Atheism,destruction of man

[mr Thomas]

According to the poem "Dover Beach" by "M.Arnold",I believe that
without people believing in God, the faith of our planet will only
carry on withdrawing,so I believe that Atheism should be discarded
before anything worst happens.

[Lee]

Meh, I don't know about that.

[mr Thomas]

Well,think about it.If you have read "Dover Beach",than wouldn't this
make sense to you.If you have not try to read it and have this topic
in mind.

[Lee]

Naaaa I'm not a great fan of poetry to tell the truth, but atheism is
a choice, a free choice, as granted us by God. I can only trust God
knows what God is doing by creating such a creature.

> > > before anything worst happens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

If atheism is spreading then people will eventually cease believing in
god--atheism is not a virus or other biological system/entity which
can reproduce within a host and spread from person to person. It is a
form of social enlightenment and the rationalization of society, but
this can only spread through modernization and the
institutionalization of such an idea (not secularism which is the firm
establishment of religion as separate from the state). Being as it is
an idea or Weltanschauung, it can only spread through verbal/oral
communication which brings up serious difficulties for its continual
spread. Now, you make the assumption, Thom, that faith is linked to
faith in a god (or many gods). This seems presumptuous. I have 'faith'
that physics will retain its predictive powers. That is not linked in
any fashion to god(s).

Your arguments also seems like a bit of a tautology to me, (faith is
belief in god; atheism is the belief in no god; as the belief in no
god grows faith diminishes...) and thus difficult to generate a firm
conclusion.

Finally, belief in god(s) has always generated problems (a litany well-
known to all and not to be repeated here); atheism has yet to gain the
social position held by religious belief for some several thousand
(tens of thousands?) years. How, then, can one reach a conclusion on
its social lugubriousness / harm? And, isn't the designation of
'atheist' itself a means of producing a 'class' of people to be
oppressed, isolated, ridiculed, etc?

[mr Thomas]

Well,we can see that God had no idea what he was doing when he created
this planet.

[Felix Krull]

Besides, much of this 'newness' spoken of in Arnold is a reference to
the colonial push, the development in the Victorian period of exotic
trade, parlors filling with the 'new' and the exotic. This offers no
respite for Arnold. The ignorant armies fight over these same things,
land, the exotic, property, all the while mapping the world in their
own image. Seems more like a cry for peace and anti-colonialism than a
cry for religious fervor.

On May 16, 9:02 am, mr Thomas <lyallp...@vodamail.co.za> wrote:

[Felix Krull]

> Well,we can see that God had no idea what he was doing when he created
> this planet.

I agree that the notion of 'intelligent design' is idiotic!

[mr Thomas]

Reply to your earlier topic.Atheism is not a virus,but it is
responsible for the lack of belief and faith in God.Do you not believe
that?

[Lee]

*gasp* Blasphemer! Stone him, stone him!

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[mr Thomas]

Come on !

[Lee]

I don't think that is right at all Tom. Atheism is a lack of belife
in God(or a belife in the non existance of God)but I don't think
atheism is responsible for atheism.

[frantheman]

"The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world."
(from Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold)

Thom, I presume this is the verse to which you are referring. In the
context of the poem itself, the reference to the retreat of faith
seems to me to be (at least) partly a poetic device to emphasise the
importance of love as a personal anchor in an increasingly threatening
and confused world (see the final verse).
It is, of course, very questionable if the "golden age" of faith
Arnold refers to ever existed. It was a common romantic view in the
19th. Century to regard particular epochs in the past as perfect
times, whether the world of the Arthurian sagas or the 12th. or 13th.
Centuries, often regarded by religious thinkers of the time as a
golden age of Christian belief. Many people, experiencing many of the
horrors associated with industrialisation, hankered for a simpler,
more bucolic age. Historically, such views simply aren't true and can
only be upheld by the application of extremely rose-coloured
spectacles.
For what it's worth, I have degrees in both history and theology
and cannot see any evidence for periods in the past where religious
faith was substantially involved in contributing and sustaining a
better world, or better societies than we currently have or are
capable of achieving with the resources available to us today, at the
beginning of the 21st. Century (although I don't want to imply that
this will necessarily happen). It can just as easily (and perhaps,
even, with more foundation) be argued that religiously organised
societies have been responsible for so much cruelty and inhumanity
(crusades, jihads, witch-hunts, persecution of those who believe
differently, narrow-mindedness, repression of art, literature and
creativity in general, hypocrisy, etc.) that we should be trying to
distance ourselves from them as much as possible.

It is a common device of religious believers to define atheism as a
threat to humanity, one of the ultimate evils. Such approaches I
regard as, at best, mistaken, more often as signs of ignorance,
intolerance or pernicious propaganda. The basic question is whether a
belief in some kind of God is necessary to live a decent, moral life,
or to organise a decent, just society. I would argue; emphatically
not!

Francis

[mr Thomas]

Why not?.Is the lack of belief of God not the lack of Faith or
Religion ,as stated in this poem.I would think so but I may be
terribly wrong?

[mr Thomas]

Well Francis,I do not have a degree in any subject as I am still a
scholar,but I can say that I have been through periods of religious
propaganda from many different people ,and maybe I have made quite a
mistake in my logic towards this topic.

[Lee]

Because when one lacks belife in God one is an Atheist. A lack of
belief in God is not the cuase of a lack of belife in God. You may as
well be saying racisim is the cause of racism, it makes as much sense.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[mr Thomas]

Well,Lee.I believe that a person is given a for of belief once they
are born,and only if another person persuades that person that there
is no God etc,that person will be transformed into an Atheist.Will
that person not be one then?

[Felix Krull]

That is its definition!

[mr Thomas]

Well then the person had a belief before it was taken away,no?.And
without beliefe there is no Faith is there not.

[Felix Krull]

Ahhh! I see what you are getting at. Well, I have never had a belief
in god (that I know of) that was not imposed upon me by society.

[mr Thomas]

Well you were given a form of belief were you not when you were born?

[Lee]

No not at all. Not all are religous, nor brought up religiously.

Take myself for example, I come from an atheist family, I 'got'
religoin when I was about10 or 11, and I 'got' it all by myself with
nobody adding or taking away from my belifes.

My wife and kids though are atheists, and it may be that my childen
change their mind, but if they do so, it will not be becuase I have
taken one belife away and given another in it's place, it will be
becuase of their own choices.

[Lee]

No I don't think you are right Tom, people are not born believing in
God.

[Felix Krull]

Yes. A belief in the all-powerfullness of boobies. Yum!

[mr Thomas]

Well,Lee if we think of it you were brought up in a religious
home.Atheism is a religion on its own is it not.

[Lee]

No not at all. Who do Atheists pray to? What rites do they
practice? Why am I defending Atheism. Ian get your arse here man!

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[mr Thomas]

Well you do believe in non-belief don't you.

[Lee]

Now I'm not sure what you mean by this Tom

Do I belive that some people do not belive in God? Sure.

[mr Thomas]

Well,Lee that is precisely the point.You believe that there is no
God,don't you?.If you believe that there is no god than that is a
belief is it not?

[Pat]

On 16 May, 17:11, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. A belief in the all-powerfullness of boobies. Yum!
>

Is this a 'bitty' moment?

[Lee]

Heh on the contray Tom, I belive in God.

I get what you mean though, is a lack of belife in the existance of
God, the same as a belife that there is no God?

I would not say so. Those atheists who tell you that there is
certianly no God, would be holders of a belife. Those who tell you
they do not think such a thing as God exists would not be holders of a
belife.

The differance is subtle, but I have learned that there is such a
differance.

[mr Thomas]

Lee,my mother was an Atheist once,when I was about eight which was not
such a long time ago (okay it was it was 9 years ago).And she told me
why she was an Atheist ,she told me she did not believe in God.I
though this was a form of crying.You are angry at God so you don't
want to believe in him but yet you do deep down you do.

[Lee]

Heh well I can't speak for you mum, but I don't think that is true of
all atheists, do you?

[mr Thomas]

Well,did you want to believe in God at a young age.If the answer is
yes than I don't think it is true for all Atheist.

[Lee]

Well I don't know if I wanted to, rather I started to wonder, and one
day I found I had faith.

[mr Thomas]

Did you not have faith to begin with.You had faith that God did not
exist.

[Lee]

No at first I didn't know, I didn't even think about it. Then one day
I started to think about it, and after several years of thinking about
it, I found that I belived.

If you don't know, then how can that be a belife in one side or the
other?

[mr Thomas]

Don't you belive that he does not exist,can't that be a belief.

[Ian Pollard]

2008/5/16 Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com>:

No not at all.  Who do Atheists pray to?  What rites do they
practice?  Why am I defending Atheism.  Ian get your arse here man!

I think you're doing a fine job, matey! :)

xxxianxx

--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "

-- John Stuart Mill

[Lee]

If you belive so, then yes.

[Vamadevananda]

On May 16, 8:02 pm, mr Thomas <lyallp...@vodamail.co.za> wrote:
> Well,we can see that God had no idea what he was doing when he created
> this planet.

Wouldn't that be blasphemy, Thomas, for a believer to mouth !

> On May 16, 4:48 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Naaaa I'm not a great fan of poetry to tell the truth, but atheism is
> > a choice, a free choice, as granted us by God.  I can only trust God
> > knows what God is doing by creating such a creature.
>
> > On May 16, 3:42 pm, mr Thomas <lyallp...@vodamail.co.za> wrote:
>
> > > Well,think about it.If you have read "Dover Beach",than wouldn't this
> > > make sense to you.If you have not try to read it and have this topic
> > > in mind.
>
> > > On May 16, 4:38 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Meh, I don't know about that.

[mr Thomas]

He is doing okay I think?

[FallingLeaves]

Ironically, many of my Atheist friends do have faith... science,
internet... its no different from worshiping God?

[Felix Krull]

I beg to differ. Assuming that 'worshiping god' was a homogeneous
activity, this activity bears little resemblance to real-time
communication on the internet, or the discursive / experimental
activity that is science.

