you can be saved in the resurrection
Turn, now, while you have the chance, to strengthen the little faith in God that you DO have... so that you can be saved in the resurrection
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago.
Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.
...One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work".
Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?
https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foes
Quote from: John C. Murphy
There are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from?
Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendom
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/
Quote from: John C. Wright
The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
- The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
- This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
- Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
- The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
- Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
- Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
- Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
- Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton.
Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
My arguments for religion are very much grounded in empiricism. There is nothing wrong with empiricism it is a very powerful tool for finding truth.
Science is great but it has its own limitations and a priori assumptions as all human systems do.
What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science has (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
Religion as any system protects their be committed. They need this system to recharge its energy. Therefore, I believe that the system maintains a good level of health of their people, so they served it longer
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
My arguments for religion are very much grounded in empiricism. There is nothing wrong with empiricism it is a very powerful tool for finding truth.
Science is great but it has its own limitations and a priori assumptions as all human systems do.
What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science has (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
''I would gently remind you that in our prolonged back and fourth above we reduced Perry Marshall's argument down to three primary assumptions'' If you admit they are just assumptions then don't use it as evidence to say the belief in god is logical. It would only be logical if all the assumptions are correct. I can use X amounts of assumptions to prove the belief in magic unicorns is logical. It's pointless.
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason?
As for my beliefs, I don't have. Why would I believe in anything for no reason?
All knowledge is ultimately based on apriori truth Astargath. All empiricism can ever do is take you back to primary assumptions and then evaluate the consistency and fit of the model from the basis of those assumptions.
I explained this earlier in some depth.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24418501
Your response was:
That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about.
You don't understand epistemology and metaphysics. That is ok but the problem with not understanding metaphysics is that we really can't get very far in discussions such as ours above. It is metaphysics that teaches us how to use our understanding. Without metaphysics there is no knowledge or proof.
Adam and eve make no sense, how did they fail? Didn't they fail because god made them that way? If god knew they would fail, why make them and then punish them for something he already know would happen? It's garbage, you like logic so much, how is this logical to you?
why create humans that you know ultimately will fail and you want to send them to hell for eternal torture (which also makes no sense, eternal torture I mean) in any of this... Why is god attributed these silly emotions that only a mortal would have? Why would he send his ''son'' to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive us? Come on man, you gotta be kidding me, you really believe in this bullshit?
Up until now (several pages of) answers and replies to you have been simple logic and deduction essentially IF -> THEN statements. However, I am not wise enough to answer these last questions in the same definitive manner. The best I can do is share my opinions on these issues. Perhaps that will be helpful.
On the question of Adam and Eve I believe the Bible/Torah is best understood as a functional document. It's intent and purpose is to redeem and rectify humanity.
For this to occur biblical wisdom must be conveyed in a manner that is both simplified enough to be understandable by primitive man while simultaneously accurately reflecting a truth which can be better understood as our wisdom grows. The best way to meet these two needs is via parable and metaphor.
(The reasoning below represents my opinions and speculations on these issues. I make no claims beyond that)
Adam and Eve in the garden can be looked at literally as a man and a woman walking through a garden and considering the fruit of various trees.
Or Adam and Eve can be looked at as a metaphor for our species progenitors. All choices were potentially open to our remotest ancestors but a singular choice namely the development of an intellect capable of understanding good and evil was "forbidden" as that choice leads to severe and inevitable consequences.
Many "punishments" outlined in the Bible are not necessarily outside intervention but simple cause and effect the inevitable consequences we bring upon ourselves from sin.
Let's look at the "punishment" women received as a result of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children"
Why is childbearing in humans so painful? A religious man would have told you 1000 years ago that it was because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. It has taken science a very long time to catch up to this very simplified but according to our current theories essentially accurate description.
Current science theory states that the reason human birth and labor is so painful and dangerous is due to the physiological consequences of our large brains specifically some combination of the physical limitations of pelvic size when walking upright and the extreme metabolic demands a large infant brain places on a mother.
See:
Why Is Human Childbirth So Painful?
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/why-is-human-childbirth-so-painful
For the most part God doesn't punish us we punish ourselves with our choices. Sometimes these "choices" were made long before our time but these the consequences nevertheless impact us.
Regarding eternal damnation not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Some for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.
See:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm
Now unlike my prior posts which were simple logical deduction the arguments in this post are opinion. They are one possible interpretation. I have not proven this opinion is fact and am not in a position to do so currently. I share them as a potential answer to your questions but your questions are spiritual ones and must ultimately be answered on a personal and individual level.
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Not just assumptions like you do.
Religion tells us to do what can make us healthier without our knowledge because of inadequate technology to know the good effects of a command, I am a Muslim. In my religion we are commanded to pray five times a day. I am sure in every we prostrate there are hidden benefits which only God knows. and many other useful things.
The funny thing is religion really has an effect on people's health. Let me give an example, the Muslims they are not allowed to eat fleshy meat and they have Ramadan which takes days for them to be allowed to eat normally again. Same with Catholic that has fasting and abstinence during the Lenten season of the liturgical calendar.
How does religion affect health? Or prayers? I think that only traditional healers help, but they have their own religion. And there are no gods, only spirits. Once I went to the healer. And it helped me)
OMG, do really anybody here believes that religion affects healthy? It is ridiculous!
The Christian religion talks about Man having free will. I think nihilism is exactly that : life has no purpose, be free to do whatever you want with it. Seems much more healthy than following all kinds of ridiculous religious rules, but that's just me.
