Not in the literal sense but I made this thread to discuss the possibilities of atheism and religion being conceptually equal. Its pretty simple, both describe their creation through ideas and philosophy which are similar to each other. For instance, the classic big bang theory mirrors that of an omnipotent being. They both brought about the creation of the universe, along with its laws and constants, and both dwell on the improbable concept of no beginning and no end.

The confusion between atheism and religion arises from the association of science in atheism. Although athiests try to incorporate science into their ideal, its ineffective due to the fact that the creation of matter and time stand far outside our current knowledge of science. Therefore, as there's no real supporting evidence of a deity in religion, there's also no supporting evidence of it otherwise. But then there arises the unexplained phenomenons that both of them share. Such as the Red/Blue shifts of planets (big bang) and the accuracy of holy texts. Its incorporation into religion/atheism makes it a unique phenomena, even though alone it proves no special than the paths of gravity and ancient history recording or story telling.

The idea is, athiesm and religion have made no advances on each other do to the fact that they are the same thing. I personally believe that religion has more followers because any thoughts otherwise didn't really arise till the renaissance.

So, I'll add more if anyones interested in discussing this :D

You will need to be more clear.
Religion, all agree, is the belief in one or more Gods [with a diversity in the concept of God].
Atheism is the denial of the existence of such Gods.

A is B is equivlant to A = B and means they are the same.
Not possible if my definitions are correct.

Do you mean they have some things in common ?
OK .... what are those things ?

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

I agree but for different reasons. Religion and atheism are alike in that one can have no conception of God. Any idea we have is a drop in the ocean compared to the real thing, therefore a believer can only believe in a symbol. This makes any deeply religious person with no idealized image of God identical to an atheist, also with no idealized image of a creator.

Atheists reject the idea of God because they have no imagination.
Theists reject the ideas of Evolution and abiogenesis because they have no imagination.

Not in the literal sense but I made this thread to discuss the possibilities of atheism and religion being conceptually equal. Its pretty simple, both describe their creation through ideas and philosophy which are similar to each other. For instance, the classic big bang theory mirrors that of an omnipotent being. They both brought about the creation of the universe, along with its laws and constants, and both dwell on the improbable concept of no beginning and no end.

The confusion between atheism and religion arises from the association of science in atheism. Although athiests try to incorporate science into their ideal, its ineffective due to the fact that the creation of matter and time stand far outside our current knowledge of science. Therefore, as there's no real supporting evidence of a deity in religion, there's also no supporting evidence of it otherwise. But then there arises the unexplained phenomenons that both of them share. Such as the Red/Blue shifts of planets (big bang) and the accuracy of holy texts. Its incorporation into religion/atheism makes it a unique phenomena, even though alone it proves no special than the paths of gravity and ancient history recording or story telling.

The idea is, athiesm and religion have made no advances on each other do to the fact that they are the same thing. I personally believe that religion has more followers because any thoughts otherwise didn't really arise till the renaissance.

So, I'll add more if anyones interested in discussing this :D

Athiesm is a religion too, it's never that science is seperate from religion, its a matter of which religion.

I think God is Good.
Athiests don't have a science of morality or ethics so until they develop one, I'm going to favor God.

Athiesm is a religion too


It can be. It can be a religion without God. But we have religions like this already and it is called Buddhism.

Some Atheist can be as irrational as Theist. But the difference between a theist and atheist is that Atheist at least requires at some critical thinking whereas religions require you to believe in it.


I think God is Good.


And others think God is love.


Athiests don't have a science of morality or ethics so until they develop one, I'm going to favor God.

Does God given morality make someone moral?
If so that morality is conditional?

Athiests don't have a science of morality or ethics so until they develop one, I'm going to favor God.

Morality is a social construct. There were rules against killing people and stuff before the three religions of the book.

ohh my god (pardon the pun, its meant as a figure of speech)

you guys are [.....]. I will make another post momentarily as it will take time to tell you all how wrong you are.

Not in the literal sense but I made this thread to discuss the possibilities of atheism and religion being conceptually equal.
or to start a flame war


For instance, the classic big bang theory mirrors that of an omnipotent being. They both brought about the creation of the universe, along with its laws and constants, and both dwell on the improbable concept of no beginning and no end.
no, no, no! the big bang theory says nothing about the universe before about 10^-40 seconds after the universe would have been a single point, we cannot model the universe beyond a certain heat/density. therefore, an atheist that actually studies physics would make no statement about the "beginning" of the universe. however, the biggest flaw in your argument is that there is no atheist dogma, so we don't all have the same view. thus, any comparison you make is bullshit.




The confusion between atheism and religion arises from the association of science in atheism.
what confusion? I don't know what you are talking about.

Although athiests try to incorporate science into their ideal, its ineffective due to the fact that the creation of matter and time stand far outside our current knowledge of science.
ineffective at what? our knowledge, or lack there of, has no bearing on whether or not our belief structure resembles religion. it is a totally different thing. theists have a positive belief about things that cannot prove, test, or even observe. atheists (most that I know) do not posit existence on things that cannot be tested, or observed.

Therefore, as there's no real supporting evidence of a deity in religion, there's also no supporting evidence of it otherwise.
unlike theists, atheists (that I know) hold no positive belief in things that are not observable.

