Vorkosigan

Isn't our confidence in science justified by its success? Surely that is not circular.

beausoleil

I'm sure there are many here who can give a better account of philosophy of science than I can. However, in the simple terms I understand, there's a problem of self reference. Accepting things that have been successful in the past is a 'scientific' way of proceeding. It's a bit like saying

'I have confidence that things that have been successful will tend to continue to be successful because in the past that policy has tended to be successful'

I think it was Hume who first framed the 'problem' with inductive reasoning and Popper who claimed to have solved it by introducing falsification. I find the people who argue that the latter's reasoning was flawed quite persuasive.

It seems to me a thorny issue. If you have a principle for establishing whether things are valid, how do you establish it is valid? One can retreat into language games 'this is what we mean by true' I suppose.

Philosoft

Both atheist and theist attempt to poke holes. Both have failed. Whereupon the atheist says, "I really don't know what's out there but I can't observe or affect it so I'll not worry about it until I can." The theist says, "There must be something out there, and it must be of vast importance to me. I will just assume it is something that makes my life existentially meaningful."

<strong> Entirely without the ability to show that 1) praying does anything; and 2) that there is something 'divine.'

Seb_Maya

Originally posted by Advocate_11:
I realize that you are attempting to say, "Science tells us the how, religion tells us the why."
------------------------------
Yes thank you for correcting me

Originally posted by Philosoft:
Entirely without the ability to show that 1) praying does anything; and 2) that there is something 'divine.'
--------------------
Praying and meditating can and does have a profound effect. I do believe that it aligns you with the "divine". It is a bit of a circular argument I say it does you say it doesn't. We will have to agree to disagree. I think that many atheists have been put off by religion. Many religions will tell you that theirs is the only true path to spiritual enlightenment/heaven etc. Its validity is often based on the premise that it is hundreds and hundreds of years old. Yes there exists a lot of corruption in religions, people that can take advantage of the weak. There are many reasons why we should be wary of religion. But it doesnt scare me from believing that prayer and meditation does keep me in contact with my spiritual side and with the divine.
You are right I cannot prove to you that there is a "God" however I believe that this belief comes from personal experience. Without some sort of "revelation" of the "divine" it becomes increasingly difficult to have faith in it. It can simply seems like indoctrination of your mind on the part of religion. You cannot believe in the "divine" if you do not have a point of reference. For me the "divine" does exist and I believe that my fath in it is a luxury. If you do not have this then that is ok. I will not say that you will be cast into hell and suffer from unimaginable pain for all eternity. This is nonsense. I'm sure that you can find your own path without the need to believe in "God".
But again we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the "divine" exists.

Seb_Maya

I did not realise that the smiley faces in my message above poke their tongues out. No offence intended!

Paul5204

To all:

Einstein. Sacrificed intellectual honesty by creating this universal constant. Had to. Or else he would have had to accept where the observed truth pointed him, to Deity.

Tercel

Well if you're going to play that game then: By definition, God is all there is. Therefore God exists.

Perhaps, in aim of having a meaningful discussion we should limit "the universe" to meaning the physical space-time world that some might call "our universe" or "this universe".

Of course it does. You're making an unwarrented assumption akin to the man believing his small island is all there is.

Not an insult? What else can a factually incorrect, derogatory, negative statement be?

I might not have a PHD in cosmology, but I'm hardly an ignoramus so you could drop the ad hominems.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true.
Plenty of people are making that claim. How do I know? Because I've personally seen them do it!

Tercel

If you've got a problem, then I suggest you take it up with <strong>eh</strong> - I was quoting his "The atheist typically believes that the universe is all there is".
Since he is an atheist, he no doubt knows. And, at anyrate he's right, there are a lot of atheists who declare that. I think 14 months of posting here arguing with atheists qualifies me to say with reasonable certainty what atheists do and don't argue.
If all you mean that you personally don't make this claim and think this claim is stupid one then that's perfectly fine with me.

Tercel

Well the gross generalisations of "we" as meaning athiests in general looks pretty absolute to me.
I'd say it's a blatently false one and that plenty of atheists do have what is effectively faith and do hold absolute and/or unquestionable beliefs.
As far as final and ultimate theories go, it's been my experience that quite a large number of you hold Metaphysical Naturalism as such a theory.


So you question everything and try never to be oversure of anything beyond the evidence? Very good: I do the same.


I am quite aware of the Many Worlds hypothesis.

I am completely unable to relate to your objections here. Perhaps you see a mutual exclusion between Christianity and Science, or see the point of Christianity as being something other than what I understand. There's <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000655" target="_blank">a thread</a> on the MRD board at the moment in which I'm dicussing this, perhaps it would help you understand how your views relate to mine.

Odemus

The mission statement as declared by "The Secular Web":