[Keith MacNevins]

Just takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, that's all. To believe that the big bang came about by random chance, a fluctuation of nothingness. That life, and sentient human life at that came about due to disorganized, non-living and non-thinking matter somehow organizing itself into complex life and the conditions which sustain it. All due to blind, dumb luck, and very fortunate happenstance.

[Chris Jenkins]

Yes. Much more faith to believe in an observable system of organization and propagation than the faith required to believe in Virgin Birth, 7 days of creation, a 6000 year old Earth, water to wine, resurrection on command, a sea dividing itself into a roadbed for the Israelites, a floating iron ax head, the sun pausing in its rotation around the earth (Ummm....), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Perhaps your understanding of science and empirical observation is so limited that you find it daunting, and take comfort in the nursery tales of youth?

[Felix Krull]

Well, firstly, the notion of 'blind dumb luck' makes a teleological
assumption about these events. This assumption points out that 'faith'
is a type of 'understanding' which is generated by human desires. Such
a process represents the anthropomorphizing of the universe, its
existence as somehow related to a 'plan' which is a point that has yet
to be proven (though possible if one takes a deterministic
approach...). Secondly, it is *not* faith for no one 'believes' that
the Big Bang happened; rather the evidence in astrophysics points to
the high probability that such an event occurred and that we continue
to see evidence of it in the universe. If another answer develops
which fits the evidence (or further evidence is discovered which
disproves conclusively the 'big bang' theory without resort to
agency), then it will be lost to the annals of science. A prime
example of this is the shift from Newtonian systems to more 'flexible'
Eisteinian systems (most of which have been 'proven' but which
theories, if one follows Popper or even Peirce and pragmatism, are
always tenuous and subject to modification). 'Belief' is always, by
its nature, related to the human condition and 'mankind's' position in
the universe; it also deals with non-causal relationships, and is used
to explain causal gaps, those points where reason and rationality do
not obviously explain events. It is therefore inappropriate to use the
term in relationship to science and the scientific understanding of
the construction of the universe. When a science does not know
conclusively (to a high probability) the answer, it admits the fact.

On May 18, 11:44 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, that's all. To believe
> that the big bang came about by random chance, a fluctuation of nothingness.
> That life, and sentient human life at that came about due to disorganized,
> non-living and non-thinking matter somehow organizing itself into complex
> life and the conditions which sustain it. All due to blind, dumb luck, and
> very fortunate happenstance.
>

> On 5/18/08, FallingLeaves <orangechococ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ironically, many of my Atheist friends do have faith... science,
> > internet... its no different from worshiping God?
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[ornamentalmind]

Felix, while I in fact care little about this, when you posted the
following some thoughts arose.
"...'Belief' is always, by its nature, related to the human condition

and 'mankind's' position in the universe; it also deals with non-
causal relationships, and is used to explain causal gaps, those points
where reason and rationality do not obviously explain events. It is
therefore inappropriate to use the term in relationship to science and
the scientific understanding of the construction of the universe. When
a science does not know conclusively (to a high probability) the
answer, it admits the fact."

First, I do understand the point you are attempting to make.

Secondly, it appears that science "...is always, by its nature,

related to the human condition and 'mankind's' position in the

universe;..." too. At the very least, the observer, being human,
determines the relevance and relativity of the observation.

Thirdly, it appears to me that, without going into the semantics of
'belief', it can and does deal with causal relationships. Further, IF
you personally hold the belief that it "...is used to explain causal

gaps, those points where reason and rationality do not obviously

explain events." I'll suggest that the exact same can be said of
science. And, in neither case is this an issue/problem for
me...inappropriate or not.

Lastly, to say "...When a science does not know conclusively (to a
high probability) the answer, it admits the fact..." is of note. In
that phrase you use the term 'conclusively' and then use a qualifier.
Again, language can be used in numerous ways. In this case, it appears
you suggest science uses probability as the basis of it's
epistemology. While this is one way of apprehending, I will strongly
suggest it in no way is the only 'good' nor the best way. Further, 'it
admits the fact' holds true for limited situations so is not of much
use except, perhaps to further some sort of scientific mythomania.

Other than this, I agree with you! :-)

> > Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 18 May, 19:08, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, firstly, the notion of 'blind dumb luck' makes a teleological
> assumption about these events. This assumption points out that 'faith'
> is a type of 'understanding' which is generated by human desires. Such
> a process represents the anthropomorphizing of the universe, its
> existence as somehow related to a 'plan' which is a point that has yet
> to be proven (though possible if one takes a deterministic
> approach...).

But that's just it, though, isn't it? The laws of physics aren't
random and they do work towards certain goals. If anything, the
system's driven by entropy. With a winning combination of angular
momentum and varying types of attractive forces, energy recombines on
itself to produce what we see around us. Every action causing
reactions, all according to physical laws no quanta of energy can
disobey. A determinable system, if you know the laws and the energy
input at the beginning. A determinable, relativistic machine that is
perfectly coherent, in that it is logical and consistent.
A system in which conscious entities have evolved which are aware
of the greater system around them and, to some extent, aware of their
own part of the whole. If nothing in the universe is inconsistent,
how do conscious entities fit in? The atheist paradigm leaves us with
no purpose: we don't fit in, we don't matter, we might as well be
rocks, we have no purpose...get over it. But this doesn't seem right
to me. There's a big difference between a universe with no awareness
and a universe like ours with a huge variety of awarenesses--just on
this planet. I find it difficult to 'accept' or 'believe' that
awareness doesn't matter. Especially when there's no conclusive proof
showing the mechanism of awareness to be purely physical. Granted
there's no proof showing it isn't, but no proof either way is no basis
for understanding.
I know that, if you threaten an atheist's awareness, they seem to
think it matters. But they lose that sense of vitality when it comes
to arguing their case for God. The simple fact that they've evolved
to fight and kill or die for their awareness seems to escape them at
the point of debate. Why, if our awareness and consciousness doesn't
matter, are we made in such a way as to want to protect it?
Instincts--survival, in this case--should be a form of evidence
that, in our universe, awareness and consciousness are to be taken
seriously. If they DO matter, then the atheist paradigm can't fathom
a reason whereas the theist/deist CAN. I think this is where atheism
falls down, in that it can't and doesn't want to answer the case if
consciousness matters, when the system itself makes it vitally
important. If there was no survival instinct in living beings, I
might be swayed by their case, but that's just so far off the mark
from reality.

>Secondly, it is *not* faith for no one 'believes' that
> the Big Bang happened; rather the evidence in astrophysics points to
> the high probability that such an event occurred and that we continue
> to see evidence of it in the universe. If another answer develops
> which fits the evidence (or further evidence is discovered which
> disproves conclusively the 'big bang' theory without resort to
> agency), then it will be lost to the annals of science. A prime
> example of this is the shift from Newtonian systems to more 'flexible'
> Eisteinian systems (most of which have been 'proven' but which
> theories, if one follows Popper or even Peirce and pragmatism, are
> always tenuous and subject to modification). 'Belief' is always, by
> its nature, related to the human condition and 'mankind's' position in
> the universe; it also deals with non-causal relationships, and is used
> to explain causal gaps, those points where reason and rationality do
> not obviously explain events. It is therefore inappropriate to use the
> term in relationship to science and the scientific understanding of
> the construction of the universe. When a science does not know
> conclusively (to a high probability) the answer, it admits the fact.
>

Yeah, religions have trouble with that kind of thing because of
scriptures. If something written is to be accepted as 'The Word of
God' is found to be lacking in fact, it can be quite traumatic for
believers. Then it's up to the interpreters to find a way around it,
if possible. Of course, interpreters play a role in science, as well,
but it's a different role. In science, interpreters show how one set
of circumstances can lead to another, in religion, they show how the
text doesn't really say what it appears to say, so there's no reason
against one set of circumstances leading to another. ;-)

> On May 18, 11:44 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist, that's all. To believe
> > that the big bang came about by random chance, a fluctuation of nothingness.
> > That life, and sentient human life at that came about due to disorganized,
> > non-living and non-thinking matter somehow organizing itself into complex
> > life and the conditions which sustain it. All due to blind, dumb luck, and
> > very fortunate happenstance.
>
> > On 5/18/08, FallingLeaves <orangechococ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ironically, many of my Atheist friends do have faith... science,
> > > internet... its no different from worshiping God?
>
> > --

[Vamadevananda]

Great post, Pat ! Brave and eloquent.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

Yea, yea. Well if I may just paraphrase and rephrase what you posted here and exchange the concept of Big Bang and universe with the word God.

 

No one 'believes' that God is; rather the evidence points to the high probability and that we continue to see evidence of it.

 

[Keith MacNevins]

Oh, be quiet. Theist are not required to believe in all of the dogma that some of the more gullible and naive theists believe.

[Felix Krull]

> Secondly, it appears that science "...is always, by its nature,
> related to the human condition and 'mankind's' position in the
> universe;..." too. At the very least, the observer, being human,
> determines the relevance and relativity of the observation.

You are right that I have, through expediency, used less than exact
language. I meant: belief is concerned with the human condition and
mankind's position in the universe from the anthropocentric position
of 'purpose.' "Why are we hear? We must have meaning!" 'Belief' or
'faith' is oriented, at its core, around this one problem. Science (at
least in its popularized form) does make claims to solving the
'mysteries' of the universe and determining how life came about, but
it is essentially etiological, right? Whereas belief is more
teleologically oriented (or even eschatologically oriented!).

> Thirdly, it appears to me that, without going into the semantics of
> 'belief', it can and does deal with causal relationships. Further, IF
> you personally hold the belief that it "...is used to explain causal
> gaps, those points where reason and rationality do not obviously
> explain events." I'll suggest that the exact same can be said of
> science. And, in neither case is this an issue/problem for
> me...inappropriate or not.

But to worry this out, we do have to go into the semantics of belief.
This is one of the problems when someone can claim that the scientist
'believes' that the laws of physics are true. Colloquially, of course,
scientists use the term all of the time. However, the 'belief' is one
grounded in a rational structure. I have just been rereading Russell's
_History of Western Philosophy_ wherein (in his portrayal of
Pythagoras) he makes a very insightful observation on the relationship
between mathematics and religion. According to Russell, the very
desire to 'prove' the rationality of God which dominates Catholic
thinking throughout the Middle Ages and into the Enlightenment is
really derived from the tendrils of the roots of reasoning as a method
which stretch back to Pythagoras. Belief (i.e. faith) does not deal
with causal relationships, it largely elides them in order to 'make
room' for agency, which is another core principle in belief.

