/sci/ - Science & Math

I sympathize, but it's difficult to overlook the glaring problems with their rationale.

The most common argument in favor of the syncretic model is "Science and religion are separate domains of knowledge". (Of course this is true but so are astronomy and astrology, yet only one of them is valid.) This is basically the "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" solution to the science-religion conflict as offered by Stephen Jay Gould. Of course he didn't consider it valid himself as he was an atheist, but being an accommodationist he wanted to provide the religious an easy out that would keep them from resisting scientific advance. It was a pacifier, in other words.

The big problem with Non-Overlapping Magisteria is that science and religion do overlap. Religion purports to explain many things about the natural world which science has already explained, in contradiction with the explanations offered by religion. Things like the origin of life on Earth, the origin of the Universe and whether we think with our brain or a little ghost that lives inside it.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria also creates problems for things like prayer, and the religious notion of souls. Prayer cannot work without the material (our thoughts) directly interacting with the supernatural (God). And souls, being supernatural, cannot control our natural bodies so long as we're insisting on NOM.

And where did knowledge of God come from, originally? Either our ancestors would've had to directly witness evidence of the divine (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, etc) in which case NOM is invalidated, or they'd have had to fabricate it. If the supernatural never interacts with the natural there's no way for knowledge of it to get into our brains in the first place, save for fabrication.

But probably the biggest show stopper is the fact that religion and science are based on mutually exclusive claims to knowledge.

Science is built upon empiricism, which affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Religion is built on faith, which denies that necessity.

That is a direct contradiction between two irreconcilable epistemological models. They are fundamentally incompatible foundational axioms. To believe in the validity of both is literal doublethink; holding two contradictory claims to be simultaneously true within the same brain.

That's not to say that the *content* of a particular religion can't be compatible with what science has told us. Obviously it's possible to come up with a religious story that doesn't contradict current scientific findings.

....But the basis for believing that story is true conflicts with the basis of science.

The fact that it's possible to believe two logically inconsistent things does not prove that they are compatible any more than the fact that many married people are adulterers means that adultery and marriage are compatible.


Anyways I suppose that's everything.

>>2103981
Atheist Evangelists are pathetic

>>2104032

Well that was uncalled for. If you have a counterargument I'd like to hear it, but insults don't qualify.

There are plenty of assumptions within your "motivation of people saying religion and science are not in conflict" essay.

Here it is simply: people with faith think that there is a "why". Science figures out "how" and we are simply reverse engineering Creation.
Therefore, science is not necessarily in opposition to faith.

Research Michael Faraday and what he had to say about his science and his faith.

>>2104069
Not OP, but science considers the question of why to be outside of the domain. It is in fact a philosophical question. The problem is religion doesn't really answer the why either. Using the same answer (goddidit) for each question of why a given phenomena is observed is equivalent to not giving an answer at all.

>>2104069

>>Here it is simply: people with faith think that there is a "why". Science figures out "how" and we are simply reverse engineering Creation.

Can you name a "why" question that cannot be validly framed and answered as a "how" question?

And doesn't asking "why" presuppose purpose?

>>2104086
>question of why to be outside of the [science] domain. It is in fact a philosophical question.

Yeah, that's the point.
>The problem is religion doesn't really answer the why either.

There are plenty of examples in various holy books that attempt to answer 'why'.

>Using the same answer (goddidit) for each question of why a given phenomena is observed is equivalent to not giving an answer at all.

Yeah, "why ask why?"

>>2104117
>Can you name a "why" question that cannot be validly framed and answered as a "how" question?

Why questions are often philosophical and psychological.

"Why did Michelangelo paint?"
You could explain to me how he painted, and even how his creative brain works; you can even conjecture how we have come to have complex emotions and the desire to express ourselves. And those would be valid as they express the process. But those only express the process. If asked, he would say "Because I enjoy it and I love to." Which answers are the most correct? Either? Both? Combination? Or none of the above?

>And doesn't asking "why" presuppose purpose?

I suppose.

science does not conflict with religion if ones religious beliefs are malleable to the concrete foundation of science. People can belief all the extra shit they want as long as they aren't denying what we can plainly see, observe, and empirically prove.