But then there arises the unexplained phenomenons that both of them share. Such as the Red/Blue shifts of planets (big bang) and the accuracy of holy texts.
what the hell are you talking about? red/blue shift is simply the alteration of the frequency of light due to relative motion of the transmitter/receiver, which is a very well understood phenomenon. the validity of holy texts is totally impossible to prove. you are way off in this argument.

Its incorporation into religion/atheism makes it a unique phenomena, even though alone it proves no special than the paths of gravity and ancient history recording or story telling.
red/blue shift is not part of atheism. maybe some atheists use it in arguments but, again, you somehow think that atheists are all alike.

The idea is, athiesm and religion have made no advances on each other do to the fact that they are the same thing.
no, they are not the same thing.
------ok, one [.......] taken care of------------------------------

Religion, all agree, is the belief in one or more Gods [with a diversity in the concept of God].
Atheism is the denial of the existence of such Gods.
no, that is only strong atheism. learn more about atheism before you post.
-------------------2 down----------------------------------------

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
nice one =]
------------------------nice one----------------------------------

Religion and atheism are alike in that one can have no conception of God. Any idea we have is a drop in the ocean compared to the real thing, therefore a believer can only believe in a symbol. This makes any deeply religious person with no idealized image of God identical to an atheist, also with no idealized image of a creator.
that makes no sense. atheists don't really try to imagine a god. theists do.
-----------------------4 down-------------------------------------

Atheists reject the idea of God because they have no imagination.
Theists reject the ideas of Evolution and abiogenesis because they have no imagination.
I don't think it has much to do with imagination. you should somehow justify such crackpot statement.
------------------------5----------------------------------------

Athiesm is a religion too, it's never that science is seperate from religion, its a matter of which religion.
depends on what you call a religion. if you mean "a personal belief system" then yeah. if you mean the belief in a deity, then no. someone should deine religion before we start arguing about bullshit.
--------------------------6---------------------------------------

thiests don't have a science (science? paging Dr Freud) of morality or ethics so until they develop one, I'm going to favor God.
OMFG, congrats, you are the biggest moron of the thread.
READ THIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism.2C_religion_and_morality
------------------godam, that was a rough one----------------------

Athiests don't have a science of morality or ethics so until they develop one, I'm going to favor God.

Wow, you need the fear of damnation by an alpha-male sky god to keep you decent? Strange, so you are telling me without God you would be a child raping necrophiliac? That scares the hell outta me.

Morality is a social construct

Morality has nothing to do with social systems.
It is about the rules/habits which guide an individual toward a good life.

Ethics is the province of social contracts.

Morality has nothing to do with social systems.
It is about the rules/habits which guide an individual toward a good life.

Ethics is the province of social contracts.

I meant to say societal construct, I think.

Wow, you need the fear of damnation by an alpha-male sky god to keep you decent? Strange, so you are telling me without God you would be a child raping necrophiliac? That scares the hell outta me.

That would make him elegible for the clergy.

I don't think it has much to do with imagination. you should somehow justify such crackpot statement.

Perhaps if you weren't such a damned prick every time someone shared an idea that seemed to you, at least on the surface, to disagree with your point of view, I would be inclined to elaborate and we could actually have a discussion.
But we both know that's not going to happen, don't we?
Hey look at that, yet another thing that many atheists have in common with many theists!

You just continue being an ass, and I'll continue ignoring you.

Good day

Not in the literal sense but I made this thread to discuss the possibilities of atheism and religion being conceptually equal.

Equal in what way? You need to be specific. Equal in their ability to cure the sick and heal the injured? Equal in their ability to make correct statements of empirical fact? Equal in their ability to provide people with a moral code? Equal in their ability to provide an explanation for the existence of space and time?

The idea is, athiesm and religion have made no advances on each other do to the fact that they are the same thing. I personally believe that religion has more followers because any thoughts otherwise didn't really arise till the renaissance.

I would have thought that atheism naturally evolved from religion.

Perhaps if you weren't such a damned prick every time someone shared an idea that seemed to you, at least on the surface, to disagree with your point of view, I would be inclined to elaborate and we could actually have a discussion.
But we both know that's not going to happen, don't we?
Hey look at that, yet another thing that many atheists have in common with many theists!

You just continue being an ass, and I'll continue ignoring you.

Good day
sorry, i was pissed off yesterday, and when I saw that obvious fallacies in the original poster's comments, I just went on a rampage =]

i think religion and atheism are about the same. atheism has less ideals and this and that... but they both seek answers in a bizarre manner. they both over narrate mystery to the point of potential fallacy for some psychological need. is it the agnostics that are the real tough guys? i don't know, once you can make sense out of one thing, the whole universe must follow or we will be suspect of it and make up fairy tales about the mysteries that are unverifiable and demand adherence or we WILL KILL!?! sounds a bit weird to me. asses. but there i go again narrating and explaining it away. i need to. let me tell you more stories...

the question is: is your question any different than religion and atheism or do you also need that comfort?