So, belief deals with 1) the essentially teleological (or
eschatological) question: why are we here? and 2) assumes the presence
of agency behind the causal and the not easily explainable causal
relationships in 'nature'. Science abandons the principle of agency
for the principle of causality or determinism (of course, this only
goes so far... I believe Hawking wrote that (paraphrasing) if god
exists then there is some room for him on the other side of the big
bang...).

> Lastly, to say "...When a science does not know conclusively (to a
> high probability) the answer, it admits the fact..." is of note. In
> that phrase you use the term 'conclusively' and then use a qualifier.
> Again, language can be used in numerous ways. In this case, it appears
> you suggest science uses probability as the basis of it's
> epistemology. While this is one way of apprehending, I will strongly
> suggest it in no way is the only 'good' nor the best way. Further, 'it
> admits the fact' holds true for limited situations so is not of much
> use except, perhaps to further some sort of scientific mythomania.

I did add the qualifier as a means of underscoring the notion in
science that there is *never* any such thing as 100% or 'absolutely
conclusively.' The only thing to hope for is a high probability of
predictability. The theory (which again is, originally, a religious
word... thank you Bertram Russell...) is never proven but simply goes
a long time (perhaps forever) without being disproven or, in non-
Popper speak, modified, adjusted, corrected, etc... The third
difference, outside of teleology/etiology and agency/deterministic
causality, is then science's reluctance to yield absolutes as opposed
to 'faith's' complete willingness.

Finally I want to stress that I am not moralizing here. I may lean
towards one or the other, but that is beside the point. The point is
that belief / faith is a distinctly different epistemology from
science. I point out three areas which indicate this; however, there
are many more. This is an important distinction to make, for me, being
in an America where religious zealots are borrowing scientific
principles to attempt to sneak religion into the classrooms. And this
is encouraged by such figures as the leader of the human genome
project! He needs to read this post...

On May 18, 8:49 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Felix, while I in fact care little about this, when you posted the
> following some thoughts arose.
> "...'Belief' is always, by its nature, related to the human condition
> and 'mankind's' position in the universe; it also deals with non-
> causal relationships, and is used to explain causal gaps, those points
> where reason and rationality do not obviously explain events. It is
> therefore inappropriate to use the term in relationship to science and
> the scientific understanding of the construction of the universe. When
> a science does not know conclusively (to a high probability) the
> answer, it admits the fact."
>
> First, I do understand the point you are attempting to make.
>
> Secondly, it appears that science "...is always, by its nature,
> related to the human condition and 'mankind's' position in the
> universe;..." too. At the very least, the observer, being human,
> determines the relevance and relativity of the observation.
>

>

>

[Felix Krull]

> But that's just it, though, isn't it? The laws of physics aren't
> random and they do work towards certain goals.

I must disagree, and wholeheartedly! The laws of physics do not work
towards some specific goal. They work. The only goal is, indeed, their
'working'. Obviously they are deterministic but that does *not*
indicate eo ipso agency or a 'goal'. And even its consistency begins
to break down in certain situations. The speed of light through a gas
cooled to all but absolute zero is slow enough to measure with a
speedometer! And, of course, blackholes and such. The inconsistencies
are well-known...

But this doesn't seem right
> to me. There's a big difference between a universe with no awareness
> and a universe like ours with a huge variety of awarenesses--just on
> this planet. I find it difficult to 'accept' or 'believe' that
> awareness doesn't matter. Especially when there's no conclusive proof
> showing the mechanism of awareness to be purely physical. Granted
> there's no proof showing it isn't, but no proof either way is no basis
> for understanding.

I accept that it is daunting for many people to think of a life with
no purpose. However, most physicists are pretty stable people. I would
like to see numbers on this, but I imagine the suicide rate is pretty
low amongst this class. No one that I know of who is a 'non-believer'
for lack of a better word, feels as though their life is purposeless.
Indeed, for me, to think that this is the *only* life, makes me more
attuned to society, politics, and the way the world 'really' is (or
seems to be...). Also, a fully coherent system can exist without
agency. There is no reason to suppose that it cannot. And awareness
does matter. Without the awareness of astronomers, I would have no
idea about the principles of a neutron star or a black hole or the
possibility that millions of planets exist outside of our solar
system, perhaps in our own galaxy, each with the possibility of
supporting something one might consider life.

> Instincts--survival, in this case--should be a form of evidence
> that, in our universe, awareness and consciousness are to be taken
> seriously. If they DO matter, then the atheist paradigm can't fathom
> a reason whereas the theist/deist CAN. I think this is where atheism
> falls down, in that it can't and doesn't want to answer the case if
> consciousness matters, when the system itself makes it vitally
> important. If there was no survival instinct in living beings, I
> might be swayed by their case, but that's just so far off the mark
> from reality.

I do not at all see why the basic tenants of Freud (the joy of sex) do
not fully explain the desires, instincts, etc which make up the human
and animal world. "There are more things in heaven and earth...."

Finally: you have proven one of my points about the distinctions
between science and belief. The theist *looks* for a reason, assuming
that mankind is so important in the universe that there *must* be a
reason. True science does not need to look for a grand reason, just
simply an explanation for the current state.

On May 18, 9:03 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 May, 19:08, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, firstly, the notion of 'blind dumb luck' makes a teleological
> > assumption about these events. This assumption points out that 'faith'
> > is a type of 'understanding' which is generated by human desires. Such
> > a process represents the anthropomorphizing of the universe, its
> > existence as somehow related to a 'plan' which is a point that has yet
> > to be proven (though possible if one takes a deterministic
> > approach...).
>

If anything, the
> system's driven by entropy. With a winning combination of angular
> momentum and varying types of attractive forces, energy recombines on
> itself to produce what we see around us. Every action causing
> reactions, all according to physical laws no quanta of energy can
> disobey. A determinable system, if you know the laws and the energy
> input at the beginning. A determinable, relativistic machine that is
> perfectly coherent, in that it is logical and consistent.
> A system in which conscious entities have evolved which are aware
> of the greater system around them and, to some extent, aware of their
> own part of the whole. If nothing in the universe is inconsistent,
> how do conscious entities fit in? The atheist paradigm leaves us with
> no purpose: we don't fit in, we don't matter, we might as well be
> rocks, we have no purpose...get over it.

> I know that, if you threaten an atheist's awareness, they seem to
> think it matters. But they lose that sense of vitality when it comes
> to arguing their case for God. The simple fact that they've evolved
> to fight and kill or die for their awareness seems to escape them at
> the point of debate. Why, if our awareness and consciousness doesn't
> matter, are we made in such a way as to want to protect it?

>
>
>

[Felix Krull]

I'm sorry Keith, but I refuse to offer a riposte to such a flippant
and inconsiderate response.

On May 19, 12:50 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yea, yea. Well if I may just paraphrase and rephrase what you posted here
> and exchange the concept of Big Bang and universe with the word God.
>
> No one 'believes' that God is; rather the evidence points to the high
> probability and that we continue to see evidence of it.
>

> --
> Ambassador From Hell

[Chris Jenkins]

And there we have it...."Shut up!", the last defense of those arguing the indefensible.

 

If you can't support your statement, Kevin, don't expect us to simply swallow it, especially if you're one of those "It takes faith to be an atheist" people who can't figure out that when theism ends, atheism begins. It is the loss of faith which provides the catalyst towards logic and reason.

 

So you don't believe in any of the things I just listed? If you believe in some of them, can you tell me which ones?

[Ian Pollard]

2008/5/19 Keith MacNevins <kmacn...@gmail.com>:

Oh, be quiet.

Why come to a discussion forum and tell people to be quiet?

xxxianxx

[7/8" plugs]

I'm going to qoute the first Buddha on this on and I believe he has
the greatest words on wisdom on this without messing it up with anger
like I would.

"Become more aware, become more conscious, become more courageous.
Don't go hiding behind beliefs and masks and theologies. Take your
life into your own hands. Burn bright your inner light and see
whatever is. Once you have become courageous enough to accept it, it
is a benediction.

(most important part to me) NO BELIEF IS NEEDED. THAT IS BUDDHA'S
FIRST STEP TOWARDS REALITY, TO SAY THAT ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE
POISONIOUS; ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS ARE BARRIERS."

That is why I agree with that "religion" more then others (though I am
no buddhist). It is a religion of reality, not of mythology of
mankind's weakness.

Here is my favorite one of his "God is nothing but a search for
security, a search for safety, a search for shelter. You believe in
God, not because God is there; you believe in God because you feel
helpless with that belief. Even if there is no God, you will invent
one. The temptation comes from your weakness. It is a projection.

Another quote of the first Buddha comes to mind "If there is no God it
is difficult for the ordinary people to have any meaning in life. The
ordinary mind goes beserk without God. God is a prop--it helps your,
it consoles you, it comforts you. It says "Don't be worried--the
almighty God knows everything about why you are here. He is the
Creator, He knows why he has created the world. You may not know but
the father knows, and you can trust him." It is a great consolation."

[7/8" plugs]

sorry for the couple type-o's I had on there.

> > before anything worst happens.- Hide quoted text -

[FallingLeaves]

i agree completely with Pat ^__^ just out of interest, what was the
calculated chance of occurence of big bang? was it 1/2000000?

[Felix Krull]

You believe that faith and science are imbricated epistemologies? Or
that the universe was created by a sentient agent? My original point
was the previous one. I simply ascribed the latter point to 'belief'
rather than science. So, do you 'believe' that the latter is a part of
science? Explain, if so.

[Pat]

On 19 May, 06:53, FallingLeaves <orangechococ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i agree completely with Pat ^__^ just out of interest, what was the
> calculated chance of occurence of big bang? was it 1/2000000?