You seem to assume everything things religious creation stories are literal.

I can assure you--this is not the case.

>>2104254
>>You seem to assume everything things religious creation stories are literal.

>>I can assure you--this is not the case.

I can assure you it is. Jesus died in atonement for original sin, which was incurred when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. The "fall from grace" is why we purportedly required Jesus' sacrifice. All of Christian theology collapses if you dismiss the Genesis account as purely metaphorical.

The genesis account specifies an order of creation (and gets it wrong, claiming the Earth existed before the sun, the sun before other stars, and birds before land animals). Why? For what metaphorical purpose? It reads precisely as it should if meant literally. Our ancestors' best guess as to the origins of life and their world.

Dismissing anything too embarrassing, too obviously wrong as metaphor is a transparent apologetic tactic.

>>2104188

>>"Why did Michelangelo paint?" You could explain to me how he painted, and even how his creative brain works; you can even conjecture how we have come to have complex emotions and the desire to express ourselves. And those would be valid as they express the process. But those only express the process. If asked, he would say "Because I enjoy it and I love to." Which answers are the most correct? Either? Both? Combination? Or none of the above?"

None of this supports the existence of the supernatural.

Most religious claims directly conflict with science and history. How can you believe there was a guy with magic powers living in the Middle East 2000 years ago and claim to not be contradicting history?

Also,

How questions are answered by science. The answers science gives can be checked and improved.

Why questions CANNOT BE ANSWERED. Religion can't answer them, it just makes stuff up to plug the gap. How is that giving an answer?

>>2104946

So, you're saying that there is only one right way to believe in something that you neither believe in nor understand?

That's one of the most egotistical things I've ever heard.

>>2104965

>>So, you're saying that there is only one right way to believe in something that you neither believe in nor understand?

No, I'm not saying that. And I was a Christian for about 25 years. I have believed. I know what it feels like and how convincing it can be. Most atheists in the US are former Christians. We don't just spring, fully formed, from holes in the ground.

>>That's one of the most egotistical things I've ever heard.

I think you're just lashing out to be hurtful now. You didn't address the points I brought up, at all. They're solid, valid points and they deserve addressing.

>>2104946
Unsurprisingly they assigned the order of the universe as if it were created for us and Earth was at the centre. How unbelievably wrong they were.

Christianity is bronze age fairy tales. That's the truth.

>>2104979

The bible is just about completely metaphor. They're teachings couched in stories. If you take the stories as literal and can't reconcile them with science, that's more on you than it is on the book.

>>2104962
>Most religious claims directly conflict with science and history. How can you believe there was a guy with magic powers living in the Middle East 2000 years ago and claim to not be contradicting history?

This is true, but you see this is a dirty tactic that Christian apologists use.

When you confront them, they put forward philosophical arguments for the existence of "a first cause" or "a supreme being", which don't impose on science.

Then on Sunday they go to church and believe the most absurd supernatural shit you can imagine. Duplicating fish, free will, resurrection, prayer having physical effects, you name it.

>>2104990
>The bible is just about completely metaphor.

That's cool bro, but you're NOT THE PROBLEM. The people denouncing religion in these threads don't care about you.

They care about the people who believe in miracles and angels and divine intervention.

>>2104990

>>The bible is just about completely metaphor.

No, it's geneaology, history, poetry and moral teaching. There's clear delineation between these portions and it isn't hard to tell which you're reading at any given time.

>>They're teachings couched in stories.

Many portions are, yes. But not Genesis, for the reasons I explained here: >>2104946

>>If you take the stories as literal and can't reconcile them with science, that's more on you than it is on the book.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is, you're citing the fact that the Bible contains metaphorical stories and using it as a wild card to selectively dismiss the most obviously incorrect portions as metaphor when they clearly weren't intended to be taken that way.

This is really about getting Christians to admit when the Bible is wrong about something. Not misinterpreted, not mistranslated, but factually wrong.

>>2105004

And you're taking a story about taking what you have and making it work and deriding it as a story of duplicating fish.

Evangelists are never good people, dear, no matter what their beliefs.