just because people can dream up questions doesn't mean there is an answer. the question, too, is a bullshit, synthetic way of constraining something wild out there that we only have transduced and mocked up relations (consciousness and all that) with. who really knows... its all just utilitous. i like that explanation. utility is the simplist story. crutch. crutch. like reoccur in dali's paintings. crutch. for comfort. and eventually just cause i want it. science is the itchiest, most paranoid religion of all i think.

i think religion and atheism are about the same. atheism has less ideals and this and that... but they both seek answers in a bizarre manner. they both over narrate mystery to the point of potential fallacy for some psychological need. is it the agnostics that are the real tough guys? i don't know, once you can make sense out of one thing, the whole universe must follow or we will be suspect of it and make up fairy tales about the mysteries that are unverifiable and demand adherence or we WILL KILL!?! sounds a bit weird to me. asses. but there i go again narrating and explaining it away. i need to. let me tell you more stories...
read this before you make any more posts please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
you really don't know what you are talking about, and you sound like a fool.


just because people can dream up questions doesn't mean there is an answer. the question, too, is a bullshit, synthetic way of constraining something wild out there that we only have transduced and mocked up relations (consciousness and all that) with. who really knows... its all just utilitous. i like that explanation. utility is the simplist story. crutch. crutch. like reoccur in dali's paintings. crutch. for comfort. and eventually just cause i want it.
you seem to have stumbled into existentialism (or perhaps nihilism), but that does not tell us anything about anything. what is the utility of assuming you know nothing about existence? that seems to be the biggest crutch of all. rather than seriously learning about the universe, one simply throws up their hands and says that its all "bullshit."

science is the itchiest, most paranoid religion of all i think.
why do you think so? science is simply a method that provides people with insight into how our world work.

before we go any farther, we have to decide on a working definition of religion. I feel that people are being a little loose with the definition if we are calling a method a religion, that like calling baseball a religion.

before we go any farther, we have to decide on a working definition of religion. I feel that people are being a little loose with the definition if we are calling a method a religion, that like calling baseball a religion.

There’s nothing more annoying than people who try to change the definition of religion so that they can make statements that would ordinarily seem interesting or controversial, but are just stupidly obvious within the context of their new definition. Yeah, I can say that religion and science are the same thing if I completely redefine religion. And I can say that christians are satanists if I redefine “christian” and “a person who believes in satan”. Or I can say that bricks fly, if I redefine “bricks” and “sparrows”.

you really don't know what you are talking about, and you sound like a fool.more science, less hate eh? a bit defensive there. maybe some denial aroused by certain things you are psychologically invested in believing? :bawl: i didn't say everything was bullshit. i said everything has utility which is stronger than saying everything is bullshit. i also haven't advanced anything nihilistic. maybe you should spend some time on wikipedia there cato. i'm sorry my definition of religion isn't closedminded enough to merely make christian over-narration of mystery look bad. pssssht.

what is the utility of assuming you know nothing about existence? that seems to be the biggest crutch of all.you willfully put words in my mouth to react to. i must have said something good to get such a reaction. or do you just think you are smarter than everyone else.

i said nothing about knowing nothing being utilitous. i merely suggested that the narration and sense-making and our modes of perception are influenced by utility (what we need. pragmatic.) within a certain s-o-a and not nec the truth, if there even is such a thing. atheists' faith is an analogue to theists' faith. they both believe something without knowing. maybe its not a religion, buts its faith-based and its got queer psychology like a religion.

also - thanks for directing me to the narration (hee hee hee) of athiesm on wiki so i could make sense (hee hee hee) of it all. begging the question are ya?

Wasn't the thread about atheism being similar to religion?

Why do people (mainly theists, it has to be said, from experience) start equating science with atheism?
It is nothing to do with atheism per so.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a God.
One does not need to have an alternative solution to all the questions (e.g. science) to be an atheist.

I do concede that most atheists here DO tend toward science, but that is by the by.

Agnosticism is also not a "middle ground" between theist and atheist.
I am an atheist.
I am also an agnostic.
In fact it is my agnosticism that initially led me toward atheism.

So - please do NOT confuse science with atheism.
Please do NOT confuse agnosticism as a "middle road".


Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.

Science could be viewed as similar - in certain respects.
Both seek answers:
Religion accept things on faith
Science says "We don't know for sure - but this theory fits the existing evidence, and we'll change the theory when more evidence comes to light".
Science also freely admits when it can NOT know things (like what is outside our Universe) - or what "caused" the Universe, or indeed if it needed causing.
These things are beyond the scope of actual science - and enter the realm of mere idea, although they might logically follow from scientific theory.

Religion just tells it as it wants you to hear it is - and tells you to believe it.
Science doesn't tell you what to hear. It provides the means for you to hear it yourself.

Science doesn't tell you what to hear. It provides the means for you to hear it yourself.the same can be said of some religions. you are using a working definition of religion that is too easily crapped on. science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong. you also seem to think that atheism and agnosticism overlap. can you explain?

Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.


No it is not, but I see MANY people treat it as if it is.
They gather up other people's points of view and speak of them as if they are dogmatic law.
The spout the exact same arguments that support the view that no God exists, with little or no thought of their own.

You can respect and follow Jesus' teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.
You can respect and follow The Buddha's teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.

You could also be a bible thumping Christian, eating up everything your pastor feeds you as absolute truth.