I would think that the odds are incalculable because it would
require knowing, for certain, the state of the universe before the Big
Bang and we don't know that. If anyone has calculated odds, they are
not very reliable. What we DO know, though, is that it seems to have
occurred so the odds don't really matter. But, it doesn't take a
genius to figure out that, if you wait long enough and have an
infinite amount of time TO wait, any odds will be beaten.

[Pat]

On 19 May, 06:20, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >      But that's just it, though, isn't it?  The laws of physics aren't
> > random and they do work towards certain goals.
>
> I must disagree, and wholeheartedly! The laws of physics do not work
> towards some specific goal. They work. The only goal is, indeed, their
> 'working'. Obviously they are deterministic but that does *not*
> indicate eo ipso agency or a 'goal'.  And even its consistency begins
> to break down in certain situations. The speed of light through a gas
> cooled to all but absolute zero is slow enough to measure with a
> speedometer! And, of course, blackholes and such. The inconsistencies
> are well-known...
>

The inconsistencies lie in our knowledge of the laws of physics
not in nature not obeying them. If something exists, then there's a
rational explanation for it, yes? If we view a blackhole as an
inconsistency in nature, we are completely blinded. They exist and
the laws of nature permit it. As for goals, I cited entropy as a
driving force. When you drop an egg, it breaks into many pieces.
Never do you see eggs pop up off the floor and reassemble themselves
and this is because of entropy. Many of the more mundane events in
this universe are driven towards certain results over others by
entropy.

> But this doesn't seem right
>
> > to me.  There's a big difference between a universe with no awareness
> > and a universe like ours with a huge variety of awarenesses--just on
> > this planet.  I find it difficult to 'accept' or 'believe' that
> > awareness doesn't matter.  Especially when there's no conclusive proof
> > showing the mechanism of awareness to be purely physical.  Granted
> > there's no proof showing it isn't, but no proof either way is no basis
> > for understanding.
>
> I accept that it is daunting for many people to think of a life with
> no purpose. However, most physicists are pretty stable people. I would
> like to see numbers on this, but I imagine the suicide rate is pretty
> low amongst this class. No one that I know of who is a 'non-believer'
> for lack of a better word, feels as though their life is purposeless.

Exactly! And therein lies the dichotomy.

> Indeed, for me, to think that this is the *only* life, makes me more
> attuned to society, politics, and the way the world 'really' is (or
> seems to be...). Also, a fully coherent system can exist without
> agency. There is no reason to suppose that it cannot.

Suppose away, so long as we know that it's just a supposition. I
agree with you, there's no conclusive proof either way, but that makes
us able to suppose both for and against.

>And awareness
> does matter. Without the awareness of astronomers, I would have no
> idea about the principles of a neutron star or a black hole or the
> possibility that millions of planets exist outside of our solar
> system, perhaps in our own galaxy, each with the possibility of
> supporting something one might consider life.
>

Exactly! Awareness does matter. So gow is it useful to the
universe? If you can think of an answer, then it's a possible
purpose.

> >      Instincts--survival, in this case--should be a form of evidence
> > that, in our universe, awareness and consciousness are to be taken
> > seriously.  If they DO matter, then the atheist paradigm can't fathom
> > a reason whereas the theist/deist CAN.  I think this is where atheism
> > falls down, in that it can't and doesn't want to answer the case if
> > consciousness matters, when the system itself makes it vitally
> > important.  If there was no survival instinct in living beings, I
> > might be swayed by their case, but that's just so far off the mark
> > from reality.
>
> I do not at all see why the basic tenants of Freud (the joy of sex) do
> not fully explain the desires, instincts, etc which make up the human
> and animal world. "There are more things in heaven and earth...."
>
> Finally: you have proven one of my points about the distinctions
> between science and belief. The theist *looks* for a reason, assuming
> that mankind is so important in the universe that there *must* be a
> reason. True science does not need to look for a grand reason, just
> simply an explanation for the current state.
>

True science cannot look for a reason because it has an unwritten
commandment that God cannot possibly be a scientific result. True
science will never find a drand reason because it would have to give
up its most sacred caveat in order to do so.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

> The inconsistencies lie in our knowledge of the laws of physics
> not in nature not obeying them. If something exists, then there's a
> rational explanation for it, yes? If we view a blackhole as an
> inconsistency in nature, we are completely blinded. They exist and
> the laws of nature permit it. As for goals, I cited entropy as a
> driving force. When you drop an egg, it breaks into many pieces.
> Never do you see eggs pop up off the floor and reassemble themselves
> and this is because of entropy. Many of the more mundane events in
> this universe are driven towards certain results over others by
> entropy.

You are absolutely right that the inconsistencies lie in *our*
understanding of the laws of the universe. My point is that belief
finds agency behind these 'laws' whereas science does not. As for the
egg... unfortunately, there is in infinitesimal chance that just such
an event (the spontaneous reconstitution of the egg) can occur based
on probability and uncertainty. Some quantum machines actually work
based on such 'non-sense' principles.

> > I accept that it is daunting for many people to think of a life with
> > no purpose. However, most physicists are pretty stable people. I would
> > like to see numbers on this, but I imagine the suicide rate is pretty
> > low amongst this class. No one that I know of who is a 'non-believer'
> > for lack of a better word, feels as though their life is purposeless.
>
> Exactly! And therein lies the dichotomy.

Explain how this is a dichotomy? Purpose is determined by our own
normativily generated understanding of worth and purpose. There need
not be some outside agency lending purpose as the master giving bread
to the slave. But, again, I do not want to moralize.... my issue is
with the conflation of 'belief' and 'science.' The purpose lies in the
intersubjective relationship to others, the continuation of life,
which is itself driven by pleasure, desire, and the 'innate' push to
continue the species... It can be assumed, indeed, that any entity
that did not possess such an innate 'push' would have died out shortly
after developing... There may have been countless beings which
developed without this innate desire, but being as the desire to
procreate drives, well, procreation, the lack of such a desire would
prohibit...well... procreation. Sorry to be a bit tautological.

> Suppose away, so long as we know that it's just a supposition. I
> agree with you, there's no conclusive proof either way, but that makes
> us able to suppose both for and against.

Agreed. But since we are speaking of belief and science, how does this
have bearing...?

> True science cannot look for a reason because it has an unwritten
> commandment that God cannot possibly be a scientific result. True
> science will never find a drand reason because it would have to give
> up its most sacred caveat in order to do so.

Which again supports my point that science and belief are separate
epistemes.

On May 19, 4:01 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 06:20, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But that's just it, though, isn't it? The laws of physics aren't
> > > random and they do work towards certain goals.
>
> > I must disagree, and wholeheartedly! The laws of physics do not work
> > towards some specific goal. They work. The only goal is, indeed, their
> > 'working'. Obviously they are deterministic but that does *not*
> > indicate eo ipso agency or a 'goal'. And even its consistency begins
> > to break down in certain situations. The speed of light through a gas
> > cooled to all but absolute zero is slow enough to measure with a
> > speedometer! And, of course, blackholes and such. The inconsistencies
> > are well-known...
>

>

> > But this doesn't seem right
>
> > > to me. There's a big difference between a universe with no awareness
> > > and a universe like ours with a huge variety of awarenesses--just on
> > > this planet. I find it difficult to 'accept' or 'believe' that
> > > awareness doesn't matter. Especially when there's no conclusive proof
> > > showing the mechanism of awareness to be purely physical. Granted
> > > there's no proof showing it isn't, but no proof either way is no basis
> > > for understanding.
>


>

> > Indeed, for me, to think that this is the *only* life, makes me more
> > attuned to society, politics, and the way the world 'really' is (or
> > seems to be...). Also, a fully coherent system can exist without
> > agency. There is no reason to suppose that it cannot.
>

>

[Felix Krull]

Sorry, a follow-up:

> Exactly! Awareness does matter. So gow is it useful to the
> universe? If you can think of an answer, then it's a possible
> purpose.

The question 'how is it useful to the universe,' can only be answered
appealing to belief. There is no 'scientific' answer to that. Indeed,
awareness has no metaphysical purpose; merely the pragmatic purpose of
observation. I would dare say that it is also the foundational
evolutionary moment which determines 'belief.' Even the early
philosophers (see my reference to Pythagoras above) conflated science
and religion. It was not until the scientific revolution that the
metaphysical question of agency was put to rest and the episteme which
is 'science' fully developed (stumbling all the way, of course... but
then again that composes one of the true differences between 'belief'
and 'science').

[Felix Krull]

sorry, one more follow-up:

> They exist and
> the laws of nature permit it.

Remember that the 'laws of nature' are descriptive rather than
proscriptive.

On May 19, 4:01 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 06:20, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But that's just it, though, isn't it? The laws of physics aren't
> > > random and they do work towards certain goals.
>
> > I must disagree, and wholeheartedly! The laws of physics do not work
> > towards some specific goal. They work. The only goal is, indeed, their
> > 'working'. Obviously they are deterministic but that does *not*
> > indicate eo ipso agency or a 'goal'. And even its consistency begins
> > to break down in certain situations. The speed of light through a gas
> > cooled to all but absolute zero is slow enough to measure with a
> > speedometer! And, of course, blackholes and such. The inconsistencies
> > are well-known...
>
> The inconsistencies lie in our knowledge of the laws of physics
> not in nature not obeying them. If something exists, then there's a
> rational explanation for it, yes? If we view a blackhole as an

[Pat]

On 19 May, 22:10, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry, one more follow-up:
>
> > They exist and
> > the laws of nature permit it.
>
> Remember that the 'laws of nature' are descriptive rather than
> proscriptive.
>

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that
physical laws don't prohibit certain events? Or are you just saying
that we just see them as simply the defining parameters of this
universe rather than the REAL set of God's commandments to all
energy?

[Pat]

On 19 May, 21:31, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     The inconsistencies lie in our knowledge of the laws of physics
> > not in nature not obeying them.  If something exists, then there's a
> > rational explanation for it, yes?  If we view a blackhole as an
> > inconsistency in nature, we are completely blinded.  They exist and
> > the laws of nature permit it.  As for goals, I cited entropy as a
> > driving force.  When you drop an egg, it breaks into many pieces.
> > Never do you see eggs pop up off the floor and reassemble themselves
> > and this is because of entropy.  Many of the more mundane events in
> > this universe are driven towards certain results over others by
> > entropy.
>
> You are absolutely right that the inconsistencies lie in *our*
> understanding of the laws of the universe. My point is that belief
> finds agency behind these 'laws' whereas science does not.

