You seem to think that “science” claims to have an absolute monopoly on truth, and this isn’t so.
The method and process of science is much, much more important than the findings of science, as science is a self-correcting enterprise.
It’s only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths . . . which–incidentally–almost sounds like something a Buddhist would say, but I digress.
There have been many occasions where the concensus of scientists was wrong, and it corrected itself (eugenics is no exception).
As an example, stress and excess acid from anxiety was believed to contribute to peptic ulcer disease, so treatment entailed anacids and tranquilizers. Now–as a result of questioning conventional wisdom–doctors believe that the spirochete bacteria Helicobacter pylori is responsible for most gastric ulcers, and antibiotics treat the condition very well.
There are many, many more examples that I can give.
There are many things that the scientific community is convinced of right now that are wrong.
The difference between science and religion is that science can admit when it’s wrong about something.
I suppose that could be the case. However, I suspect those questions, themselves, can be quite silly. Mental masturbation can be entertaining but is it useful in the same way as scientific/technical inquiry? The latter, after all, produces results that can do things like put food in people’s bellies and cure diseases.
I’m not sure why you seem so adamant in your insistence that folks qualified to pursue scientific inquiry are so prejudiced by assumptions that the totality of the results arrived at are suspect. That is what seems suspect. That you seem more willing to accept that which cannot be overtly demonstrated as truth yet dismiss that which actually has been demonstrated is astonishing.
No, that’s not what I said, it is some people who appear to believe it does, I certainly do not think that.
That’s an odd statement, I mean there are good arguments as to why “science” can be described as being like a “religion” there are many examples of parallels between the two - dogma, insistence on being qualified to discuss and question claims, an intolerance of dissent and so on.
There’s also the recurring conflation of theism and religion, I see it all the time in these kinds of forums. By turning arguments about theism into arguments about religion, the atheist can then attack the many flaws we see in religion and thereby mislead the audience into thanking these are flaws in theism.
It’s a strawman and these threads are littered with examples of this.
So you believe that if a question doesn’t have have a scientific answer, it is therefore a silly question? Consider the question of determinism, is the universe deterministic? if so, what gave rise to that determinism? these are reasonable questions about the world surely, not silly?
Yes, science does indeed have utility, I don’t think I said otherwise!
I said no such thing!
To what specifically are you referring? is it something I said or something you think I said?
Your point is well-taken if you argue that many people confuse a belief in a religion with a belief in God, and I accept that criticism as I often use these ideas interchangably when they are really quite distinct from each other.
Even so, it is a respected principle of argument that a claimant must defend the claim, not require proof from the audience that the claim is wrong.
I fully agree, not sure why you think otherwise of me. But we’re not discussing science now but philosophy, the nature and structure of reason and knowledge.
Not all assertions are scientific assertions, logic and reason precede science. Mathematical arguments and proofs for example are nothing to do with science.
So defending some proposition simply requires the clear statement of initial premises and then a sequence of logical steps from them. If you’re arguing that only scientifically defensible propositions are valid then we’re going to disagree I think because I a not an empiricist.
You wrote “I suspect those questions, themselves, can be quite silly.”
It’s implied, as if I was unaware or disregarding the utility of science.
Sure “you seem so adamant in your insistence that folks qualified to pursue scientific inquiry are so prejudiced by assumptions that the totality of the results arrived at are suspect.”
You attributed something to me that I never said, I have not insisted any such thing.
Right but you misinterpreted that to mean “you seem more willing to accept that which cannot be overtly demonstrated as truth yet dismiss that which actually has been demonstrated is astonishing.”
Everything I accept has a sound basis, can be demonstrated to my satisfaction at least. I have not dismissed anything that is demonstrable either, so on both counts you are mistaken.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … aaaaaaaaa fuck No fucking wonder you are being laughed off the site.
METAPHORE: (HINT) a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally* denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or between them as in drowning in money) Oh fuck, the lowest form of criticism… Then again, you are the one with the stupid attempt at a metaphor.
(You can drop the ‘E’) - Yes, I used the term “chicken” as a general metaphor for an egg laying animal. Look:
See that word “symbolic”? go and look it up.
Yes but only to an intelligent audience, when the audience are poorly educated or indoctrinated or just stupid, then it’s often quite a challenge, but one must never give up.
How would you recognize evidence if it were presented to you? How do I know you have any way to recognize it, for all I know you’ll take anything and everything presented to you and say “Nah, that’s no evidence”.
Rather than embark upon a potentially fruitless undertaking, explain to me your own criteria for recognizing evidence for God.
If you don’t know of such criteria then how can you even claim to be an atheist?
Many people here are better described as anti-theist rather than atheist. They have a clear hostility to any ideas there might be a God, they claim there’s no evidence for God yet at the same time cannot explain how they analyze proffered evidence.
They expect the theist to take it on faith that they are being honest, that they can reliably scrutinize something and recognize it as being evidence or not.
I suspect that most if not all of these anti-theists have no idea, no criteria and their entire position is based on rejecting anything that is presented to them.
If they are open minded and truly rational they will be able to prove that something is not evidence for God because if they cannot prove it to be so then they are just relying on belief, the belief that everything they can potentially be shown can never be evidence for God.
Define what you mean then “objective fact” surely before we can argue whether some proposition is an objective fact, we’ll need to agree upon what that means.
@Sherlock-Holmes … this is bullshit plain and simple. Not least, because I’m on public record both here and elsewhere, as welcoming evidence for any real god type entity that exists, not least because said evidence, it if ever arrives, will almost certainly falsify all of our pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.
Indeed, I’ve presented ideas on this topic, that mythology fanboys are incapable of even fantasising about, and which would cause them to blow an artery if they examined them.
Apparently you are unaware of the rigorous distinction between dismissing specific “god candidates” (including ones that are asserted within the requisite pre-scientific mythologies to possess contradictory or absurd properties, and which can be dismissed safely on that ground alone) and dismissing the god concept wholesale. The former is performed here all the time. The latter far less frequently, and usually by people who need a lesson in rigour.
But why should I accept your claim? For all I know you are pretending, insisting that you would “welcome” evidence when you have no intention of doing any such thing.
If you do not have criteria then say so. If you do then tell me what it is, surely this is not an unreasonable request?
What characteristic in your own words, would distinguish evidence for God from not evidence for God?
You do realize how your reticence to answer me looks…
Which begs the question of what exactly is meant by “consonant with observational data”. For example until around 1916 Newton’s law of universal gravitation was regarded as an objective fact. It was consonant with observation data and had been tested extensively.
But if that was really an objective fact then how could that law have been abandoned and replaced by a different on in 1916?
Or consider the law of biogenesis, surely by your own definition above, this is an objective fact yes?