The same goes for atheists and Atheism.
You can be an atheist, wiothout belonging to the religion of Atheism.
Unfortunately, however, many people of many different religions are sheep.

the same can be said of some religions. you are using a working definition of religion that is too easily crapped on. science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong.Wrong?
Please explain where "faith" comes into science?

And please bear in mind that there is a difference between religious "faith" - i.e. the acceptance without evidence, and the colloquial term "faith" that is merely another word to describe the subconscious assessment of probability built up through observational evidence.

But feel free to explain.


you also seem to think that atheism and agnosticism overlap. can you explain?Sure.

Atheism and Theism are to do with one thing: whether one has the positive belief that god exists (theism) or whether one does not have this positive belief (atheism).

Agnosticism is the stance that either it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or that while certainty may indeed be a possibility, the individual personally has no knowledge.

It is thus possible to be:
an Agnostic Atheist (me);
a non-Agnostic Atheist (someone who thinks it is possible to have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence) - and I guess these tend to be "Strong Atheists"?
an Agnostic Theist (someone who knows they can't know God with certainty yet believes)
a non-Agnostic Theist (most religious people, I think).

Clear?

sarkus
your second definition of faith, the non-religious one, sounds like 'intuition' to me. and no, there are no substantial differences other than the ontology of the one who has the faith and the intuition. they have different ontologies and similar processes lead them to different places that both rely on a form of faith or an other. your scientific chauvinism is apparent.
agnosticism can be used to describe someone who doesn't put there foot down on a side of any argument. agnosticism in this context is someone who doesn't believe that god exists and doesn't believe that god doesn't exist. an atheist doesn't believe god exists. am i incorrect here? oh mighty, condescending one...?!?

science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong.

Would that be the same blind faith on which religion is based?

Would that be the same blind faith on which religion is based?perhaps religious faith isn't as blind as it seems to an outsider if the religious persons entire ontology has been formed around religion since an early age. get it? same with science. for example, science tells us almost everything is determined. humans have no free will. how many scientists do you know that believe in free will despite the implications of physics? i know quite a few. this is blind faith and scientists are not above it by any means.

science is simply a method that provides people with insight into how our world work.so it has blind faith in a method does it not? how can one escape the method? sure you can try to very the method, but then its again an issue of faith. i'm sorry i'm not as simple minded as all you but there certainly are many epistemological regressions that bottom out into an abyss of nothingness. hence faith.

what about particles and energy? some sciences model with particles and other with waves. which one is right? faith? they both work? explain.

perhaps religious faith isn't as blind as it seems to an outsider if the religious persons entire ontology has been formed around religion since an early age. get it? same with science. for example, science tells us almost everything is determined. humans have no free will. how many scientists do you know that believe in free will despite the implications of physics? i know quite a few. this is blind faith and scientists are not above it by any means.

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of logic here.

Blind faith is still blind faith regardless of how much time has passed or when the individual began believing.

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of logic here.

Blind faith is still blind faith regardless of how much time has passed or when the individual began believing.

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

Well there was the Nobel Prize for lobotomy.

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

While everything is not determined, the indeterminacies that do exist occur on such a level that the human mind has no mechanism to take advantage of them. Its a mereological issue. Furthermore, we find no eggregious violations of natural law, that we would need for free will, occuring inside our heads.

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

Perhaps the faith is in the method. What method do we use to test the method? One that doesn't require faith? Probability enters into it. And there is definately faith involved.

Ultimately I'm not concerned with convincing you of anything enough to find examples. Furthermore, it would be silly for me to claim I'm right, given the argument.

While everything is not determined, the indeterminacies that do exist occur on such a level that the human mind has no mechanism to take advantage of them. Its a mereological issue. Furthermore, we find no eggregious violations of natural law, that we would need for free will, occuring inside our heads.

But, that doesn't explain the claim of 'science tells us almost everything is determined?'

Perhaps the faith is in the method. What method do we use to test the method? One that doesn't require faith? Probability enters into it. And there is definately faith involved.

The scientific method works well, and is not based on faith at all. It's simply a method for attempting to explain phenomenae. You make an observation, make a prediction and then test the prediction - the results either void the prediction or support it. Where is 'faith' in all of that?

Ultimately I'm not concerned with convincing you of anything enough to find examples. Furthermore, it would be silly for me to claim I'm right, given the argument.

I'd be very surprised if such examples existed.

The scientific method works well, and is not based on faith at all. It's simply a method for attempting to explain phenomenae. You make an observation, make a prediction and then test the prediction - the results either void the prediction or support it. Where is 'faith' in all of that?

.

Well , the faith is that the test is measuring your observation accurately. This depends on knowing all the variables that go into that observation. Thats another part you take on faith.

sarkus
your second definition of faith, the non-religious one, sounds like 'intuition' to me. and no, there are no substantial differences other than the ontology of the one who has the faith and the intuition. they have different ontologies and similar processes lead them to different places that both rely on a form of faith or an other.A colloquial form of faith - yes - which is why I clarified.

If you wish to debate the differences between "religious" faith and "assessment of probability" faith then feel free.

your scientific chauvinism is apparent.As is your stupidity.

agnosticism can be used to describe someone who doesn't put there foot down on a side of any argument.Yes - it can - the same way as someone can use the word "treacle" to describe what footballers kick around on a field - i.e. incorrectly: to do so is to misunderstand the word they are using.