But it's worse than that, as science cannot find agency. Should
science find agency, what, then, of science? It is a belief of
science that it cannot find agency. But one may find it implicitly
rather than explicitly. But science cannot tolerate it in either
case. Even if the science is good, science would reject an implicit
agency because of its belief that agency cannot be found, as it is not
required. I would point those scientists to their appendix.

>As for the
> egg... unfortunately, there is in infinitesimal chance that just such
> an event (the spontaneous  reconstitution of the egg) can occur based
> on probability and uncertainty. Some quantum machines actually work
> based on such 'non-sense' principles.
>

Yes, and did they ever record such an event or was it just glee of
putting numbers to the chances? I reckon you'll never see it happen.
There's as much likelihood as there being a universe where entropy
works in reverse. It COULD be, might even make a good sci-fi story,
but non-sense is about right.

> > > I accept that it is daunting for many people to think of a life with
> > > no purpose. However, most physicists are pretty stable people. I would
> > > like to see numbers on this, but I imagine the suicide rate is pretty
> > > low amongst this class. No one that I know of who is a 'non-believer'
> > > for lack of a better word, feels as though their life is purposeless.
>
> >     Exactly!  And therein lies the dichotomy.
>
> Explain how this is a dichotomy? Purpose is determined by our own
> normativily generated understanding of worth and purpose. There need
> not be some outside agency lending purpose as the master giving bread
> to the slave.

And I would say God is as much within you as He is without you.

> > > > God' is found to be lacking in fact, it can be quite- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Pat]

Sorry, I hit the send button before I'd finished responding.
Amazing how this universe works. Through the butterfly effect, I
wonder how many things it's affected, if any. Other than keeping you
reading this a little longer than might have otherwise. ;-)

Anyway...yes, I understand that our survival instincts protect and
secure our survival, both short and long term, but why? Why does
nature try to protect life through biological programming if it's NOT
important? As highly organised lifeforms, we are antithetical to
entropy, so why protect it with instincts? That's the dichotomy, the
survival instinct goes against general entropy by encouraging highly
organised forms of matter.

> > > > > > which fits the evidence (or further- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 19 May, 22:06, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, a follow-up:
>
> >     Exactly!  Awareness does matter.  So gow is it useful to the
> > universe?  If you can think of an answer, then it's a possible
> > purpose.
>
> The question 'how is it useful to the universe,' can only be answered
> appealing to belief. There is no 'scientific' answer to that. Indeed,
> awareness has no metaphysical purpose; merely the pragmatic purpose of
> observation.

Isn't human observation itself rather metaphysical? Do you not
see the difference between a photon registered by a photometer and a
photon observed by the eye and registered in the mind? The level of
awareness of the observer vastly flavours the experience. While the
photometer can be said to register the photon, has it really
experienced anything? Observation is VERY metaphysical.

>I would dare say that it is also the foundational
> evolutionary moment which determines 'belief.' Even the early
> philosophers (see my reference to Pythagoras above) conflated science
> and religion. It was not until the scientific revolution that the
> metaphysical question of agency was put to rest and the episteme which
> is 'science' fully developed (stumbling all the way, of course... but
> then again that composes one of the true differences between 'belief'
> and 'science').
>

Put to rest? Avoided like the plague, yes, set aside as too
difficult and best ignored, most likely. Agency is as troubling to
science as it is for believers. ;-)

> > > > > > That life, and sentient human life at that came about due to disorganized,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

"...Indeed,awareness has no metaphysical purpose; merely the pragmatic
purpose of observation. ..."

Since I don't know which meaning of 'pragmatic' you use here I don't
know which sort of observation.

> > > > > > That life, and sentient human life at that came about due to disorganized,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

Describing the events in the universe so that prediction of future
events have a higher rate of success.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> But it's worse than that, as science cannot find agency. Should
> science find agency, what, then, of science? It is a belief of
> science that it cannot find agency. But one may find it implicitly
> rather than explicitly. But science cannot tolerate it in either
> case. Even if the science is good, science would reject an implicit
> agency because of its belief that agency cannot be found, as it is not
> required. I would point those scientists to their appendix.

Remember, Pat, I do not take issue that science and belief are
different. Indeed, that is one of the points of my argument. As for
agency: science does not seek agency; it is not a question of 'belief'
that agency cannot be found, rather science is disinterested in the
concept of agency. Such a concept of agency only becomes important in
'belief.' Science can continue to make predictions without resorting
to 'agency', which makes it essentially different from belief.

> Yes, and did they ever record such an event or was it just glee of
> putting numbers to the chances? I reckon you'll never see it happen.
> There's as much likelihood as there being a universe where entropy
> works in reverse. It COULD be, might even make a good sci-fi story,
> but non-sense is about right.

Actually electron tunneling is something which happens for no apparent
reason... particles appear out of nowhere throughout the universe,
regardless of the 'conservation of energy'; and the concept of
'entropy' itself is a bothersome one in quantum mechanics (from what I
understand...)

> And I would say God is as much within you as He is without you.

I appreciate your sentiment. However, purpose, for many people, is not
related to such an idea. It is instead related to the simple
understanding of society as an organism, and all parts functioning
together in 'harmony'. It is related to the physical rather than the
metaphysical. I, personally, do not need the permission on some other
entity to see beauty or in the world and society nor to have purpose
in my own social setting. God gives not rice to Burma. Society does.
And politics prevents such aid. God does not. This is my and many
others' purpose....

On May 19, 7:55 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 21:31, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The inconsistencies lie in our knowledge of the laws of physics
> > > not in nature not obeying them. If something exists, then there's a
> > > rational explanation for it, yes? If we view a blackhole as an
> > > inconsistency in nature, we are completely blinded. They exist and
> > > the laws of nature permit it. As for goals, I cited entropy as a
> > > driving force. When you drop an egg, it breaks into many pieces.
> > > Never do you see eggs pop up off the floor and reassemble themselves
> > > and this is because of entropy. Many of the more mundane events in
> > > this universe are driven towards certain results over others by
> > > entropy.
>
> > You are absolutely right that the inconsistencies lie in *our*
> > understanding of the laws of the universe. My point is that belief
> > finds agency behind these 'laws' whereas science does not.
>

>

> >As for the
> > egg... unfortunately, there is in infinitesimal chance that just such
> > an event (the spontaneous reconstitution of the egg) can occur based
> > on probability and uncertainty. Some quantum machines actually work
> > based on such 'non-sense' principles.
>

>

> > > > I accept that it is daunting for many people to think of a life with
> > > > no purpose. However, most physicists are pretty stable people. I would
> > > > like to see numbers on this, but I imagine the suicide rate is pretty
> > > > low amongst this class. No one that I know of who is a 'non-believer'
> > > > for lack of a better word, feels as though their life is purposeless.
>
> > > Exactly! And therein lies the dichotomy.
>
> > Explain how this is a dichotomy? Purpose is determined by our own
> > normativily generated understanding of worth and purpose. There need
> > not be some outside agency lending purpose as the master giving bread
> > to the slave.
>

>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> Anyway...yes, I understand that our survival instincts protect and
> secure our survival, both short and long term, but why? Why does
> nature try to protect life through biological programming if it's NOT
> important? As highly organised lifeforms, we are antithetical to
> entropy, so why protect it with instincts? That's the dichotomy, the
> survival instinct goes against general entropy by encouraging highly
> organised forms of matter.

Well, you continue to illustrate my real point (while trying to pull
me into a different argument altogether...). The question of 'but
why?' is one that only belief can answer, for it is inherently
teleological or even eschatological. In such a question science has no
interest (other than to find an empirical, etiological answer). Also,
as to organization, check out the wiki on Ilya Prigogine, dissipative
structures, and self-organizing systems. This is one of the problems
with entropy... it is not always accurate on a microcosmic scale.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Felix Krull]

> > The question 'how is it useful to the universe,' can only be answered
> > appealing to belief. There is no 'scientific' answer to that. Indeed,
> > awareness has no metaphysical purpose; merely the pragmatic purpose of
> > observation.
>
> Isn't human observation itself rather metaphysical? Do you not
> see the difference between a photon registered by a photometer and a
> photon observed by the eye and registered in the mind? The level of
> awareness of the observer vastly flavours the experience. While the
> photometer can be said to register the photon, has it really
> experienced anything? Observation is VERY metaphysical.

My apologies. I missed a qualifier: *for science* awareness has no

metaphysical purpose; merely the pragmatic purpose of observation.

> Put to rest? Avoided like the plague, yes, set aside as too
> difficult and best ignored, most likely. Agency is as troubling to
> science as it is for believers.

Well, I think it may be troublesome to some scientists (human beings
all! and subject to belief systems...) but not for science. Agency for
science is always disproved when causal links are discovered to
explain events. Take the example of the slowed-down speed of light
through a gas cooled to within thousands of a degree of 0 Kelvin. Had
the scientist who discovered this claimed 'God has reached his hand
into the gas and grabbed hold of the beam of light', claiming agency,
and avoided the issues of the 'laws of the universe' completely
breaking (or modifying) in super-cooled substances, then she would
have been encumbered by 'belief', and her ideas determined by them.
She was not (thankfully) and though she may be a 'believer' she does
not 'believe' in the hand of god stirring up the Bose-Einstein
condensate! Instead, being a scientist, she records the evidence and
constructs a functioning model which explain events to a reasonable
level of certainty for the replication of the experiment by different
parties--thus leading to the higher level of predictability. Agency,
being sentient, cannot be predicted. It is a fickle beast. Hagy (that
paragon of Christian virtue [heavy heavy sarcasm! Not aimed at
Christianity but at this and many 'Christians']) claimed that
Hurricane Katrina was sent by the hand of god! There is
agency...fickle.

