14-03-2005 08:19									#1
	Does the 'throw out science' argument work Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

This isn't very well thought out, but I have been thinking that someone could argue that any scientific knowledge is not conclusive. You could bring up the example that thousands of years ago, someone could use the scientific method and think "The sun comes up from one side, goes down on the other, and then comes back on the first side. This means it must revolve around the earth." Of course later on, advances in technology were made and we discovered this was not true. But still, even using the correct scientific methods, what is found to be true is not necessarily true, for further advances in technology help us understand it better and may change our beliefs about it. One could say that science helps us understand things better, but we can't understand something perfectly and completely, and therefore knowledge gained through science isn't infallible.

	14-03-2005 08:21									#2
	Support Apolyton

A lot of times things happen, which science cannot prove. There are alot of "old wives tales" that have been proven to work, and science is late to catch up.

An example is chicken soup helping to relieve cold symptoms.

	14-03-2005 08:38									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Science != Truth, rather, it represents the best model we have to explain something, so that it may be possible to reproduce the results or predict other things.

Using the chicken soup example, one can say "Chicken soup defies science" or one could ask "How can we figure out why chicken soup works and make a chicken soup pill?"

	14-03-2005 09:09									#4
	Put an end to popups!

No your argument doesn't work. You're right when you say that our current theories aren't the Truth: they will probably be replaced by other theories in the future. But it doesn't mean that our current theories aren't closer to the truth: Einstein's theory isn't true, but it's closer to the truth than Newton's, and Newton's theory was closer to the truth than Aristotles. We know more today than the Greeks knew. We know more about the human body, we know more about other species, we know more about life, we know more about the earth, we know more about the solar system, we know more about the Universe, and I could go on and on.

	14-03-2005 09:12									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If you reject anything that is not 100% certain, you might as well curl up in a fetal position and suckle on your thumb until you wither away into nothingness.

Vision isn't magical. It is the result of light travelling in straight lines, reflecting, and finally reaching your eyes. It can be manipulated. Ditto for sound, smell, taste, and feel.

	14-03-2005 10:20									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: If you reject anything that is not 100% certain, you might as well curl up in a fetal position and suckle on your thumb until you wither away into nothingness.

Science:

	14-03-2005 11:10									#7
	Got spare money?

I agree with all of you. However, it seems that when someone says they are an atheist because there is no scientific evidence for a God and that the universe works fine without anything other than what we've proven by science, a deist could say that science is only an explanation, a theory, not the absolute truth. They could argue that the atheist theory can't be proven to be true, as it may be replaced by another theory closer to the truth, like Einstein's was closer than Aristotle's, and we don't know what this future theory is. It could involve there being a God. On the other hand, if a deist says that science has not explained the mysteries of the universe and why we got here (uncaused cause theory or whatever it's called and all that), and that therefore there must be a God, the atheist could use the same logic and say that with further advances in technology, we will gain further understanding of how the universe works and why it got here, and that we will not need to believe a God was there to start it.

It seems that it will never be possible to conclusively say that there is or is not a God. Atheists, deists, and agnostics will all have to rely on faith to continue believing in what they believe.

	14-03-2005 11:31									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod I agree with all of you. However, it seems that when someone says they are an atheist because there is no scientific evidence for a God and that the universe works fine without anything other than what we've proven by science, a deist could say that science is only an explanation, a theory, not the absolute truth.

Not quite. Any scientific field is composed of a body of facts ("data points"), a prevailing theory (using Thomas Kuhn's terms), and a methodology. The theory can go out the door at any time, but the facts and the methodology stay.

BTW, I think the word you are looking for is "theist."

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod They could argue that the atheist theory can't be proven to be true, as it may be replaced by another theory closer to the truth, like Einstein's was closer than Aristotle's, and we don't know what this future theory is.

Atheism is not a theory. Atheism is the belief that there is no good reason to believe in a deity (or a group of deities). It is the default state. Besides, proving that there is no god involves proving an infinitive negative, which can't be done.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod On the other hand, if a deist says that science has not explained the mysteries of the universe and why we got here (uncaused cause theory or whatever it's called and all that), and that therefore there must be a God

That's just the "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod It seems that it will never be possible to conclusively say that there is or is not a God.

No. The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the assertion. This is elementary.

	14-03-2005 11:42									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

God-in-the-gaps arguments:

They annoy me to no end. You can't assume something is supernatural just we can't explain it will our present state of knoledge. It is what the Intelegent Design morons fall for.

	14-03-2005 11:46									#10
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker A lot of times things happen, which science cannot prove. There are alot of "old wives tales" that have been proven to work, and science is late to catch up. An example is chicken soup helping to relieve cold symptoms.

This isn't a rejection of science itself though. It's just an example of why 'medical' science doesn't fall into the same category as the rest of the physical sciences.
With humans as the subjects and consisting of far more vaguaries than can be replicated/interpreted, medical science doesn't use null-controls for the establishment of proof-positives like every other branch, but defaults to placebos.

[Edit: Similarly for evolution really. That which you can apply as a 'model' for the majority of known life-forms just doesn't work as well when it comes to humans.]

	14-03-2005 11:56									#11
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Re Scientific Research - it's also becoming a major problem in the Mental Health fields. The various modern requirements for ethical research require informed consent, which immediately makes certain things impossible to research. The Milgram experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment would be impossible to conduct today.