Now that you have been corrected, please have the courtesy to stop using it incorrectly.

Feel free to look in a dictionary if you still have doubts as to the manner of your error.


agnosticism in this context is someone who doesn't believe that god exists and doesn't believe that god doesn't exist. an atheist doesn't believe god exists. am i incorrect here? oh mighty, condescending one...?!?Yes.
You are incorrect.
As I explained - and as you obviously failed to read and comprehend - it is entirely possible to be an agnostic theist - or a non-agnostic atheist - or a non-agnostic atheist - or an agnostic atheist.

However, if you want to use your own definition of Agnostic: "fence-sitter" then yes, you are correct.
But then how would you know if my definitions of the words "yes" and "correct" were not actually what you would think of as "no" and "incorrect"?
The purpose of defining words is that they mean the same thing to everyone.
Please remember that.

And as for being condescending - I humbly accept the compliment and your acceptance of your status in this argument.

Well , the faith is that the test is measuring your observation accurately. This depends on knowing all the variables that go into that observation. Thats another part you take on faith.Thanks. It seems clear to me, but I'm not a chauvinist scientist.

Thanks. It seems clear to me, but I'm not a chauvinist scientist.

Thats ok. I am.:D

If you wish to debate the differences between "religious" faith and "assessment of probability" faith then feel free.
Feel free to make up as many types of faith as you want to support your contentions. Just don't ecpect others' beliefs to be influenced by them.

Well , the faith is that the test is measuring your observation accurately. This depends on knowing all the variables that go into that observation. Thats another part you take on faith.

You're confusing faith with confidence.

You're confusing faith with confidence.

You mean assumptions. They are also based on absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Feel free to make up as many types of faith as you want to support your contentions. Just don't ecpect others' beliefs to be influenced by them.Riiiight.

So to you "faith" is "faith"? Regardless of situation?

You can not see the difference between:
"Faith that my brother will pick me up from the airport like he said he would."

and

"Faith that there is a God who created the Earth but for which no evidence exists."?

I am using two extremes here to make my point that there is a difference of degree of "faith" between the kind where there is a lack of evidence and the kind that is nothing more than an assessment of probability based on evidence.

Can you see the distinction?

Or can you not see past the fact that the word "faith" is the same in both contexts and thus you feel they must be the same?

c'mon guys. what about the widely held scientific faith in human free will despite the evidence, theories, and discoveries?

sarkus

your brother said he would pick you up at the airport. he might not.

a preacher says god is real. he might not be.

your brother said he would pick you up at the airport. he might not.

a preacher says god is real. he might not be.:eek:
So you freely admit that God might not exist?
Why do you say this if you are theist (I am assuming you are a theist)?

Do you "believe" in God?

Why, if you also think he might not exist?


Are you one of the rather rare agnostic theists????

i am an atheist. a non-agnostic one. that's why i think scientific faith is no better. its the same fallacy... just a fancier way of tricking oneself into believing things.

i am an atheist. a non-agnostic one. that's why i think scientific faith is no better. its the same fallacy... just a fancier way of tricking oneself into believing things.

I love this.:D

I love this.:Dit does contain some contradictions... but whatever. i ain't perfect.

c'mon guys. what about the widely held scientific faith in human free will despite the evidence, theories, and discoveries?

Never heard of it. What scientific faith in human free will do you refer?

scientists who lack education in epistemology are like christians if you ask me.

scientists who lack education in epistemology are like christians if you ask me.

That word has a bad rep here.

Again. What scientific faith in human free will do you refer?

That word has a bad rep here.which one scientist or epistemology?

Again. What scientific faith in human free will do you refer?I can safely estimate that 95% of scientists believe in free will. That one.

which one scientist or epistemology?

Most scientists today are clueless about scientific philosophy, unfortunately.

I can safely estimate that 95% of scientists believe in free will. That one.

That is entirely different than claiming science itself has determined free will.

you seem to have stumbled into ... perhaps nihilism...how would you know? cause i said something and described my way there? nihilism is cute because you can't have it explained to you... in terms i mean... uh... are those guys considered non-agnostic atheists or what? prime candidates.

That is entirely different than claiming science itself has determined free will.Well. That's not what I said. I said 'scientific faith'. M'kay?

Most scientists today are clueless about scientific philosophy, unfortunately.

*cough cough* Bullshit *cough*

Most scientists today are clueless about scientific philosophy, unfortunately.understatement of the year. philosophy is nice and humbling. its where all the loose ends end up. the box o mystery. science, i think, is more ignorant of it then religion is... science's very aims seem to be invested in ignoring mystery... real, unsolvable mystery. oops. i said it again. christian.

Well. That's not what I said. I said 'scientific faith'. M'kay?

It still does not follow, sorry.

*cough cough* Bullshit *cough*

Yeah, its hard to explain philosophy to the woo woos.:)

science's very aims seem to be invested in ignoring mystery... real, unsolvable mystery.

Like what?

Yeah, its hard to explain philosophy to the woo woos.:)

It's hard to explain anything to woo-woos.

understatement of the year. philosophy is nice and humbling. its where all the loose ends end up. the box o mystery. science, i think, is more ignorant of it then religion is... science's very aims seem to be invested in ignoring mystery... real, unsolvable mystery. oops. i said it again. christian.

I think its because most scientists brought up with a science education that lacks philosophical training have a limited understanding of the basis of scientific thought.

They get so caught up in the tools of science that they miss the part where they are based on inferences following certain assumptions.

i'm glad i lit some fire under this thread... and it led to scientist bashing on a scientist forum... hee hee hee. alright. i gotta do a multiple state trip this weekend, but rest assured i'll be back on monday to make fun of nervous sense-making and the overnarration that provides a false calm in the face of pure goddamn mystery.

i'm glad i found this place. its fun!

It's hard to explain anything to woo-woos.

No even woo woos have areas of expertise.

i'm glad i lit some fire under this thread... and it led to scientist bashing on a scientist forum... hee hee hee. alright. i gotta do a multiple state trip this weekend, but rest assured i'll be back on monday to make fun of nervous sense-making and the overnarration that provides a false calm in the face of pure goddamn mystery.

i'm glad i found this place. its fun!

Oh we scientists bash each other all the time. Only we call it peer review.:p

Like what?Color. Consciousness. Identity. Gravity. and countless other things. How can we be sure we know what we know? Does a knowledge regression analysis need a foundation or merely to be internally coherent? Does the regression go on forever? Countless things. We don't even know, for sure, how we know... anything at all. Again... epistemology. Its so cool. Its all editorials too... because no one knows.

(Q)Does science disprove free will?

Throw that in the pile o mystery. I love arguing about free will. Its really cool too. Maybe next week.

Color. Consciousness. Identity. Gravity. and countless other things.

Oh, I see now, you're mistaking that which can be explained with that which you are unaware. You should have just said so in the first place.

btw
i thought this was a philosophy thread? and what happened to the christian-hater that was accusing me of theism? ran away eh?

Oh, I see now, you're mistaking that which can be explained with that which you are unaware. You should have just said so in the first place.to think that everything can be explained, whether or not we have access to the explanation, begs an 'eye' that doesn't exist. its very religious in fact.

(Q)Does science disprove free will?

Science neither proves nor disproves free will. Science was not intended to explain such things.

Science neither proves nor disproves free will. Science was not intended to explain such things.

So what is science intended to explain?

to think that everything can be explained, whether or not we have access to the explanation, begs an 'eye' that doesn't exist. its very religious in fact.

Huh?

So what is science intended to explain?

You claim to be a scientist, don't you know?

AHEM....

Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.


No it is not, but I see MANY people treat it as if it is.
They gather up other people's points of view and speak of them as if they are dogmatic law.
The spout the exact same arguments that support the view that no God exists, with little or no thought of their own.

You can respect and follow Jesus' teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.
You can respect and follow The Buddha's teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.

You could also be a bible thumping Christian, eating up everything your pastor feeds you as absolute truth.

The same goes for atheists and Atheism.
You can be an atheist, wiothout belonging to the religion of Atheism.
Unfortunately, however, many people of many different religions are sheep.

Huh?

to think that everything can be explained, whether or not we have access to the explanation, begs an 'eye' that doesn't exist. its very religious in fact.you are begging the question... what language would it all be explained in? and so forth - what units? arbitrary ones? its silly. its religious. just like i said. religion is just more static than science so science is able to feign knowing things in a better way.

You claim to be a scientist, don't you know?

I want to hear your opinion, peaches.

you are begging the question... what language would it all be explained in?

Mathematics.

Mathematics.again, from what eye? there is no burden, out there... for explanations. they are just comfy in here.

again, from what eye? there is no burden, out there... for explanations. they are just comfy in here.

Again. Huh?

its psychology homes. you have been taught to associate good feelings with certain ideas. such as things being explainable. you're well socialized and so forth. just like a Christian. they just are taught to have different feelings and say huh? in responce to different challenges to their ideology.

Mathematics

Mathematical assumptions don't always reflect biological reality.

its psychology homes. you have been taught to associate good feelings with certain ideas. such as things being explainable. you're well socialized and so forth. just like a Christian. they just are taught to have different feelings and say huh? in responce to different challenges to their ideology.

Sorry pal, I can do experiments like anyone else and observe the results and agree with the explanations. That has nothing to do with whatever you're claiming.

Sorry pal, I can do experiments like anyone else and observe the results and agree with the explanations. That has nothing to do with whatever you're claiming.

But if your premise is faulty, you could do the experiment and get results that agree with your observations, but they could be entirely wrong.

However, you would not know that unless you were aware of the wrongness of your premise.

Some fileds of science are more like religion than others (and more than they would like to admit).
Theoretical Physics is a perfect example.
You start out with an observation.
You study that observation.
You find a hypothesis that fits with what you observe.
The missing pieces, you can just make shit up that you have absolutley no proof for to fill that in, as long as it doesn't fuck up the original idea.
Call that truth until somethign better comes along.

Yeah, umm there are virtual particles.
If you add anti-particles the math will work.
Things respond differently when they are very very small thye magically pop into and out of existence.
Nothing can move faster than C, but two particles on opposite sides of the universe, will change their "spin" simultaneously.
Half the theories in Theorietical Physics are barely a step above "God did it".

sam,

I am normally on your side, you are a nice person. however, you are making statements that you cannot possibly back up.
Most scientists today are clueless about scientific philosophy, unfortunately.
show me the evidence for that statement, or the following:
I think its because most scientists brought up with a science education that lacks philosophical training have a limited understanding of the basis of scientific thought.

They get so caught up in the tools of science that they miss the part where they are based on inferences following certain assumptions.

anyway, I still haven't seen a definition of religion that we all agree to use.
nig seems to be using this definition:
"faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality" - m-w.com
shall we use this one?

also, what are we debating here? whether science is a religion, or whether atheism is a religion? both?

additionally, it seems obvious that there are different degrees of faith that arise from the utility of each. faith that what I observe is reality is one thing, faith that something I cannot observe is real is quite another. the former is reasonable, perhaps necessary, to live. the latter is a merely convenient way to gaining piece of mind and controlling behavior.

science, as nig and sam seem to be forgetting, is a way of gaining knowledge that has shown, over time, to be very pragmatically valuable in providing our society with the tools that are required to move in the collectively desired direction. the only assumption (faith) that must be made to practice science is, as stated earlier, that what I observe is reality. additionally, to use science as a tool, we need to only make one more assumption (again, faith). that assumption is to take what is scientifically verified (with the scientific method) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) as truth (within reason) unless and until the theory is adapted or invalidated.

Raven, it is one thing to believe that our model of the universe is pretty good, though possibly wrong, and quite another to think that we know the absolute truth. I have not met a physicist who has said that our particle theories (and the like) are the absolute truth. however, quantum mechanics (which you refer to) is highly predicable, and that is why it is used. do you think that it is the same faith? I see a huge difference.

since sam and nig seem to be glossing over questions/arguments that people have been making, I will sum things up.

Open Issues:
--Sam needs to either qualify, retract, or show evidence for her statements.
--should we use my definition of religion?
--what are we debating? science-(VS)-religion-(VS)-Atheism?
--different degrees of faith? necessary to live VS feels good?
--Faith in absolute truth VS faith that our model.
(please respond to my statements, not the condensed list I have shown here)

sam,

I am normally on your side, you are a nice person. however, you are making statements that you cannot possibly back up.

show me the evidence for that statement, or the following:


Sure. The best example I can give is Dawkins.

He thinks religion is a question that can be addressed by science.

There are other scientists who establish tools without addressing the questions they are researching.

I come across them everyday and wonder they spent years on research which was so obviously doomed to failure due to lack of proper modelling.

e.g. extrapolating animal research to humans without confirming similarity of metabolism for that particular substrate or drug.

another example I frequently come across in nutrition is the complete ignorance of differences in structure and function of natural versus artificial nutrients, using analogues without determining long term consequences, ignoring impact of gene/environment on metabolism or the gene-environment interactions, ignoring dietary interactions between different nutrients, etc.

Very very common and a sad reflection of the inability to see the big picture.

Dawkins, in case you don't know, is just one person. he is not most scientists, as that is a physical impossibility considering that a single person, by definition cannot represent "most" of a group unless he/she is the only person in the group.

Dawkins, in case you don't know, is just one person. he is not most scientists, as that is a physical impossibility considering that a single person, by definition cannot represent "most" of a group unless he/she is the only person in the group.

He has quite a following and I have rarely seen atheistic scientists address the fallacy of his assertions. Have you?

I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.

edit:
just amend it to say that "many scientists..." and I will let it go. you also have to address that second statement, which you also cannot know.

I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.

Very simply by the fact that no has thought fit to question his stance on it.

I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.

edit:
just amend it to say that "many scientists..." and I will let it go. you also have to address that second statement, which you also cannot know.

I say most scientists based on what I read in the literature.

I think science has been sacrificed to corporate interests in many ways.

Very simply by the fact that no has thought fit to question his stance on it.
what? do you mean that no one has questioned it? how do you know that? do you know everyone it the world?

I say most scientists based on what I read in the literature.
what literature? cite it. did they survey all scientists? I am doubtful.

what? do you mean that no one has questioned it? how do you know that? do you know everyone it the world?

what literature? cite it. did they survey all scientists? I am doubtful.

Its a general trend in science today. Only that which has sale value is funded.

Science is all about results and profit today.

I meant the general trend in scientific literature.

Although SamCDKey and I rarely agree on most matters, it is here that I will throw in my lot with her:

Scientists of today are woefully underprepared to deal with questions of religion or philosophy.

When they do try to, they show themselves to be undereducated and underappreciative.

On the other hand, there are scientists like Stephen Hawkings who is intimately interested in bringing philosophers back to the forefront of discussion, and to himself delve into issues of philosophy of science.

On the other hand, there are scientists like Stephen Hawkings that is intimately interested in bringing philosophers back to the forefront of discussion, and to himself delve into issues of philosophy of science.

I agree with this.

you have not cited a thing, and continually dodge the only thing I am arguing about, namely your blanket statements that can't possibly be known for sure. all you have to say to end this argument is say that you cannot know if the majority of scientists are as you say they are. you can still say that many are, or that most of the ones you have encountered are, and stop making blanket statements that you cannot back up.