On May 19, 8:13 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 May, 22:06, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, a follow-up:
>
> > > Exactly! Awareness does matter. So gow is it useful to the
> > > universe? If you can think of an answer, then it's a possible
> > > purpose.
>


>

> >I would dare say that it is also the foundational
> > evolutionary moment which determines 'belief.' Even the early
> > philosophers (see my reference to Pythagoras above) conflated science
> > and religion. It was not until the scientific revolution that the
> > metaphysical question of agency was put to rest and the episteme which
> > is 'science' fully developed (stumbling all the way, of course... but
> > then again that composes one of the true differences between 'belief'
> > and 'science').
>

> ...
>
> re

ad more »

[Felix Krull]

Peircian (?)

> ...
>
> read more »

[chazwin]

On 16 May, 14:02, mr Thomas <lyallp...@vodamail.co.za> wrote:
> According to the poem "Dover Beach" by "M.Arnold",I believe that
> without people believing in God, the faith of our planet will only
> carry on withdrawing,so I believe that Atheism should be discarded
> before anything worst happens.

How can you discard rationalism?
How can you suspend the disbelief of millions of people?
Discard atheism and you discard the logical underpinning of science.
You can, discard a person, carelessly, over a cliff, my solution for
you.

[FallingLeaves]

... I 'believe' that belief and science co-exist... this is yet
another debate that goes round and round like a merry-go-round = =" we
can be organisms with no purpose but to live or organisms that
searches for a purpose and live, so i guess i'm claiming for the right
to do either.

> > calculated chance of occurence of big bang? was it 1/2000000?- 隱藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -

[7/8" plugs]

Beliefs are automatic barriers. As soon as you believe a certain
thing. Then it makes you blind to reality.

For example try and tell a Christain the FACT of evolution. They are
blinded to facts by they're belief.

Or explain the several facts that the world wasn't built in 7 days.

So to have science that is worth a darn, you have to let go all
beliefs.

Beliefs only hinder you and make you blind to the obivous. The truth
is right in front of you always, it's only our beliefs that make us
blind to it.

> > - 顯示被引用文字 -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Falling, your 'belief' that science and belief coexist is, indeed,
correct. One need not elide the other. I object to their imbrication.
I also, to continue 7/8 Plugs response, would maintain that the
confusion of science and belief leads to deeper blindness than their
separation. Belief can, indeed, be blind to fact. But, speaking to
those who 'believe' in creationism (which is a belief) I have found
that the rape and pillage science and scientific reasoning to
construct their own specious arguments. They seek, in other words, to
*explain* the facts (which is science's strength) by resorting to
belief.

[chazwin]

On May 20, 3:18 pm, "7/8\" plugs" <roy.r.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beliefs are automatic barriers. As soon as you believe a certain
> thing. Then it makes you blind to reality.

Not necessarily. If you believe the world goes round the saun rather
then how it actually appears that the sun goes round the earth, that
belief can make you see reality more accurately.
The problem is intransigence in belief not in belief itself. Newton
had to believe in Galileo etal otherwise he not not have been bale to
progress in astronomy.

>
> For example try and tell a Christain the FACT of evolution. They are
> blinded to facts by they're belief.

But all we know relies on belief. There is no absolute and
unchallengeable knowledge - if you believe THAT then you are really
doomed.

[Felix Krull]

> Not necessarily. If you believe the world goes round the saun rather
> then how it actually appears that the sun goes round the earth, that
> belief can make you see reality more accurately.
> The problem is intransigence in belief not in belief itself. Newton
> had to believe in Galileo etal otherwise he not not have been bale to
> progress in astronomy.

One does not 'believe' in facts which are demonstrably, empirically
provable. There is no need to do such a thing when one can demonstrate
them empirically. Again, I do not want to moralize whether 'belief' or
'non-belief' is socially, morally, ethically better or worse.

> But all we know relies on belief. There is no absolute and
> unchallengeable knowledge - if you believe THAT then you are really
> doomed.

For science, all we know relies of observation. At the core of that,
yes, there is the *assumption* that observation is objectively
determined. But I do not think an assumption is the same thing as a
belief, at least in the context that I have been using the latter
throughout.

On May 20, 1:46 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 3:18 pm, "7/8\" plugs" <roy.r.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Beliefs are automatic barriers. As soon as you believe a certain
> > thing. Then it makes you blind to reality.
>

>
>
>

> > For example try and tell a Christain the FACT of evolution. They are
> > blinded to facts by they're belief.
>

>
>
>

[chazwin]

On May 20, 7:31 pm, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not necessarily. If you believe the world goes round the saun rather
> > then how it actually appears that the sun goes round the earth, that
> > belief can make you see reality more accurately.
> > The problem is intransigence in belief not in belief itself. Newton
> > had to believe in Galileo etal otherwise he not not have been bale to
> > progress in astronomy.
>
> One does not 'believe' in facts which are demonstrably, empirically
> provable. There is no need to do such a thing when one can demonstrate
> them empirically.

But Newton had no way of "knowing" if the heliocentric hypothesis was
more convincing that the geocentric one. That was not really confirmed
until the space-age.
Additionally the history of science is littered with "demonstrable"
and "empirically provable" hypotheses which turned out to be bullshit.
You could demonstrate air's capacity to absorb "phogistan" by lighting
a fire in an enclosed space. However, phogistan does not exist.

> Again, I do not want to moralize whether 'belief' or
> 'non-belief' is socially, morally, ethically better or worse.
>
> > But all we know relies on belief. There is no absolute and
> > unchallengeable knowledge - if you believe THAT then you are really
> > doomed.
>
> For science, all we know relies of observation. At the core of that,
> yes, there is the *assumption* that observation is objectively
> determined.

All observations are subjectively interpreted, and are thought
"objective" until someone pulls the phenonenological rug from
underneath the hypothesis and re-writes the next paradigm.
You really need to read some Popper and Kuhn, before you spout your
high school understanding of science about.

> But I do not think an assumption is the same thing as a
> belief, at least in the context that I have been using the latter
> throughout.

The history of science has demonstrated that beliefs taken as
knowledge have enabled science to move on, until that so-called
"konwledge" is disproven, and a new way of looking at the same
empirical data produces a new set of beliefs that are once again so-
called knowledge. There is a concept of true belief, you know.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

> But Newton had no way of "knowing" if the heliocentric hypothesis was
> more convincing that the geocentric one. That was not really confirmed
> until the space-age.

You say 'confirmed.' Well, because it was 'confirmed' as you say in
the space-age, Newton was right. His scientific reasoning was correct.
His 'belief' in power and mystery of alchemy had little to do with his
empirically determined and provable theories of dynamics.

> Additionally the history of science is littered with "demonstrable"
> and "empirically provable" hypotheses which turned out to be bullshit.

And, as I have been saying all along, that demonstrates the nature of
science as opposed to belief. Science posits hypotheses and theories
which, as long as they predict things to a high degree of accuracy,
continue to be used. Once they are 'disproven', assuming they are, or,
more likely, modified to fit new observations, then they are changed.
You are really taking up my position, as though I were saying
something to the contrary, and arguing with me over it. Pretty
childish.

> You could demonstrate air's capacity to absorb "phogistan" by lighting
> a fire in an enclosed space. However, phogistan does not exist.

Well, your premise is ridiculous, and thus not provable. You, again,
prove my point. This experiment would not prove your hypothesis.

> All observations are subjectively interpreted, and are thought
> "objective" until someone pulls the phenonenological rug from
> underneath the hypothesis and re-writes the next paradigm.
> You really need to read some Popper and Kuhn, before you spout your
> high school understanding of science about.

Well, firstly, this again proves my point. You have again taken up my
position, masked it as your own and somehow unique, and then spit it
back at me. Pretty childish. As for Popper and Kuhn, many philosophers
of science have come since them. Maybe you should read some of them?
And refer to some of my previous posts to see my references to Popper.
By the way, your use of 'phenomenological' is rather misplaced, and
how can one re-write a paradigm which has yet to be written (since it
is the 'next' one)?? Umm... did you actually finish high school?

> The history of science has demonstrated that beliefs taken as
> knowledge have enabled science to move on, until that so-called
> "konwledge" is disproven, and a new way of looking at the same
> empirical data produces a new set of beliefs that are once again so-
> called knowledge. There is a concept of true belief, you know.

You are confusing 'belief' with objectively provable data. Someone who
'believes' that the earth makes revolutions around the sun (while
really basing his 'belief' on the observations of thousands of people
before him!), is better able to *predict* astrological events. Why do
you think that the Ptolemaic system was abandoned so quickly (once the
'paradigm shifted' as you say). Have you ever seen the Ptolemaic
system? It makes for awkward predictions, and ones that are usually
inaccurate! It became obvious that the sun centered system was more
correct because it made for better predictions. That is high school
level knowledge, by the way Chaz. You should return. You might learn
something.

Finally, you have obviously read nothing of this thread, butting in as
you do by restating what I have been saying all along, as though I
have not been saying it. Of course there is "a concept of true
belief." And it is, as I have been arguing, distinct from science.
Read the other posts.

On May 20, 5:58 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 7:31 pm, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not necessarily. If you believe the world goes round the saun rather
> > > then how it actually appears that the sun goes round the earth, that
> > > belief can make you see reality more accurately.
> > > The problem is intransigence in belief not in belief itself. Newton
> > > had to believe in Galileo etal otherwise he not not have been bale to
> > > progress in astronomy.
>
> > One does not 'believe' in facts which are demonstrably, empirically
> > provable. There is no need to do such a thing when one can demonstrate
> > them empirically.
>

>

> > Again, I do not want to moralize whether 'belief' or
> > 'non-belief' is socially, morally, ethically better or worse.
>
> > > But all we know relies on belief. There is no absolute and
> > > unchallengeable knowledge - if you believe THAT then you are really
> > > doomed.
>
> > For science, all we know relies of observation. At the core of that,
> > yes, there is the *assumption* that observation is objectively
> > determined.
>

>

> > But I do not think an assumption is the same thing as a
> > belief, at least in the context that I have been using the latter
> > throughout.
>

>
>
>

[One Inch Plugs]

You completely missed the point chazwin. thus showing you must be a
person of beliefs not facts.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[One Inch Plugs]

it wasn't a matter of facts and beliefs. The fact that you used the
word knowledge shows this. It's not about knowledge, it's about
understanding.

