141–150 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not prove evolution the way gravity is proven.
How so? Evolution is just change in populations over time with common descent, and that's pretty well demonstrated through the things I mentioned, about the same as gravity is demonstrated by things falling. What's different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but as a scientist I see no reason to believe in some specific unprovable concept over any other. I find Christian believe as arbitrary as Muslim believe as arbitrary as anything else I can come up with. So how could I believe in any of them?
Yes, it is arbitrary. Believing that there is no creator to the universe is also arbitrary. That is because, science, as it currently stands, has nothing to say about the matter. Picking/not picking any religion is a matter of philosophy, not science.
There is no evidence for any of the rest of it, no evidence of interference by gods, no evidence of any real communications either. So saying you think the universe was created by [a conscious entity?] a god is entirely different than saying that you believe in a particular religion and all its narratives and usually inherent contradictions.
There are two funny things: - Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity. - Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)
None of these things are funny or true for that matter. > Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics as well. >…
That is the most basic methodological problem with Intelligent Design. The claim is that there are gaps where "intelligence" injects itself into the evolution of living things. The funny thing is, every gap is very well hidden and looks exactly like the result of evolutionary processes and builds on the same design patterns that have already been established.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by "outdated"? Scientific theories don't go off with age, they depend on evidence and the scientific evidence continues to point to evolution as the best theory. Modern biology might be more advanced than it was in Darwin's day but nothing's disproved the fundamental ideas. That's like saying that the discovery of the Higgs boson makes the Earth orbiting the Sun obsolete. And as for your second point…
Scientific theories do go off. They should also provide predictions and explanations of unknown events. In modern biology even term 'species' is pretty much outdated. Same way we no longer use Newton equations for space navigation. BTW: Earth does not orbit around sun. It orbits around center of gravity, which is not even inside Sun.
>>BTW: Earth does not orbit around sun. It orbits around center of gravity, which is not even inside Sun.
The center of gravity of the sun-earth system is most certainly inside the sun. If it wasn't, the sun would perceptively move as the earth orbited it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on. For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any…
It may be due to the advancing night here in Germany, and I don't mean to insult you personally, but this seems like an uninteresting discussion to have about things that can be readily looked up and/or reasoned about without me doing a lot of pointing. Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science co…
There are better places for such discussion. However, I consider it a general rule that in all hangouts for intellectually curious people, if you flippantly say something controversial, expect to be challenged.
>However, having said that, I'm fully aware that no amount of argumentation can convince a believer (see my other comments on how religion closes that avenue after it infects a brain). I'm sorry if all that sounds pompous, arrogant, or just plain stupid to you.
I am not primarily arguing to convince you, but for the benefit of observers who are not as personally involved in our exchange. Besides, I think you are probably a thoughtful and intelligent person, and as such I would not expect you to be convinced of something over the course of a debate. Rather, if you did change your mind it would be on your own time and after much reflection.
I am sorry, however, that you believe religion is a incurable mind virus. Perhaps if you did not believe as you do, then you would take a different approach with your arguments.
>Other things that don't rank high on my list of credibility indicators are: the number of people believing something, and the social authority of the people believing it.
This, in and of itself, doesn't make you any different than a conspiracy theorist. I don't mean to say that you are one, and I don't necessarily hold authority or consensus very highly myself, just that rejecting them doesn't tell me much about your rationality. Regardless, my point was not that you should believe something because a lot of people, some of whom were pretty smart, also believed it. More about my actual point below.
>Nevertheless: it's possible for a scientist to be completely wrong about most things, and yet produce valid scientific theories. Only when superstition and science collide directly, work usually suffers. Otherwise cognitive dissonance works pretty well. You also have to keep in mind that historical figures had a different cultural outlook than we do today, and I'm boring myself as I write this.
OK, my point: cognitive dissonance is a pretty different phenomenon from infection by a memetic parasite. Your claim was that religion "has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities" and that it "poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally". If people with religious belief were so inhibited in their logical facilities, and could not freely reason about data or the environment, we would not expect them to be able to make mathematical, scientific, or technological advancements. They clearly have, and they continue to do so despite the cultural outlook of today (Knuth, for instance, is still alive).
Furthermore, when I talk about the large number of people who are religious, I am not saying "it's silly to think so many people are wrong"; I am saying "it's silly to think so many people are mentally handicapped". Especially since so many of these people are able to contribute to business, the arts, the sciences, etc.
Now, I am not saying that you are stupid, or handicapped (Indeed, your HN profile and web site indicate the opposite). Just that your thesis is bad psychology.
>I think a bit of brutal honesty is in order. You will find that, in this, we are in agreement.
None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
As someone who believes in both an intelligent designer creating the world, and micro (but not macro) evolution, I am extremely interested in reading this. I just thought I would let you know :)
Here's some reading to get you started: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are arguing is called mind dualism. It is subject to very many difficulties, and does nothing to resolve pesky issues like neurologically damaged and split brain individuals (what happens in their afterlife?) or explain why there is this magical correspondence between the spiritual realm and physical reality, without any causal connection (see my point about Occam priors).
Certainly any afterlife would necessarily be non physical, no? Alternatively, I would be delighted if you gave proof otherwise. At any rate, I'm not arguing for mind dualism nor will I attempt to answer any of the questions you posed. I argue that it is completely pointless to speculate in any way about something which exists outside of the bounds of knowledge (science). I was merely agreeing with the assertion of th…
So yes, it would be quite a leap of faith to assume that there is some spiritual existence where our minds reside and which happens to line up perfectly with events in this this causal world. Doesn't mean it's wrong - this hypothetical modern version of the afterlife is cleverly constructed to be completely untestable from this side of death's veil. But it can be shown rigorously and mathematically to be a strictly more complex theory with precisely the same predictive power for this world (and with lots of odd answers when questions are pressed).
It's like positing epicycles for the motions of the planets. Personally I just find it easier and more satisfying to believe the Earth moves. I adjust all the other collected knowledge Occamian reasoning, so why not this too? I don't like being a hypocrite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but…
This pathologizing of religion is too self-serving and deserves some skepticism. For one thing, it lacks a sufficient explanation for the scientific/mathematical contributions and intellect of people with religious/supernatural belief; people such as Donald Knuth, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Euler, Pascal, and so on. For another, it conflates beliefs with mental habits. The point with empirical science, or math, or any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientific theories do go off. They should also provide predictions and explanations of unknown events. In modern biology even term 'species' is pretty much outdated. Same way we no longer use Newton equations for space navigation. BTW: Earth does not orbit around sun. It orbits around center of gravity, which is not even inside Sun.
The same difficulties with identifying individual species today were faced by Darwin in the Origin of Species. That is in fact exactly what the title of the book refers to. >>BTW: Earth does not orbit around sun. It orbits around center of gravity, which is not even inside Sun. The center of gravity of the sun-earth system is most certainly inside the sun. If it wasn't, the sun would perceptively move as the earth or…
Jupiter, Neptune (edit: and Uranus) serve to create a giant spirograph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example t…
>As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid. I posted a similar comment above, but this completely misunderstands probability theory. If you can't prove something 100% true or 0% true there is still an inbetween more than "equally valid or invald." Something could have a 0.00001% chance of being true or a 99% chance of being true. In the space of all possible explanations, the chance of religion being the co…
I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by making a philosophical argument against religion rather than a scientific one.