I am not even disagreeing with your statements in the event you replace most with many.

you have not cited a thing, and continually dodge the only thing I am arguing about, namely your blanket statements that can't possibly be known for sure. all you have to say to end this argument is say that you cannot know if the majority of scientists are as you say they are. you can still say that many are, or that most of the ones you have encountered are, and stop making blanket statements that you cannot back up.

How many scientists do you know who have studied philosophy?

Of all the scientists I worked with or have met (and I've met thousands) only two had.

Do you think that was a fluke?

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Hawkings. His willingness to seriously investigate matters, instead of touting a "party line", imply a great courage and is a credit also to his tremendous intellect.

Dawkins, on the other hand, ends up being laughable more often than not.

Do you think that was a fluke?
probably not, but I cannot say for sure.

thank you. thats all I wanted. a correct statement at last! most you have met.

I agree with you, by the way. but I am not sure how much damage is really done by their lack of philosophical training.

probably not, but I cannot say for sure.

thank you. thats all I wanted. a correct statement at last! most you have met.

I agree with you, by the way. but I am not sure how much damage is really done by their lack of philosophical training.

How do you measure what you don't know?

Here is a nice write up on it:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/scientific-method.html

ok, moving on
Open Issues:

--should we use my definition of religion?
--what are we debating? science-(VS)-religion-(VS)-Atheism?
--different degrees of faith? necessary to live VS feels good?
--Faith in absolute truth VS faith that our model.
(please respond to my statements, not the condensed list I have shown above. click here) (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1332846#post1332846)

edit:interesting article, I agree with much of it.

Mathematics.cannot explain consciousness, color, and a bunch of other things dude.

don't be so sure nig, just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them. also, color is easily explained by math nu=C/lambda.

don't be so sure nig, just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them. also, color is easily explained by math nu=C/lambda.you don't be so sure, buddy. is color a surface property, a brain state, something in the air, certain neural transductions? what is it? fill me in. with math.

you just strike me as a cocky tart. i, frankly, dont like discussing anything with those types.

religion, as i think of it, is an any ontology based on fancy ideas and latched on to for psychological, sense-making reasons. it need not have a 'god' as such. people are attracted to science for many of the same reasons people are attracted to religions. they both involve faith.

furthermore, you guys totally ignored my question about epistemological belief regression analysis. should we require a 'true belief' foundation and what would that be? should it not require a foundation and rather strive for internal coherence, or should the regression go on infinitely? this is fundamental to the 'do we know anything' question and was willfully ignored by everyone.

just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain themhow is this blind faith different than religious faith? you do have some type of faith when you say that do you not?

I like the definition of religion I offered in the thread I started with the purpose of finding a definition of religion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64482).

Religion - A codified philosophical system that asserts a belief in the existence of at least one transcendental state or plane of existence beyond that which can be materially verified, and attempts to ascertain or teach the ideology that will assist the practitioner in transcending beyond this material existence to the other state(s) or plane(s).

I like the definition of religion I offered in the thread I started with the purpose of finding a definition of religion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64482).

Sounds like yoga.:)

Sounds like yoga.:)

Yoga is a method. One that can most certainly be used in Religious practices and often is.

you don't be so sure, buddy. is color a surface property, a brain state, something in the air, certain neural transductions? what is it? fill me in. with math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Light
(see derivation) (though you probably don't know multi-variable calculus, so I don't see the point)

you just strike me as a cocky tart. i, frankly, don't like discussing anything with those types.
I am sorry you feel that way, you just make so many false statements that it is frustrating.(example below)


just because we don't currently have the mathematical models, does not mean it can't explain them
how is this blind faith different than religious faith? you do have some type of faith when you say that do you not?
first of all, I was only challenging your faith that math "cannot" everything. I do not know if it can or if it cannot, so I try avoid making statements that I cannot back up, I would like it if others would do the same. (see my argument with sam above)

secondly, math can explain, at least part, of everything i can think of, and would love to hear of something that cannot be partially describe in mathematical terms.

cato
you seem to be weakening your stance. "I do not know if it can or if it cannot" --- if you think wikipedia can tell us why we see redness, for example, you are wrong. where does the qualitative sensation of redness come from? that's what color is correct? a qualitative sensation and not just some wavelenths with no observer? color is redness, blueness, yellowness. it involves a brain doesn't it?

raven
did you steal that from foucault or derrida?

raven
did you steal that from foucault or derrida?

No.
If I had, I would have credited the source.
I wrote it.

Somewhere along in here someone ought to point out that there are atheistic religions. Buddhism, Taoism, come to mind.

Anda lot of the "gods" in the polytheistic religions, if examined closely, end up looking a lot like explanatory forces or ghosts or mythological figures or other mysterious coherent entities - not the same thing as a deity, IMHO. I know that some Navajos, for example, deny that they have a religion at all, based on the fact that their "gods" aren't deities in the sense they discover Western Europeans mean.

Dawkins gets bashed a lot, but reading his stuff without reference to his social role doesn't turn up anything particularly objectionable that I can see.

I saw a survey once of the prevalence of atheism in the Roman Catholic priesthood - my memory supplies 9% as the number. It was a long way from 0, anyway.