 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
You make the assumption that the exact mechanisms exist, that your current model is accurate in any degree even though most scientific models are eventually proven to be wishful thinking.
|
WTF? That contradicts itself. That the mechanism exists is a basic tenet of sufficient reason and entropy, models are just that, models. They become more accurate but they are merely represenative, but no-one has claimed a perfect model, your point is defunct.
quote:
Science is only concrete up to what it currently encompasses, and "concrete" only because what science currently encompasses can't prove itself wrong.
|
That's bullshit. Sure there are some scientists who are overly zealous but that does not mean science as a whole is. Scientific method is premised by doubt, a central part of that is the ability to prove itself wrong and advance which is something lacking in theism or any statement based upon faith (see my previous post on that distinction).
Science does not require belief, and anyone who has faith in their model is making an error, but that does not reflect upon scientific method. The only belief relevant to science is the belief that the outside world exists, on top of that it's all logic.
My point is that merely because science doesn't understand something as yet, doesn't mean that it is fair game for religion. Furthermore, lack of evidence against, does not constitute evidence for, so religious science is a contradiction in terms.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
I don't believe that religion has been proven. I also don't believe religion needs to be. Unlike science, religion doesn't have the requirement to be proven. If you don't like those rules then don't play, but don't pretend you inablility to prove or disprove religion should shake someones faith. I don't expect my faith to dislodge someones blind allegiance to their scientist clergy.
|
But now you've just moved the goal posts. In my post I said that religious science is a contradiction in terms, and as I have said throughout this thread, personal faith is irrefutable because it is object to objective reality, it cannot be communicated etc. However, when a religion seeks to make scientific claims, then science and scientific method will always be superior to it, because science and scientific method are integral ways of understanding objective reality itself. Hence I distinguish between faith and religion. Faith, ok fine all well and good, as long as it is not imposed on others. Religion, as a system comprising rules, regulations, truisms etc, is far more suspect... hence science is perfectly able to take some quite large chunks out of accepted Christian doctrine, leaving only personal faith intact and rightly so.
quote:
And I suppose you are correct that the scientific method in itself is not a faith, but the vast majority of people treat it as one because they do make the mistakes in interpretation that you alude too.
|
True, and it irritates me no end when people say that they "believe" in evolution et al. To believe in science completely undermines scientific understanding, and weakens it, because if evolution should ever be scientifically disproved, somehow these people will think that science will be discredited along with it, whereas in reality it will have been strengthened.
Nonetheless, the statement "I believe in the truth of evolution" is stronger than the statement "I believe in creationism", because of the formers' greater merit in terms of evidence. That is, however, irrelevant here.
quote:
They are after all only theories. Or do you have faith that the ones you believe are infallible?
|
There's no such thing as an infallible theory, it's one of the beauties of logic. You seem to present that point as though it is a weakness of science, whereas it is probably one if its greatest strengths.
quote:
No. See, I've read all that stuff, and more, and I've come to the conclusion that Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism in particular, is a load of rubbish built from absolutely nothing, that says zilch. Paganism at least has some credence. Any religion with Alistair Crowley as a building block will receive no respect from me.
|
I disagree, ignoring the magic crap it's a good philosophy if you're an existentialist but not a humanist or a positivist. I agree the "Satanic Bible" leaves a lot to be desired, but the basic philosophy present is sound, and a good counter to monotheism, or dualistic theism (i.e. Christianity). The rest of it is pretty much a case of .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Psht. I don't know if the article is "true," but paganism is certainly on the rise. If it's doing so by taking a bite out of atheism, or fundamentalist nuttiness, or anything other than a real religion, so much the better.
Please don't compare that LaVeyan idiocy to a decent philosophy like Buddhism. LaVey's Satanism is a thinly rationalized justification of sociopathic behavior with a light gloss of decency tacked on to avoid getting the believers on Tom Ridge's crap list as possible subversives, assuming they aren't there anyway.
The Satanic Bible was actually plagiarized slapdash from a variety of sources, including Crowley and some late-1800s bozo named "Ragnar Redbeard," cobbled together to schlock out for cash. The whole church was invented as a moneymaking scheme for "LaVey" to milk his vast but useless knowledge of occult trivia. See for yourself, that Wikipedia entry Whaleboy cited includes a link to the first church of Satan's dedicated LaVey-myth-debunking page. They believe a modified form of his trash anyway for some reason, but it's not a valid philosophy in any sense of the word. People don't need a philosophy to be standoffish, sullen, and egotistical, they can do that by themselves.
EDIT: Sorry, the link is from Wikipedia's page on LaVey himself, not Satanism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Psht. I don't know if the article is "true," but paganism is certainly on the rise. If it's doing so by taking a bite out of atheism, or fundamentalist nuttiness, or anything other than a real religion, so much the better.
|
Please define such one.
Is Baal, Thor & Odin, the roman or greek god families, or perhaps the aboriginals godworld champions for this label ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Please don't compare that LaVeyan idiocy to a decent philosophy like Buddhism. LaVey's Satanism is a thinly rationalized justification of sociopathic behavior with a light gloss of decency tacked on to avoid getting the believers on Tom Ridge's crap list as possible subversives, assuming they aren't there anyway.
|
Like I said, it leaves a lot to be desired, I was using the precepts of the philosophy itself not the text as intended by LaVey. Your take demonstrates some pathetically colloquial understanding of it. The non-permanence, the distinction between faith and reason, the self-actualisation, all of which is shared with Buddhism (sic), which in this case derives from the Nietzschian element.
The main difference, asides from the "ego" element (i.e. Buddhism seeks detachment from the "I", whereas LVS revels in it), is the "do as you will" element, which is consistent as a conclusion, it is not a premise. It isn't a case of justifying individualistic anarchy, as I recall it limits one to "do as you will but hurt no others" which seems innocuous enough.