I think even religious people should hope they're wrong, because none of them really manages to follow the rules, so if there is an heaven and a hell, the first one must be empty and the second one overcrowded.
Soren Kierkegaard, a famous 19th century existentialist philosopher, noted quite logically that religious people simply lived better lives, and whether or not there heaven or hell existed or not did not outweigh the cons of not believing in God.
His logic was simple, which he coined "the leap of faith:"
1. Believe in God, die, nothing happens.
2. Don't believe in God, die, nothing happens.
OR
1. Believe in God, die, go to heaven.
2. Don't believe in God, die, bathe in a lake of fire.
I actually wish I could be religious, but sadly, I'm a helpless empiricist. I know too much!
His logic was simple, which he coined "the leap of faith:"
1. Believe in God, die, nothing happens.
2. Don't believe in God, die, nothing happens.
OR
1. Believe in God, die, go to heaven.
2. Don't believe in God, die, bathe in a lake of fire.
I actually wish I could be religious, but sadly, I'm a helpless empiricist. I know too much!
That's a retelling of the much more famous (and 2 centuries older) wager from Pascal : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Aesma I respect your position here as it was very similar to my own beliefs not all that long ago.
Here is some food for thought:
Regarding the lake of fire:
Not everyone who believes in God believes in eternal punishment and damnation. Many Jews for example believe that hell is a very painful but temporary process. A purification process to remove falsehood and evil.
See: Do Jews Believe in Hell?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1594422/jewish/Do-Jews-Believe-in-Hell.htm
Since you are an empiricist here is my empirical argument in favour of religion.
1) Belief in God is logical in that the belief is internally consistent and cannot be falsified. This conclusion can be derived in numerous ways one of which is via the application of incompleteness theorem.
See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th Century
2) All knowledge ultimately traces back to assumed axioms. Without knowledge, scientific enquiry including empiric enquiry is meaningless and we can’t analyse the world around us.
3) Our fundamental metaphysical first axioms are therefore a critical step in the formation of a sound empirical model of the universe and our place within it.
See: Metaphysical Attitudes
4) Human progress and civilisation requires the growth of knowledge and is ultimately cooperation dependent. Our first premises and axioms directly impact the degree of cooperation that the system can support.
See: Superrationality and the Infinite
5) Competing first axioms such as nihilism may grant "freedom" to do whatever you want but for humanity as a whole this is an illusion and such axioms reduce overall freedom.
See: Freedom and God
6) Thus the first axiom of God is not only largely responsible for the progress we have made so far it in all is likely necessary for continued progress.
See: Religion and Progress
and
See: Faith and Future
7) Finally and least important accepting the first axiom of God appears to be correlated with good health.
See: Health and Religion
8 ) For these reason accepting the first axiom of God is a superior choice for the empiricist then accepting the first axiom of nihilism or refusing to define ones metaphysics.
Don't listen to him. He probably started believing in god because his family told to not because of the reasons mentioned above. He searched for those reasons because he had doubts about his beliefs and now claims that belief in god is the best choice. I already showed him it's not but you can't reason with these people.
Don't worry about me, I like to argue but there is no way to convince me with words.
Now if I could meet God, then maybe I'd believe in him/it.
body health is directly dependent on psychological health...and psychological health is built on our emotions and accordingly our beliefs and faith...if we can be calm enough throughout life, because we know that there is the very highest who is always just, then we will be physically healthy enough...and if we fight for life every day, believing that everything depends on us alone, then we can't live without stress, and stress destroys
Right! After all, even science is a religion. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.25082912. And we look to science for ways to remain healthy. Then we follow things that a bunch of science researchers say, even though nobody knows if they are beneficial in the long run. Science and health work hand in hand.
In addition, up until the last 100 years or so, almost 100% of Chinese medical science revolved around health and nutrition. And it was all tied into their various religions. How did Chinese find out what worked? They did it through careful scientific examination: see the definition of science at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t. This is exactly what Chinese medical health is all about. And it is all tied into their religions.
I don't see why anyone should trust a word you say, when you can't even do your own research like here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.24869208 where you make a fool of yourself by linking an article that was literally the opposite of what you said it was true. You clearly can't do research, you are deluded.
I found this exchange between AgentofCoin and Hyperme.sh (One of Anonymint's recent and now banned incarcerations) a fascinating read the exchange starts here.
Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80
Does Anonymint now believe that bitcoin is part of a Satanic/Zionist plot? I have read about countless plots of that variety in the Phoenix Journals, and the solution is also described in some detail. I think Anonymint needs our support in order to create an alternative to the destructive forces of evil, I would like to reach him to offer some assistance, but he needs to stop arguing with people: it is not very productive.Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80
Yep that's what it sounds like though that was not the part of the exchange I found most interesting. He is still around.His latest incarnation is "CornCube" which I think he chose to annoy me.
He can be reached by PM and also hangs out in the Dark Enlightenment thread.
I found this exchange between AgentofCoin and Hyperme.sh (One of Anonymint's recent and now banned incarcerations) a fascinating read the exchange starts here.
Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80
Does Anonymint now believe that bitcoin is part of a Satanic/Zionist plot? I have read about countless plots of that variety in the Phoenix Journals, and the solution is also described in some detail. I think Anonymint needs our support in order to create an alternative to the destructive forces of evil, I would like to reach him to offer some assistance, but he needs to stop arguing with people: it is not very productive. Why hasn't any government stopped Bitcoin?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1972052.80
Jump to: