Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

This is a religion subforum in a science forum as SkinWalker has pointed out many times before. Discussions of religion here will be held up to scientific scrutiny just as are discussions in the physics subforum. For those of you who don't understand what that means, it means this. A statement or claim will be met with the following request:

A) Do you have evidence for this?

B) Please provide said evidence.

The discussions that follow will generally consist of the science-minded among us trying to explain to the non-scientists why what they have claimed is baseless due to the lack of evidence or the evidence being useless from a scientific standpoint.

From my perspective, some of the most fascinating discussions regard the evolutionary psychology behind theistic thinking and behavior and the idea that science can provide reality-based solutions to some long-standing human problems caused by religious thinking.

If you think that the scientific community is polite and tolerant of poor evidence, unsupported claims and logically absurd claims, then you are woefully mistaken. These "events" are met with the harshest criticisms.

As an example, I would submit this:

You wish to discuss whether god told Noah to build the ark or not, and the implications of this for god's relationship with Mankind. This is frought with so many problems it's hard to know where to begin. Most of us will groan and tell you it's a load of childish crap.

1) First, how do you know there is a god? Please provide evidence and supporting repeatable experimental results to support this claim.

2) The existence of a "god" is the foundation of all religious discussions. Discussing Noah, or Jesus, or the "proof" of god as provided by the bible/q'uran/talmud/etc,etc... is like discussing office politics that may have occurred on the 53rd floor, when you haven't demonstrated that there's even a building there, let alone a foundation for a building.

3) If you insist on proceeding with porly supported, logically absurd claims, we will generally not be polite with you.

4) Intelligent discussion requires intelligence. This begins with accepting that statements like:

"God tells us..."
"God loves you..."
"God (substitute your own creative assertion)..."

and my favorite,

"Let's objectively discuss (anything that presupposes a deity)..."

will be met with questions A) and B) above. Lack of anything enlightening in response to questions A) and B) will be generally met with something that has the general flavor of:

"Ok, this is stupid. Shut up and go away."

Hope this helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you're going to demand repeatable experimental results for everything you discuss, you should avoid the religion forum. Religion unfortunately has a lot to do with qualitative experience, which means that a lot of inconsistent personal truth is involved, which means that it can't be backed by science. It's just the nature of the beast.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you should reread my post. This is a religion sub in a science forum. "Qualitative experience" is just a mystical term to cover our ignorance of the detailed function of the vast neural network called the brain.

If you disagree, and propose that some "ethereal essence" that transcends the physics of the brain is responsible for "qualitative experience" then I suggest you provide some evidence for this. Otherwise, "qualitative experience" is explained currently by science as an emergent phenomenon of a complex, organized, self-referential (i.e. feedback enabled) network of biochemical nodes (neurons).

Edit:

Everything claimed to be objectively real requires evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At what point did I claim that qualitative experience was in any way transcendent of anything? You're wrong about science being able to explain it currently, but when it does (and I believe it eventually will), it won't go anywhere. People will still have it, and it will retain its qualitative nature despite a newfound ability to explain why it is qualitative. I assure you, whenever you get a pen and paper and evaluate the neural function that corresponds to the smell of a locker room, you will experience no such odor.

 

I completely agree. Yet what does that have to do with invoking religion as some form of explanation or enlightening pursuit? The qualitative experience only has "meaning" in reference to the effect of the stimulous (sweaty sock molecules) on the network that is reacting to it.

 

Ahhhh, why can't we all just accept that some believe and have faith and some do not? Why do we need to convince one and other all the time? Is it better not to believe than to believe? Who can tell? Why do you need to save Theists a ton of grief? Is it converting theists to atheists your after? Why?

And since, as you say, this is a science forum, why a religious subforum when Theism cannot be proved scientifically to begin with? No-one can prove God, so why make it available to discuss whether or not He exists? Just to mock theists? If so, that's just childish.

 

It isn't explained by religion, it is used by religion. If you read one_raven's Agnostic Finds God thread, for example, he's speaking personal truths that he found from his own experiences. He isn't saying that you can go somewhere and measure this god he found. Similarly, you may or may not think that the locker room stinks, and I may be able to explain why you do or don't; but if I understand why you do, that doesn't necessarily mean that I will too. Whether it actually smells bad is a personal truth.

I don't know if that's the best way I can put it, but maybe it makes sense.

 

Fine. I understand the difference between objective and subjective "truths". Objective truths apply to those that can be demonstrated and proven to others empirically. Like "trees exist and have thus and such properties". "I love my wife" is a subjective truth accessible only to me and ultimately unprovable to anyone else.

So, saying you found a god for yourself is fine. But saying this god exists in the real world (which theists claim) is objectively nonsense.

Why are you haggling over the semantics of subjective vs objective anyway?

 

baumgarten,

Are you sure you're not a theist?

 

it's really amazing how people attack one another in the religion forum.
atheists say god is nonsense because there is no proof

well i got news for you
there is no proof that atoms become alive and develope a conciousness either but these atheist swallow it hook line and sinker

 

Pretty sure I'm not a theist. I don't believe in any sort of deity, so I think that disqualifies me as a theist, though I understand I do have some religious tendencies.

I don't like it when a theist tells me that their god exists objectively, either. I especially don't like it when someone tells me I'm going to hell for not worshipping their god.

As for objective and subjective, it's an important distinction to make, especially when discussing philosophy or religion. If you don't make that distinction at the outset, you end up with misunderstanding and confrontation, and no valuable output whatsoever. GIGO.

 

leopold,

I won't hesitate to call you an idiot.

What are you made of? Atoms.
Are you conscious? Yes (apparently barely).

So, you are made of atoms and have developed some form of consciousness.

Hmmm...

 

i came from life thank you very much

i reiterate there is no proof none that atoms become alive

 

1) Ok.

2) Agree completely

3) Also agree completely. I suppose since we were in a science forum I made the bold assumption that we would be talking about objective "stuff".

 

Well leo, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation of your first statement alone. Should be fun.

 

and i would be interested in you showing proof that life and conciousness comes from non life

 

Ok. I'm made of atoms.

I have a genetic signature (as do you) that links me positively with a common ancestor of chimps and humans about 3my ago. The fossil record from that point is clear that that ancestor evolved, by natural selection, from ever earlier types. This can be traced back to the first instance of "life" which was a simple molecular replicator, befor which there were only "non-living" molecules and atoms.

All of this research is available to you if you choose to study and understand it.

 

i have googled the phrase "life from non life" and went throught the first 15 or so pages of results.
i can not repeat can not find any evidence that life comes from non life

 

Your loss.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm#Origins