>>2105014
>a story about taking what you have and making it work
>a story

So you admit it's not true?
That's cool then, you can find inspiration in a fictional story. But a lot of people actually believe this stuff.

>>2105014

>>And you're taking a story about taking what you have and making it work and deriding it as a story of duplicating fish.

I didn't mention that story. As I said, many events described in the Bible absolutely are metaphorical. But, for the reasons I described here >>2104946 the Genesis account of creation is not among them. It may have metaphorical meaning, but it is how ancient Jews, Christians and Muslims really, honestly believed the world and life to have come into being. What do *you* think they believed?

>>Evangelists are never good people, dear, no matter what their beliefs.

Agreed. Nor are people who skim over long, well thought out arguments, decline to address any of them, and refuse to allow the Bible to ever be wrong about anything.

>>2105023

>story
>has to be fictional
>autobiographical narratives aren't stories
>historical narratives aren't stories
>when you tell people about that thing you did at that party, it isn't a story

God damn, you're an idiot.

>>2105031
Okay, so you do in fact believe that in the Middle East at one point, there was a man who magically duplicated fish?

>>2104993

Please read over your statements in >>2105029 and stop lying to both me and yourself about what you have and haven't said.

>>2105038

Hey, I wrote >>2105029 but not the other post you link to. You seem to have us confused.

>>2105044

>doesn't admit to samefagging to save face

>>2105046
Hahhaha you come to /sci/ - SCIENCE AND MATH with your claims of supernatural events with no evidence supporting them, and you don't believe there could be more than one person who thinks you're an idiot?

>>2105046

Uh no dude, that really wasn't me. I don't know how it's samefagging when we don't have trips and if I'd written both posts I'd have no reason to deny it as they do appear pretty consistent with one another in terms of the views expressed. Which is probably why you think I wrote both.

>>2105052

>implying I've made claims to anything supernatural

>>2105060
>Implying you didn't say that the story of Jesus magically creating bread and fish isn't fictional

>>2105081

I said it was a metaphor.

There probably was a man who managed to feed more people than those around him thought possible on a meager amount of fish and bread, but I never said he magically duplicated fish.

So is it a fictional story? Perhaps, on some level. Did it actually happen? Perhaps, on some level.

>>2105086
>So is it a fictional story? Perhaps, on some level. Did it actually happen? Perhaps, on some level.

Hahaha keep backpedaling. So what you're saying is that Jesus was just a mortal teacher and healer, and he didn't perform miracles?

Because that's what I think as well. Why are we arguing?

hint: religion is dum

OP is right. I used to be a NOMA adherent until I realised that in a natural world, the supernatural, even if it exists, has no effect on us.

>>2104965

I'll just leave this here.

>>2105315
>implying you chose the right file

Mormon here, I've said this several times and will continue to do so whenever one of these pathetic threads assumes wrongfully that you cannot be a person of both faith and science.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produces more scientists than any religion in the US and probably in the world. The LDS church also has a higher rate of retention in their faith for higher levels of learning. In fact the more education a Mormon receives, regardless of what field of study, the more faithful they are in their religion.

If what you say is true OP this would never happen. And yet it does. 'What do Mormons know that you don't?' That would be a more appropriate question than 'how can a Mormon possibly keep his religion in the face of scientific fact?'

What you say is not true, there is in fact no conflict between religion and science. I look to science to answer for me HOW God created the universe, I look to religion to tell me WHY. This has been said several times in this thread, why you can't understand that is beyond me.

I've posted links before backing up my claims but I reserve the right to be lazy today. Do it yourself.

>>2105337
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=367

>>2105337

>>Mormon here, I've said this several times and will continue to do so whenever one of these pathetic threads assumes wrongfully that you cannot be a person of both faith and science.

You can be, it's just not an internally consistent position.

>>If what you say is true OP this would never happen. And yet it does. 'What do Mormons know that you don't?' That would be a more appropriate question than 'how can a Mormon possibly keep his religion in the face of scientific fact?'

Human beings have an unparalleled capacity for doublethink.

>>What you say is not true, there is in fact no conflict between religion and science.

This is false, I already explained why. Science and religion make mutually exclusive claims to knowledge. Science affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence, your religion denies that necessity (for claims consistent with doctrine).