[One Inch Plugs]

You can sit on a worldful of knowledge and still not know how to tie
your shoes. But you can 1st hand understand how to. knowledge is 2nd
hand, understanding is first hand.

Wiether beleif is true or false, it is still a barrier either way.
That is the difference between knowledge and intellengence. It will
still make you blind to what you don't believe in, even if it's
sitting right in front of y

On May 20, 10:11 pm, One Inch Plugs <roy.r.r...@gmail.com> wrote:

[One Inch Plugs]

sorry I mean no disrespect (though I can now see how you might you
might see it that way). I'm just trying to help you understand.

On May 20, 12:46 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[One Inch Plugs]

Basically just cause one time out of thousands happen to be right.
Doesn't mean it is correct.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Felix Krull]

Nor did I say that it did mean that. Indeed, my point is that with
science there is no 'absolute correct'. There is always the discursive
process of modification, adjustment, reinvention, critical analysis
and so forth.

[chazwin]

On 21 May, 02:02, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But Newton had no way of "knowing" if the heliocentric hypothesis was
> > more convincing that the geocentric one. That was not really confirmed
> > until the space-age.
>
> You say 'confirmed.' Well, because it was 'confirmed' as you say in
> the space-age, Newton was right. His scientific reasoning was correct.
> His 'belief' in power and mystery of alchemy had little to do with his
> empirically determined and provable theories of dynamics.

But you area shooting yourself in the foot. What he "knew" about
astronomy was no different than what he "knew" about alchemy, in terms
of belief versus knowledge, both his alchemy and astronomy had the
same status. In fact he was wrong about gravity as he had no way to
understand bending of space/time eventhough the distortion was
experimentally detectable.
No one had any reason to consider the heliocentric hypothesis as
anything more than belief, and there were good reasons why not to
accept it: in the absence of stellar parallax they "knew" that the
theory implied that the stars had to be millions of miles away.

>
> > Additionally the history of science is littered with "demonstrable"
> > and "empirically provable" hypotheses which turned out to be bullshit.
>
> And, as I have been saying all along, that demonstrates the nature of
> science as opposed to belief. Science posits hypotheses and theories
> which, as long as they predict things to a high degree of accuracy,
> continue to be used.

But, you are failing to draw appropriate distinctions between belief
and knowledge. All that bullshit was "knowledge" but you are saying it
was just "belief". And what of our "knowledge" now- all that stuff we
take for granted which might not be true in the future - how much of
it is just "belief"?

Once they are 'disproven', assuming they are, or,
> more likely, modified to fit new observations, then they are changed.
> You are really taking up my position, as though I were saying
> something to the contrary, and arguing with me over it. Pretty
> childish.

Not at all - you are confused about what you mean when you talk about
belief and knowledge.
Before Copernicus is was common knowledge that the earth was in the
centre of the universe. Your definitions of knowledge and belief fly
against that simple fact.

>
> > You could demonstrate air's capacity to absorb "phogistan" by lighting
> > a fire in an enclosed space. However, phogistan does not exist.
>
> Well, your premise is ridiculous, and thus not provable. You, again,
> prove my point. This experiment would not prove your hypothesis.

The premise was common knowledge before chemical theory postulated the
existence of oxygen. Quantum theory might well overturn current atomic
theory, making all our knowledge redundant. You would then cal it
belief - I suppose.

>
> > All observations are subjectively interpreted, and are thought
> > "objective" until someone pulls the phenonenological rug from
> > underneath the hypothesis and re-writes the next paradigm.
> > You really need to read some Popper and Kuhn, before you spout your
> > high school understanding of science about.
>
> Well, firstly, this again proves my point. You have again taken up my
> position, masked it as your own and somehow unique, and then spit it
> back at me. Pretty childish. As for Popper and Kuhn, many philosophers
> of science have come since them. Maybe you should read some of them?

If I though for a moment that you had read then I would ask you who
you mean exactly.

> And refer to some of my previous posts to see my references to Popper.
> By the way, your use of 'phenomenological' is rather misplaced, and
> how can one re-write a paradigm which has yet to be written (since it
> is the 'next' one)?? Umm... did you actually finish high school?

You are clearly confused.

>
> > The history of science has demonstrated that beliefs taken as
> > knowledge have enabled science to move on, until that so-called
> > "konwledge" is disproven, and a new way of looking at the same
> > empirical data produces a new set of beliefs that are once again so-
> > called knowledge. There is a concept of true belief, you know.
>
> You are confusing 'belief' with objectively provable data. Someone who
> 'believes' that the earth makes revolutions around the sun (while
> really basing his 'belief' on the observations of thousands of people
> before him!), is better able to *predict* astrological events.

Duh!!! That is my point knumbnuts. The geocentric hypothesis is
verifyable by observation! That is true today as it was in the time of
Ptolemy. His system served astrologers, astronomers, and navigators
alike for 1400 years. It was able to predict where the planets were
going to be and all the eclipses. The heliocentric hypothesis was NOT
better able to predict, it was just easier to calculate mathematically
and the invention of the telescope provided more accurate measurements
that could have served either system just as well.

Why do
> you think that the Ptolemaic system was abandoned so quickly (once the
> 'paradigm shifted' as you say).

You are showing your ignorance. It was not abandoned Quickly at all.
The geocentric hypothesis was common knowledge for thousands of years
formalized by Ptolemy in the first century, despite the existence of
the heliocentric hypothesis offered by Aristarchus around 280 BC.
Ptolemy's work is a work of observational genius, and his tables
served astronomers for centuries. Even after Copernicus published his
Revolutions on his death bed (1543), it was taken up by Galileo and
Kepler, the heliocentric hypothesis was not fully abandoned for at
least 140 years some time after Newton's Principia.

Have you ever seen the Ptolemaic
> system? It makes for awkward predictions, and ones that are usually
> inaccurate!

Yes I have. There is nothing to stop you updating the system with
modern observational data. Yes, predictions are more clumsy but the
system worked fine for hundreds of years. But all this is completely
irrelevant. Ptolemy's system was not based on belief but on
observational knowledge. Putting the sun in the middle was a leap of
faith for Copernicus. QED your distinction between belief and
knowledge is incoherent.

[chazwin]

On 21 May, 04:24, One Inch Plugs <roy.r.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry I mean no disrespect (though I can now see how you might you
> might see it that way). I'm just trying to help you understand.

I need no help from you. If you just hold off on judgment for one
second, and say exactly where you think my posting was wrong, only
then will I be able to respond to your hot air.

I was inviting Felix to consider that "knowledge" and "belief" are
terms that are relative to the historical situation. That which is
dismisses as "belief" was once considered "knowledge".

That also means that we now hold things to be true and consider them
"knowledge" that may well turn out to be false. That being so - what
status has our current knowledge when so much of it might be dismissed
as "belief" by a future Felix?

I can't see a problem with pointing that out and I don't recognize
your monopoly on that which you consider to be "THE point". My point
is a valid one and would be worth it for Felix to consider it.

[Lee]

I have to disagree I think Chaz hit the mark right on the head, and in
fact Chaz has not a religious(as this is clearly what you mean when
you say belife)bone in his body.

We all hold belifes, to deny this is plain silly. Lets take for
example your original statement.

'Beliefs are automatic barriers. As soon as you believe a certain
thing. Then it makes you blind to reality.'

This of course is one of your own belifes, unless you can show me the
emperical data that backs this claim up?

Lets take another rather cheeser example. The Darknes sung 'do you
belive in a thing called love'. I certianly do, do you?

Do you belive that in 1066 at the battle of Hastings King Harrod was
killed by an arrow in his eye? You can't know wether this is true or
not, unless you actualy witnessed it, so in effect all that you have
been taught, you choose to belive is correct.

Belife is not a barrier at all, it is the forerunner of knowledge. I
suspect what you mean is religous belife, as a barrier, and once again
you are wrong.

How is a belife in God a barrier against reality?

[Felix Krull]

> But you area shooting yourself in the foot. What he "knew" about
> astronomy was no different than what he "knew" about alchemy, in terms
> of belief versus knowledge, both his alchemy and astronomy had the
> same status. In fact he was wrong about gravity as he had no way to
> understand bending of space/time eventhough the distortion was
> experimentally detectable.
> No one had any reason to consider the heliocentric hypothesis as
> anything more than belief, and there were good reasons why not to
> accept it: in the absence of stellar parallax they "knew" that the
> theory implied that the stars had to be millions of miles away.

You continue to argue against an imaginary position which you
'believe' I have taken. What he 'knew' about astronomy was,
eventually, determinable and not disprovable (preferable to 'provable'
which I have mistakenly used in the past). However, he 'believed' that
through his alchemy he would be able to make gold from lead. That was
at every point disprovable. His ideas on astronomy also proved to be
much more accurate predictors of astrological events. All of the
planets which are not visible to the naked eye were discovered by
using Newton's ideas. That amounts to accuracy. The ptolemaic system
did not offer such predictability. If you still believe in the
ptolemaic system then that is a *belief* and not science.

> But, you are failing to draw appropriate distinctions between belief
> and knowledge. All that bullshit was "knowledge" but you are saying it
> was just "belief". And what of our "knowledge" now- all that stuff we
> take for granted which might not be true in the future - how much of
> it is just "belief"?

I am not failing to draw distinctions between 'belief' and
'knowledge'. Indeed, I am not speaking of knowledge. I am speaking of
'science' which is a system of understanding and knowledge--just as
belief is a system of understanding and knowledge. And actually, how
can you draw a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge'? Belief is
a form of knowledge--however, as I have argued throughout (*read the
previous posts*!) they are different forms of knowledge.

> Not at all - you are confused about what you mean when you talk about
> belief and knowledge.
> Before Copernicus is was common knowledge that the earth was in the
> centre of the universe. Your definitions of knowledge and belief fly
> against that simple fact.
>

You are confused. You feel, erroneously, that belief is distinct from
knowledge. You need to read a lot more before you continue this
idiotic claim. And you continue to ascribe to me some distinction
between 'belief' and 'knowledge.' At no point do I make a distinction
between belief and knowledge, for there is no distinction to make--
belief is a subset of knowledge.

