Science offers mechanism via application of assumption, there is absolutely no reason to believe it is universe accurate that isn't grounded in faith or recursion (eg relying on predictive accuracy to support the method generated from predictive accuracy).
Poll: What is your religion?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Science offers mechanism via application of assumption, there is absolutely no reason to believe it is universe accurate that isn't grounded in faith or recursion (eg relying on predictive accuracy to support the method generated from predictive accuracy).
I don't believe that morality is absolute, no, I think that's fairly obvious. But don't be so ridiculous and naive as to proclaim any sort of positive link between religion and morality.
You can keep pointing it out as many times as you like, it doesn't make it so. Proof is proof, truth is truth, regardless of who it's directed at or who is interpreting it. What you've suggested to be proof isn't anything of the sort.
Obviously, that's fair enough. I disagree with the 'question of God doesn't impact me in any way' statement, as it quite obviously does. There are numerous ways in which it does from the judgement of yourself, the monitoring of yourself, the extremist Islamic terrorism that's happening, the retardation of various cultures (America's and Ireland's spring to mind) hence why I'm so anti religion.
You have mistaken my position, I do not believe in God or gods.
No, I am not saying "evidence does not matter" I am saying that because the God hypothesis is untestable then the only rational answer from a scientific point of view is "I don't know". If you can come up with a scientific method to test the God hypothesis then we can talk about scientific evidence. (You will also become a very rich and famous man). As a matter of interest what level of scientific knowledge/training do you have?
Go for it then. What is the scientific explanation for love.
It may very well be, but can you prove that?
So all the pro-choice people are religious in nature? How odd, not being religious I had no idea I was excluded from any debate on abortion...
Yeah I suppose it would merely have claims that it was only a vessel rather than the real essence of the god.
You're probably asking the wrong person because I have no belief in christanity or indeed any of the abrahamic religions.
However, can you argue, on a factual (rather than inductive or assumptive) basis that the events, in some form, documented within the bible, did not occur?
It isn't even that. If I was possessed by a greek god now, and tested, and evidence gathered, but in the next 5 tests I was not possessed, there is only one scientifically valid conclusion that can be made, but it doesn't mean that the one time didn't happen.
To put it another way, if I was a piano virtuoso, but when investigated, only played the first 3 bars of 'oh when the saints' badly over and over again, what conclusion could be reached scientifically, and would it be consistent with reality?
I can see that would make things awkward, I mean how many tests would have to be "passed" to constitute something being the case... 3? 5? 10? 100?1000?
How do you tie that in with your previous statement that there is no such thing as "Individual truth"?
That is when it starts being about statistical significance. Which I am reliably informed by one of the posters in threads about Climate Change is 17 years.
That is when it starts being about statistical significance. Which I am reliably informed by one of the posters in threads about Climate Change is 17 years.
17 years? hmm...thats a long time to be possessed by a god...mind you, its also a large number of lottery wins using the powers
I read a lot of books by 'popular scientists' like Dawkins, Hawking, Gould, etc. I'm very interested in science, but only as a casual interest, nothing like a career or qualification sort of thing.RDM said:
I'm inclined to ask the same about you as you seem to be 100% that the question of God's existence will never be answered. A philosopher named T.H. Huxley said exactly that over a hundred years ago. All one needs to do is look at the astonishing rate of discovery being offered by science as time progresses and at the knowledge gained. How you could be so sure that anything will forever remain undiscovered takes a tremendous leap of faith.
In Layman's terms (which, as you read above, it pretty much as far as my scientific ability extends), the experiment goes that you offer somebody extended amounts of time with a complete stranger, then you do the same with someone that they love very much (a partner or child, etc) and measure the brain activity of both encounters. You subtract the two and you're left with the difference, et voila - the scientific formula for love. I've tried in vain to find out who conducted these experiments, as I've totally forgotten, but come up empty I'm afraid.
Quite the contrary, it's not up to me to do the proving. If these people wish to lampoon me with the argument from experience, I have to do anything but.
Well, if you actually read what I said, I deliberately did not say 'all.' Still, I've never met anybody that is passionate about the subject, either pro or against, that isn't religious. That paired with the fact that most of the people that are passionate about it, are anti abortion and are religious, reiterates my earlier post.
Your question has already been answered. It's simple, there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality has been built up to the point where it's considered an entity, when it's not anything of the sort. It's a word that's been used to describe how humans interact with each other and what's become deemed as right and wrong.
If morality is not absolute, the it ties in perfectly with the fact that there's no such thing as individual truth.
HNC is as high as I have studied it, but it was enough to instill in me the basics of what science is and does and what it isn't and doesn't. However where did you get from me that they question of God's existence will never be answered? There is just no test currrently. I don't have a crystal ball and so have no idea how science is going to develop and what avenues it is going to go down. At the same time however I wouldn't hold on to the fact that a test may eventually be possible, because if it is, it may come up with the answer you don't want. What position do you take then if there is scientific proof of god?
Congratulations you have just proven that the brain responds in a certain way to certain stimulus. You haven't however proven love. You may have proven recognition though or what the brain does in response to recognition.
I know quite a few people very passionate about pro-choice and passionate about the rights of women. Some of whom are religious, some of whom who are not.
So surely, however an individual has built up their moral code, what is and isn't moral is an individual truth to that person?
I really cannot see the logic in that statement. Surely as morality varies from individual to individual then what is true to one person is not true to another?
Have one guess... If the evidence pointed towards the existence of God, then of course I would believe in God. I'm not a fundamentalist in any sense of the word.HNC is as high as I have studied it, but it was enough to instill in me the basics of what science is and does and what it isn't and doesn't. However where did you get from me that they question of God's existence will never be answered? There is just no test currrently. I don't have a crystal ball and so have no idea how science is going to develop and what avenues it is going to go down. At the same time however I wouldn't hold on to the fact that a test may eventually be possible, because if it is, it may come up with the answer you don't want. What position do you take then if there is scientific proof of god?
Well no, as truth and morality aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination. They're not judged by the same standards, so one cannot suggest that they're in any way linked.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
What about your personal subjective experience of love?
In theory, you could have people that behave exactly like they are in love, right down to the chemical changes and what not, but they feel no love for each other, i.e. they do not experience what you do.