Your rational mind knows this is true.

>>I look to science to answer for me HOW God created the universe, I look to religion to tell me WHY. This has been said several times in this thread, why you can't understand that is beyond me.

Because it's a hollow rationalization. Religion doesn't explain why. It *asserts* why, and then declines to support that assertion.

>>I've posted links before backing up my claims but I reserve the right to be lazy today. Do it yourself.

As soon as you actually address my arguments instead of simply contradicting them.

>>2105337
How did God make the universe?
Why did God make the universe?

>>2105337

>>Implying there are more theists than atheists in the scientific community.

>>2105337
mfw some pig fucker used seeing stones to read golden tablets that nobody else could see.

Also, brb, I'm going to go talk epistemology with your retard brothers @mormon.org

>>2105337
mfw some pig fucker used seeing stones to read golden tablets that nobody else could see.

Also, brb, I'm going to go talk epistemology with your retard brothers @mormon.org

>>2105388
An idea, love.

pagan science student here. I see no conflict between my religious beleifs and science. Nature and divinity are one in my mind, like the physical world is the body of god or whatever we're calling it. So by learning about nature i can learn more about divinity, and that makes science even more interesting to me. I was raised 'christian' though both my parents were the type that didn't give a fuck and took things like hinduism and buddhism more seriously and shared those ideas with me too. When i got older i thought a lot about releigion etc and clarified to myself what i beleive, soon realised i fitted very neatly into the pagan category.

>>2105505

If you drop the mysticism of nature, you've got atheism right there.

You don't need to be religious to be amazed at the wonders of the universe.

People have taken science and turned it into an ethos, practically a religion. It is only from this that the idea that science is somehow adverse to religion. It is not science which is adverse to religion -- as science is nothing but a methodology of investigation of the natural world -- but scientism, which is adverse to competing religions, as most religions are adverse to competing religions.

>>2105563

>>People have taken science and turned it into an ethos, practically a religion. It is only from this that the idea that science is somehow adverse to religion.

Well I can't speak for everyone but this is not true for me. I recognize the limits of science and don't regard it as an ethos or a religion, but I also think it's plainly irreconcilable with religion.

>>It is not science which is adverse to religion -- as science is nothing but a methodology of investigation of the natural world

Precisely. As opposed to what?

>>but scientism, which is adverse to competing religions, as most religions are adverse to competing religions.

The problem with this is that creationists regularly accuse those who accept evolution of scientism. They see evolution as a religion because they don't accept it and don't grasp why anyone would believe it as they haven't exposed themselves to the supporting evidence.

This is just one step beyond that. Moderate theists accusing atheists of scientism because they haven't exposed themselves to more recent findings which discredit the remaining core elements of Christian doctrine which moderates still consider factual.

>>2105505
explain the divinity of nature then. how exactly would it be different from mundane nature, running on the law of physics?

>>2105591
>>science is nothing but a methodology of investigation of the natural world
>Precisely. As opposed to what?
You just claimed science was incompatible with religion. You can't have it both ways. A methodology for investigation of the natural world cannot be incompatible with any religion. Unless you turn it into an ethos, thinking that it is some philosophy prescriptive at to what kinds of thought are allowable in general.

>The problem with this is that creationists regularly accuse those who accept evolution of scientism. They see evolution as a religion because they don't accept it and don't grasp why anyone would believe it as they haven't exposed themselves to the supporting evidence.
Why is that a problem? I am not a creationist. Yet atheists who point to science as a reason not to believe in God are indeed practicing scientism rather than science.

>This is just one step beyond that. Moderate theists accusing atheists of scientism because they haven't exposed themselves to more recent findings which discredit the remaining core elements of Christian doctrine which moderates still consider factual.
That's complete bullshit. I have two degrees in scientific fields. There is no field of science which has any pertinence to any theological doctrine of any religion, including Christianity.

>>2105563
>People have taken science and turned it into an ethos, practically a religion. It is only from this that the idea that science is somehow adverse to religion.

No, scientific method has various requirements that are the complete opposite to faith. For example any hypothesis has to make falsifiable predictions to be valid.