> The premise was common knowledge before chemical theory postulated the
> existence of oxygen. Quantum theory might well overturn current atomic
> theory, making all our knowledge redundant. You would then cal it
> belief - I suppose.

And, since it was disproven, this shows that the 'belief' was
corrected by science. Indeed, since it was a hypothesis to begin with,
rather than a belief, it was originally a scientific understanding
which just happened to be erroneous. Someone who continues to
'believe' in whatever the original hypothesis was is, then, a believer
unable to marshal empirical evidence to support his claim. That is the
distinction between *SCIENCE* and belief (notice--and since I raised
my voice you must--that I am *not* speaking of knowledge). Someone who
continues to *believe* that the earth is 5000 years old is a
*believer* and not a scientist. Science v. belief... science v.
belief... science v. belief.... science v. belief.

> > Well, firstly, this again proves my point. You have again taken up my
> > position, masked it as your own and somehow unique, and then spit it
> > back at me. Pretty childish. As for Popper and Kuhn, many philosophers
> > of science have come since them. Maybe you should read some of them?
>
> If I though for a moment that you had read then I would ask you who
> you mean exactly.

Well...you have constructed a doozy of an idiot's sentence there!
What? Are you asking my to point you in the direction of some
philosophers to read? Hempel would be one place to start, though it
might be a bit too difficult for your low level of English capability.
Daniel Dennett, Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, Michel Foucault, to begin
with...

> Duh!!! That is my point knumbnuts. The geocentric hypothesis is
> verifyable by observation! That is true today as it was in the time of
> Ptolemy. His system served astrologers, astronomers, and navigators
> alike for 1400 years. It was able to predict where the planets were
> going to be and all the eclipses. The heliocentric hypothesis was NOT
> better able to predict, it was just easier to calculate mathematically
> and the invention of the telescope provided more accurate measurements
> that could have served either system just as well.

You continue to confuse some distinction between knowledge and belief--
a distinction which is difficult to maintain and which I never
postulated. Go back and read the earlier posts, troglodyte.

> You are showing your ignorance. It was not abandoned Quickly at all.
> The geocentric hypothesis was common knowledge for thousands of years
> formalized by Ptolemy in the first century, despite the existence of
> the heliocentric hypothesis offered by Aristarchus around 280 BC.
> Ptolemy's work is a work of observational genius, and his tables
> served astronomers for centuries. Even after Copernicus published his
> Revolutions on his death bed (1543), it was taken up by Galileo and
> Kepler, the heliocentric hypothesis was not fully abandoned for at
> least 140 years some time after Newton's Principia.

Read what I wrote before spouting out your opinion. My contention was
once a system was developed which worked its way out of the religious
'belief' that some mythical being's 'creation' was the center of the
universe and proved a more accurate method for predicting astrological
events then the former system was quickly abandoned. You may still
*believe*& in such a system, but your beleif is not science.

> Yes I have. There is nothing to stop you updating the system with
> modern observational data. Yes, predictions are more clumsy but the
> system worked fine for hundreds of years. But all this is completely
> irrelevant. Ptolemy's system was not based on belief but on
> observational knowledge. Putting the sun in the middle was a leap of
> faith for Copernicus. QED your distinction between belief and
> knowledge is incoherent.

Since you continue to *believe* in the ptolemaic system, then you need
to read some books on astrology. And, finally, I DID NOT MAKE A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

On May 21, 3:08 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 21 May, 02:02, Felix Krull <jaw0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But Newton had no way of "knowing" if the heliocentric hypothesis was
> > > more convincing that the geocentric one. That was not really confirmed
> > > until the space-age.
>
> > You say 'confirmed.' Well, because it was 'confirmed' as you say in
> > the space-age, Newton was right. His scientific reasoning was correct.
> > His 'belief' in power and mystery of alchemy had little to do with his
> > empirically determined and provable theories of dynamics.
>

>
>
>

> > > Additionally the history of science is littered with "demonstrable"
> > > and "empirically provable" hypotheses which turned out to be bullshit.
>
> > And, as I have been saying all along, that demonstrates the nature of
> > science as opposed to belief. Science posits hypotheses and theories
> > which, as long as they predict things to a high degree of accuracy,
> > continue to be used.
>

>

> Once they are 'disproven', assuming they are, or,
>
> > more likely, modified to fit new observations, then they are changed.
> > You are really taking up my position, as though I were saying
> > something to the contrary, and arguing with me over it. Pretty
> > childish.
>

>
>

> > > You could demonstrate air's capacity to absorb "phogistan" by lighting
> > > a fire in an enclosed space. However, phogistan does not exist.
>
> > Well, your premise is ridiculous, and thus not provable. You, again,
> > prove my point. This experiment would not prove your hypothesis.
>

>
>
>

> > > All observations are subjectively interpreted, and are thought
> > > "objective" until someone pulls the phenonenological rug from
> > > underneath the hypothesis and re-writes the next paradigm.
> > > You really need to read some Popper and Kuhn, before you spout your
> > > high school understanding of science about.
>

>

> > And refer to some of my previous posts to see my references to Popper.
> > By the way, your use of 'phenomenological' is rather misplaced, and
> > how can one re-write a paradigm which has yet to be written (since it
> > is the 'next' one)?? Umm... did you actually finish high school?
>
> You are clearly confused.
>
>
>
> > > The history of science has demonstrated that beliefs taken as
> > > knowledge have enabled science to move on, until that so-called
> > > "konwledge" is disproven, and a new way of looking at the same
> > > empirical data produces a new set of beliefs that are once again so-
> > > called knowledge. There is a concept of true belief, you know.
>
> > You are confusing 'belief' with objectively provable data. Someone who
> > 'believes' that the earth makes revolutions around the sun (while
> > really basing his 'belief' on the observations of thousands of people
> > before him!), is better able to *predict* astrological events.
>

>

> Why do
>
> > you think that the Ptolemaic system was abandoned so quickly (once the
> > 'paradigm shifted' as you say).
>

>

[Felix Krull]

Chaz is right, because he is repeating what I have been saying,
pretending it is his own. When he is not doing that, he is developing
a specious argument based on some undefined distinction between
'knowledge' and 'belief'. There is no belief in science. Belief and
science are separate. That has been my contention. Science
distinguishes itself from belief by critiquing itself, modifying
itself, and above all focusing on prediction of physical (not
metaphysical) phenomena. There are fundamental distinctions between
science (a form of knowledge) and belief (another form of knowledge).
I have enumerated some of these differences in previous posts and will
not continue to repeat myself for those not functionally literate
enough to go back and read what has been already posted.

I want to (again and again, apparently, since some of those reading
have no interest in following the thread and joining in a *discourse*)
that this is not a moralized distinction and I am not attaching value
to one or the other. That would be for another thread altogether. I
simply wanted to stress that science and belief are different systems
of knowledge. Anyone who cares to read the thread can then be free to
judge whether this attempt was successful or not.

[One Inch Plugs]

never mind, your arguing semantics. I'm getting nowhere here. Your yet
still completely missing the point.

[Pat]

On 21 May, 04:17, One Inch Plugs <roy.r.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> it wasn't a matter of facts and beliefs. The fact that you used the
> word knowledge shows this. It's not about knowledge, it's about
> understanding.
>

I have to say that's a good point. All the knowledge in the world
would be meaningless if one had no understanding of it. Our beliefs
are, most definitely, based on our understanding OF the knowledge we
have. If either the data or the understanding of the data is
incorrect, belief IN it is false.

[Felix Krull]

> We all hold belifes, to deny this is plain silly. Lets take for
> example your original statement.

I have not claimed that we don't "hold beliefs." Indeed, scientists
hold many beliefs. Science does not allow for beliefs. It allows for
proof. Ask any scientist who 'believes' whether it bothers them that
they cannot prove their belief. Most will say no. But all can make the
distinction between belief and science, both the methods and the
accepted 'knowledge' base, which they are free to criticize (as long
as they provide evidence for such criticism).

> Do you belive that in 1066 at the battle of Hastings King Harrod was
> killed by an arrow in his eye? You can't know wether this is true or
> not, unless you actualy witnessed it, so in effect all that you have
> been taught, you choose to belive is correct.

Now you are confusing history, which is narrative, and science. And,
since science is interested in predictions, it is difficult to make a
claim that history and science are the same.

> How is a belife in God a barrier against reality?

When it is used by creationists to force schools to spend as much time
on religious belief in the science class as science. I do agree that
students need to know of creation myths, but not masked as science.
Such is my struggle here.

On May 21, 5:36 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> I have to disagree I think Chaz hit the mark right on the head, and in
> fact Chaz has not a religious(as this is clearly what you mean when
> you say belife)bone in his body.
>

>

> 'Beliefs are automatic barriers. As soon as you believe a certain
> thing. Then it makes you blind to reality.'
>
> This of course is one of your own belifes, unless you can show me the
> emperical data that backs this claim up?
>
> Lets take another rather cheeser example. The Darknes sung 'do you
> belive in a thing called love'. I certianly do, do you?
>

>

> Belife is not a barrier at all, it is the forerunner of knowledge. I
> suspect what you mean is religous belife, as a barrier, and once again
> you are wrong.
>

>

[One Inch Plugs]

thank you Pat.

[One Inch Plugs]

I agree that we all hold beliefs at some type or form Felix. I think
us reconizing that it will blind us is the first step to help seeing
past that belief.

I think we have to be humble to find answers. Not to sound full of
myself but I have a quote of myself that fits "No matter how much you
know about anything, never think you know everything. That is when you
stop learning."

Not that I'm saying you are guilty of this at all. I'm saying I think
certain members apporch life with what I like to call the Charlie
Manson complex. The thought that "I know all. I am god like". They use
knowledge as a weapon, rather then search for understanding.

For us to truely understand we must first understand we are all
imperfect, that's what makes us human. Sadly society today lacks
humanity, compassion, understanding. We instead grow big heads of
knowledge rather then understanding.

But I ramble off. Good point Felix