The magic stuff is superfluous to it as a philosophy, which is the level that I accept it as a consistent piece of logic.
quote:
but it's not a valid philosophy in any sense of the word. People don't need a philosophy to be standoffish, sullen, and egotistical, they can do that by themselves.
|
I accept that the church stuff is just designed for money making and social control, what organised religion isn't? But you have failed to deal with any of the actual philosophy behind it, effectively you're saying since the author is of dubious motivation, then the philosophy is false itself. Present your argument against it, which you have thus far failed to do  .
quote:
If it's doing so by taking a bite out of atheism, or fundamentalist nuttiness, or anything other than a real religion, so much the better.
|
So what's wrong with atheism, as opposed to a "real religion", that you would rather it takes a bite out of the former?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Even Popper claimed the distinction between science and non-science did not mean one was truth and the other not. Whether or not something is knowledge is not dependant on whether or not it is science. Indeed, if anything is objectively true, it ceases to be scientific, as it can no longer be falsified.
|
You are confusing categorical (as opposed to the subjective hypothetical) with absolute, which as you say is contrary to a scientific claim. To clarify, if something is communicable knowledge then it is subject to scientific method. Subjective knowledge or faith in that manner is not, because it is not objectifiable.
Popper was primarily addressing the realist/positivist crap from Comte (the verification criterion). He doesn't address a categorical/hypothetical distinction (i.e., neuroscience/consciousness), because to Comte a statement only has meaning when it can be verified, which Popper rightly refutes in the subjective, but that is not relevant to this argument, since it takes subjective knowledge and objective knowledge and differentiates between them.
In effect, all Popper is really doing by refuting Comte is applying a context (in the Wittgenstein sense) to scientific knowledge, i.e., Relativity is a model, not truth.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 15-03-2005 at 04:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Bull. Even Popper claimed the distinction between science and non-science did not mean one was truth and the other not. Whether or not something is knowledge is not dependant on whether or not it is science. Indeed, if anything is objectively true, it ceases to be scientific, as it can no longer be falsified. |
Yes, but such knowledge are provable by science, wich doesn't apply to religious statements.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
To clarify, if something is communicable knowledge then it is subject to scientific method. Subjective knowledge or faith in that manner is not, because it is not objectifiable. |
Nope, mathematics can be communicated but is not subject to the scientific method. Similarly with anything based in an artificial construct.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
In effect, all Popper is really doing by refuting Comte is applying a context (in the Wittgenstein sense) to scientific knowledge, i.e., Relativity is a model, not truth. |
Not quite, Popper even stated his texts were about science and the definition, not just it relating to dismissing the verification school. Indeed, he went into far more depth than just falsification, and his words about the scientific method and what it was would necessitate anything that was proven, ie. objectively true, being unscientific. Knowledge can be true, and communicable, but not be scientific. Indeed, and thus, not be scientific.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
The "do as you will" part is derived from certain beliefs, very clearly explained, in standard Satanism. Man is a beast, can achieve his full potential by fulfilling his own desires, insert Nietzsche crap here, not that he made any sense either, blah blah blah. "So long as you harm none," or whatever, is not explained and in fact incompatible with the rest of it. It's just tacked onto their motto/slogan as an afterthought. I take all their official talk about obeying established laws with about the same level of confidence as I give the KKK when they say they don't have anything against black people, they just don't want their blood mingling with the whites'. It's either a PR-based lie or an obvious inconsistency which all those followers have been too stupid to notice. And the latter is extremely unlikely to my eyes, seeing how completely the contradiction flies in the face of everything else they say. Either way, I discard the rubbish. Buddhism gives a reason for benevolence, and is all but proven to improve lives.
As to "real religion," I'm inclined to think of religious belief in a hierarchical structure of desirability from my POV. "Real" religion consists of the mainstream elements of most major faiths, including the RCC, Buddhism, Hinduism, the large portions of Islam that do not fly planes into buildings, etc. Those are concerned with real spiritual growth and enlightenment. I stick agnosticism and paganism in the next tier down. Agnosticism, in the sense of open-minded indecision or lack of faith, is laudable enough for its honesty and openness. Paganism drugs the spiritual portion of humanity with the style of religion but none of the substance. Lots of junk about scratching yourself with a hazel twig under the full moon, but no moral contemplation, nothing definite or useful. It's useless, but harmless, so I'm inclined to put it just under agnosticism.
Next I rank atheists. I consider atheism a pigheaded stupidity and a state of spiritual death, counterproductive to positive moral growth, but it causes no direct mischief. After that come the fanatical, fundamentalist, or extreme branches of faiths, which corrupt a well-intentioned doctrine, make religion in general look bad, and frequently lead to violence and/or impede social progress. Satanism is below that, being a dangerous code of intellectualized antisocial behavior in addition to a puerile adolescent rebellion. Its individualism is a safeguard against the kind of atrocities made infamous by fanatics, but its innately destructive tenets and contempt for all forms of morality make it a far worse thing to my eyes. Finally, true cults, such as Scientology or the Moonies, are at the very bottom. The harmful intent of Satanism wedded to the massed mentality of a fundie, all streamlined under the totalitarian thumb of what is in effect a private army. Not good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
No, nothing is provable by science. It can just be shown to be increasingly unlikely to be false, as it stands up to more evidence. |
Sure it is. Repeated experiments independently with same results is a proof, but it isn't a gurantee that the theory is correct.
I just wonder why you doesn't demand the same standards for religious statements - that is theory setup, experimental evidence and most important independent confirmation.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-03-2005 17:55
|