If i claim that a physical god sits on snowy mountaintops and throws lightning bolts at humans as punishment then that's a valid hypothesis.

It makes use predictions, such as humans not playing according to the rules getting struck by lightning. And it can be falsified simply by hiking up the mountain. Installing lightning rods would also make an interesting experiment to investigate further properties of that deity.

A god that exists outside the laws of the universe and created the universe itself and didn't interact with it since then and will magically whisk away an undetectable "essence" that's somewhere stored in your brain after your true death (no revival with any potential technology possible) on the other hand makes no useful predictions. It cannot be falsified. It's basically a statement of no relevance.


So yes, faith is incompatible with scientific method.

>>2105636

>>You just claimed science was incompatible with religion. You can't have it both ways.

Have it both ways? What? I think you've misunderstood my meaning.

>>A methodology for investigation of the natural world cannot be incompatible with any religion. Unless you turn it into an ethos, thinking that it is some philosophy prescriptive at to what kinds of thought are allowable in general.

It's incompatible with any religion based on faith, because science is built upon empiricism. Empiricism affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Faith denies that necessity. I wonder how many times I will have to repeat that.

>>That's complete bullshit. I have two degrees in scientific fields. There is no field of science which has any pertinence to any theological doctrine of any religion, including Christianity.

Stephen Hawking disagrees.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create
-the-Universe.html

>>2105643

My friend I think your adversary is referring to compartmentalizing religion and science - that is, not applying critical thought to their religion, holding it above examination.

It's stupid, I know, but so many people do it.

>>2105643
>It cannot be falsified. It's basically a statement of no relevance. So yes, faith is incompatible with scientific method.
What you are demonstrating is precisely scientism. You are going from the true observation that the scientific method is useless for investigating metaphysical propositions to the false inference that metaphysical propositions are useless, since they have no place in science. That you for illustrating my point.

>>2105653
Religion should not in any respect to be held above examination -- quite the opposite. The problem comes when people refuse examine it because the tools of science are not fit for the task, and they have no other tools, because science is their whole philosophy.

>>2105681

>>What you are demonstrating is precisely scientism.

No it isn't, and this is really childish. You're wielding the word "Scientism" as a weapon against anyone who suggests that magical thinking isn't compatible with reason.

>>You are going from the true observation that the scientific method is useless for investigating metaphysical propositions to the false inference that metaphysical propositions are useless, since they have no place in science. That you for illustrating my point.

Science is useless for investigating metaphysical propositions because metaphysics is fraudulent. There is no such legitimate area of study. There's nothing *for* it to study. "Metaphysics" is to theology as intelligent design is to creationism.

>>2105653
i'm aware of compartmentalization or as another anon called it: doublethink. In fact, even as an atheist i do it every day, thinking i should do something and yet doing something else because it's convenient.

I'm not denying that people can compartmentalize, some are damn good at it even. The point is that if you think about it then it's logically inconsistent.

The real issue starts when that compartmentalization breaks down. E.g. when a religious politician makes arguments based on religious doctrine or when a science teacher starts teaching creationism as an "alternative".

Highlighting those logical inconsistencies should get people to think and at the very least avoid compartmentalization breakdown and in the best case turn them into atheists.

>>2105693

>>Religion should not in any respect to be held above examination -- quite the opposite. The problem comes when people refuse examine it because the tools of science are not fit for the task

But this is false. If religion claims that the Earth existed before the sun, science has the means to discredit that claim. And the Bible does in fact make that claim, and science has discredited it. And many others.

>>and they have no other tools, because science is their whole philosophy.

There are no other fact-finding methodologies that work. If there were we would see tangible applications of those philosophies (aka technology) such as machines which operate on supernatural principles. But we don't. No answer forthcoming from philosophy or religion has ever been confirmed in any way because they provide no method for doing so.

>>2105650
>It's incompatible with any religion based on faith, because science is built upon empiricism. Empiricism affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Faith denies that necessity. I wonder how many times I will have to repeat that.

That places metaphysical investigations outside the realm of scientific investigations, based on the definition of "empirical." It does not make the two types of investigations incompatible. It just makes the different. Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. Showing they are different does not show that they are incompatible.