Atheism is a matter of faith. An Atheist believes in something that is unprovable. That is why most Atheists are vociferous in defending their position - it is a matter of faith. Agnostics have no faith at all in the matter, they acknowledge it's unknowable and that's that.

	14-03-2005 12:01									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Odin God-in-the-gaps arguments: They annoy me to no end.

You do seem to get annoyed a lot.

	14-03-2005 12:17									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It seems that it will never be possible to conclusively say that there is or is not a God. Atheists, deists, and agnostics will all have to rely on faith to continue believing in what they believe.

Ah, I see where this is heading... So you're asking whether we can prove or not God's existence. But the first question to ask is which God? Zeus? Vishnu? Brahma? Allah? Probably not. You probably meant Yahweh, right? But why? Probably just because you were born in the USA.

Now can we prove that Yahweh exists or not? I think a lot of claims about Yahweh can be proven or disproven by facts. For example, the claim that Yahweh created the world 10 000 years ago is demonstrably false. If he created the world its about 15 billion years ago. The flood is also demonstrably false. So it's not only a question of faith. I think that if you proceed this way, by confronting claims about God with known facts, you will come up with a very different concept of God, a God that has not much to do with the Bible version. Assuming, that is, that God survived the ordeal.

	14-03-2005 12:19									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Actually, the world was created about 4.5 billion years ago, not 15.

	14-03-2005 12:29									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The Universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. What can I say, I'm a citizen of the universe!

	14-03-2005 12:31									#16
	Remove this text

~13.7 for the universe, actually.

	14-03-2005 12:47									#17
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Somebody is having "fun".

	14-03-2005 12:56									#18
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by nostromo Ah, I see where this is heading... So you're asking whether we can prove or not God's existence. But the first question to ask is which God? Zeus? Vishnu? Brahma? Allah? Probably not. You probably meant Yahweh, right? But why? Probably just because you were born in the USA. Now can we prove that Yahweh exists or not? I think a lot of claims about Yahweh can be proven or disproven by facts. For example, the claim that Yahweh created the world 10 000 years ago is demonstrably false. If he created the world its about 15 billion years ago. The flood is also demonstrably false. So it's not only a question of faith. I think that if you proceed this way, by confronting claims about God with known facts, you will come up with a very different concept of God, a God that has not much to do with the Bible version. Assuming, that is, that God survived the ordeal.

Absolutely.
You might not be able to disprove god, but with a high degree of certainty you are able to disprove certain things told within holy scriptures like the bible (and which many fundamentalists claim to be literally true)
If you still believe in god afterwards you might end like myself, believing that there is some kind of god to which to some degree all major religions point to, but which no single religion can wholly claim for itself (with assertions like "Either you believe in our religion or you go to hell" ).

	14-03-2005 13:53									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Except that I came to a very different conclusion. I basically don't care whether God exists or not; I don't care whether I have a soul or not; I don't care whether heaven exists or not. Why? Because these things are not worth caring for. Why? Even if a concept of God survives this confrontation with facts, it will probably not be worth caring for. It will probably be a philosopher's God, like Aristotle's or Descartes' or Spinoza's. Probably not the kind of fatherly God who watches over me, that cares for me, or that judges me at the end of my life. Probably not the kind of God that gives hope to people.

	14-03-2005 14:32									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I believe someone like the Buddha came to that conclusion - not to worry about whether there is a god. Quite explicitly, in fact.

	14-03-2005 14:34									#21
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov ~13.7 for the universe, actually.

And 4.66 billion for the Earth.

	14-03-2005 14:54									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger No. The burden of proof lies with the proponents of the assertion. This is elementary.

Definite respectable signature material. One of the best points I have seen yet. I see bible thumpers say evidence is needed to disprove them, but they don't provide evidence for their own views.

The god-in-the-gaps argument is one of the most annoying to myself. I get very annoyed and mad when I hear it.

	14-03-2005 15:39									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'd go so far as say that the reasonable options are atheism and deism.

	14-03-2005 16:24									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Scientific method is always sound, the problems of history's science and the resultant progress as we move toward the present is that people used invalid assumptions. These naturally creep in when limited information is available... it's a human thing, not a scientific or logical thing... in which case you could pretty much deduce relativity from the falling of leaves. Ok that's a little OTT but you get the idea.

	14-03-2005 16:36									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod It seems that it will never be possible to conclusively say that there is or is not a God. Atheists, deists, and agnostics will all have to rely on faith to continue believing in what they believe.

Why is that a prob? If noone can prove God's existance they have enough reasons for disbelief. And even if God was proven one day - wouldn't it mean he's "scientific" then?

	14-03-2005 16:40									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

BeBro: I do sometimes get irritated by the "oh well, we'll never know" attitude, it only serves to belittle the power of human reason.

	14-03-2005 16:43									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why shouldn't human reason be belittled?

If there is a God, He doesn't do anything perceptible. What difference does it make to be an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist?

	14-03-2005 16:48									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ideally none, however if God can be refuted then the 3000 year old bullshit that says that if you're not heterosexual, male and belligerent then you're inferior, can finally be consigned to the history books.

	14-03-2005 16:59									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by nostromo The flood is also demonstrably false.

Some say it is not entirely false, just largely exaggerated

Link

	14-03-2005 17:12									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to expect ancient events to be represented in mythology thousands of years after they occur. Naturally the Chinese whispers effect plays a part in oral history.