>>There is no field of science which has any pertinence to any theological doctrine of any religion, including Christianity.
>Stephen Hawking disagrees.
Stephen Hawking does not disagree, or if he does he has never said so. Hawking has implied nothing further than the obvious observation that science doesn't itself prove God, by necessitating God. This is not a contradiction of any theological claim. It is merely a statement about science and its theories.

>>2105723

>>That places metaphysical investigations outside the realm of scientific investigations, based on the definition of "empirical." It does not make the two types of investigations incompatible. It just makes the different. Science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. Showing they are different does not show that they are incompatible.

The underlying foundations of each are incompatible. The means by which you validate the claims of each are mutually exclusive. If faith is a valid basis for knowledge, as valid as evidence, we can just start making shit up and printing it in textbooks because we have faith that it's true.

>>Stephen Hawking does not disagree, or if he does he has never said so.

You didn't read the first link did you.

>>Hawking has implied nothing further than the obvious observation that science doesn't itself prove God, by necessitating God. This is not a contradiction of any theological claim. It is merely a statement about science and its theories.

Why don't we believe evil spirits cause illness? It's because of germ theory, right?

But all germ theory did was provide a natural explanation for illness. Technically it didn't disprove the evil spirit hypothesis.

So why do we now accept that microorganisms cause disease, and not evil spirits? Don't play dumb.

Ok, religious people usually claim that SOME parts of the bible are to be taken metaphorical. But they also believe in the existence of god.

So please describe which sections of the bible, describing supernatural events are to be taken literally.

This way we will have a common basis for our arguments and no need to call religion a constantly moving target.

>>2105715
>If religion claims that the Earth existed before the sun, science has the means to discredit that claim. And the Bible does in fact make that claim, and science has discredited it. And many others.
That the earth existed before the sun is not a theological or religious claim. It is a scientific claim. Scientific claims need to be investigated scientifically; spiritual claims need to be investigated spiritually.

As for the Bible, I don't think any educated person can read the first chapter of Genesis and deny that it is mythological rather than literal.

>>and they have no other tools, because science is their whole philosophy.
>There are no other fact-finding methodologies that work.
There you go. That is scientism. The claim that the scientific method is the only methodology that should work, and therefore claims outside its scope are irrelevant to any intellectual interest, is completely unsupportable by the scientific method, and therefore is self-contradictory.

>If there were we would see tangible applications of those philosophies (aka technology) such as machines which operate on supernatural principles.
Human beings are machines that operate on supernatural principles. The tangible application of religion is life itself, and how to go about living it.

>>2105756
>Human beings are machines that operate on supernatural principles.
What about primates? Or dolphins? What if we manage to grow a human in an artificial womb one day? What if we get AIs to work one day?

Do they have "souls"? How do you know if they do or don't?

>>2105756
How does one investigate something spiritually?

>>2105756

>>That the earth existed before the sun is not a theological or religious claim. It is a scientific claim.

Precisely my point. Religions can and do make scientific claims. Therefore they cannot be described as wholly distinct realms of knowledge, because religion frequently trespasses into the domain of science.

>>Scientific claims need to be investigated scientifically; spiritual claims need to be investigated spiritually.

But there's no such thing as the spiritual, as there are no spirits. The entire idea is fraudulent.

>>As for the Bible, I don't think any educated person can read the first chapter of Genesis and deny that it is mythological rather than literal.

So God is mythological? The first chapter is, after all, where he is introduced.

There you go. That is scientism. The claim that the scientific method is the only methodology that should work, and therefore claims outside its scope are irrelevant to any intellectual interest, is completely unsupportable by the scientific method, and therefore is self-contradictory.

All you have to do to is demonstrate an alternative methodology that arrives at provably correct conclusions. If you can't do that, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Simply insisting that there must be alternatives does nothing to prove that they exist, or that they work.

>Human beings are machines that operate on supernatural principles. The tangible application of religion is life itself, and how to go about living it.

No, they aren't. Human beings obey the principles of biochemistry. The notion that there is some supernatural aspect to biology is known as "vitalism". It was discredited as we understood the workings of human biology with greater accuracy.

>>2105700
>No it isn't, and this is really childish. You're wielding the word "Scientism" as a weapon against anyone who suggests that magical thinking isn't compatible with reason.

You deny you're advocating scientism? What makes this a "weapon"? Why don't you embrace the term? Magical thinking is clearly incompatible with reason, and can be found both in science and religion.

>Science is useless for investigating metaphysical propositions because metaphysics is fraudulent. There is no such legitimate area of study. There's nothing *for* it to study. "Metaphysics" is to theology as intelligent design is to creationism.

Wow. You reject 99% of the history of human thought with no reason, excpet that it lies outside of the field of science, and is therefore fraud. And you deny the label "scientism". Brilliant. You're proving my point far better than I could hope to.

>>2105756

>>That the earth existed before the sun is not a theological or religious claim. It is a scientific claim.

Precisely my point. Religions can and do make scientific claims. Therefore they cannot be described as wholly distinct realms of knowledge, because religion frequently trespasses into the domain of science.

>>Scientific claims need to be investigated scientifically; spiritual claims need to be investigated spiritually.

But there's no such thing as the spiritual, as there are no spirits. The entire idea is fraudulent.

>>As for the Bible, I don't think any educated person can read the first chapter of Genesis and deny that it is mythological rather than literal.

So God is mythological? The first chapter is, after all, where he is introduced.

>>There you go. That is scientism. The claim that the scientific method is the only methodology that should work, and therefore claims outside its scope are irrelevant to any intellectual interest, is completely unsupportable by the scientific method, and therefore is self-contradictory.

All you have to do to is demonstrate an alternative methodology that arrives at provably correct conclusions. If you can't do that, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Simply insisting that there must be alternatives does nothing to prove that they exist, or that they work.

>Human beings are machines that operate on supernatural principles. The tangible application of religion is life itself, and how to go about living it.

No, they aren't. Human beings obey the principles of biochemistry. The notion that there is some supernatural aspect to biology is known as "vitalism". It was discredited as we understood the workings of human biology with greater accuracy.

>>2105662

Agreed, that's how I became an atheist.

>>2105785

>>You deny you're advocating scientism? What makes this a "weapon"? Why don't you embrace the term? Magical thinking is clearly incompatible with reason, and can be found both in science and religion.

Yes I deny it, and if you refuse to honor that and represent my position accurately, I will feel no obligation to represent your position accurately.

>>Wow. You reject 99% of the history of human thought with no reason, excpet that it lies outside of the field of science, and is therefore fraud.

No. The reason is that the recurring concepts that define much of that thought are testable, have been tested, and were found to be false.

>>And you deny the label "scientism". Brilliant. You're proving my point far better than I could hope to.

I'm sure. Being that you're a narrowminded dogmatic fundamentalist, nothing will disconvince you.

>>2105787

Fucking owned.

>>2105802

The christfags cannot concieve a mind that relies on reason and evidence instead of dogma, so they convince themselves that science is a dogma and atheism a religion.

>>2105746
If you're talking about finding a literal history in Genesis, from my analysis, I think everything from Eber onward is a literal history. The first 7 chapters are obviously from prior mythological works with inner meaning. The literal histories may also have inner meaning, but it also follows literal events. Apart from the book of Genesis, I think the rest of the Bible is fairly obvious to tell its intended purpose. For example the prophets and John in Revelation describe prophetic visions.

As someone said before, the theology of christianity makes no sense if the first few chapters never happened.

Well, even less sense, I should say.

>>2105744
>The means by which you validate the claims of each are mutually exclusive. If faith is a valid basis for knowledge, as valid as evidence, we can just start making shit up and printing it in textbooks because we have faith that it's true.
Religion doesn't say that faith is arbitrarily a basis for knowledge. Religion is the investigation of the relationship between God and man through experience, reason, and revelation. This endeavor is not contradictory to investigating nature through experiment. It's foundation is the same -- the desire for knowledge and understanding.

>You didn't read the first link did you.
I skimmed the first page. Hawking doesn't seem to respect religion much, and says religion is different from science. So what?

>So why do we now accept that microorganisms cause disease, and not evil spirits? Don't play dumb.
Because disease is a physical phenomenon, and therefore science is useful in studying its causes.

>>2105847
let me rephrase. I would like a religious person point out any set of verses in the bible describing supernatural events which are to be taken literally.

E.g. moses splitting the red sea, fire and brimstone raining down on towns, people being raised from the dead etc.

And if genesis is a metaphor, then what about god? They believe in something, but what is it that they believe in, somewhere has to be a description of that something.

My issue is that christians tend to discuss the validity of faith vs. scientific method. The "science side" offers concrete examples of science doing sciency stuff. But when you ask religious people about concrete examples, definitions or properties of their faith they get evasive.


The fundamental question is, "What do you actually believe in?". If even a religious person is incapable of putting their own faith in an understandable form, then they should realize that it is inherently irrational.

Assumptions, assumptions everywhere.

This happens a lot in religious debate. It's like instead of talking to the person you're currently talking to, you pretend they're someone else you've talked to in the past and you assume that the current person and the past person believe identical things.

It's like daddy issues but with philosophy.

>>2105869
>It's foundation is the same -- the desire for knowledge and understanding.
Not when theres one book than answers everything.

>>2105773
>What about primates? Or dolphins? What if we manage to grow a human in an artificial womb one day? What if we get AIs to work one day?
Primates and dolphins cannot, as far as I know, apply religious principles to their lives. If they could, they would be the spiritual equivalent of humans. Not sure what artificial wombs have to do with anything. I think the spiritual component of consciousness is precisely the problem in trying to produce an actual AI.

>Do they have "souls"? How do you know if they do or don't?
My general assumption is that all living things have a kind of soul. You can't know for sure, even if other minds exist. You can only make reasoned guesses.

>>2105784
>How does one investigate something spiritually?
Through reason and experience mostly. And using those, through various forms of scripture or revelation.

>>2105869
>Because disease is a physical phenomenon, and therefore science is useful in studying its causes.

Ok, and spiritual methods provide a systematic mean to explore the properties of the supernatural. Could you please outline how such a spiritual investigation would work?

>>2105869

>>Religion doesn't say that faith is arbitrarily a basis for knowledge. Religion is the investigation of the relationship between God and man through experience, reason, and revelation. This endeavor is not contradictory to investigating nature through experiment. It's foundation is the same -- the desire for knowledge and understanding.

Faith is, in practice, believing something without supporting evidence. Any religion which promotes faith as virtuous is inherently anti-empirical.

>I skimmed the first page. Hawking doesn't seem to respect religion much, and says religion is different from science. So what?

He stated science would eventually displace religion entirely. And I agree.

>Because disease is a physical phenomenon, and therefore science is useful in studying its causes.

Cognition is a physical phenomenon. That doesn't stop theists from claiming souls exist. It's directly analogous. For a time, people insisted that just because microorganisms cause disease didn't mean that evil spirits were not also responsible in part.

>>2105869

Heathen, disease isn't a physical condition, it's a spiritual one!

Demons and sprites everywhere!

>>2105787
This guy brings up some good points.

I think someone should respond to this post.

>>2105787
>Precisely my point. Religions can and do make scientific claims. Therefore they cannot be described as wholly distinct realms of knowledge, because religion frequently trespasses into the domain of science.

So what? Use science to investigate scientific claims, and use religion to investigate religious claims. It's not complicated.

>But there's no such thing as the spiritual, as there are no spirits. The entire idea is fraudulent.
That's your dogma. Your dogma is wrong.

>>As for the Bible, I don't think any educated person can read the first chapter of Genesis and deny that it is mythological rather than literal.
>So God is mythological? The first chapter is, after all, where he is introduced.
The first chapter of Genesis is mythological. That means it discusses spiritual things representative. God and the spirit of man are spiritual things, and they are the underlying subject throughout the story.

>All you have to do to is demonstrate an alternative methodology that arrives at provably correct conclusions. If you can't do that, you haven't got a leg to stand on. Simply insisting that there must be alternatives does nothing to prove that they exist, or that they work.

The whole spiritual realm is an area of investigation which you refuse to investigate, because science cannot investigate it. There is nothing "provable" in that realm or any other, without first assuming axioms within that realm from which you want to prove other things. You are the one claiming that the whole investigation of that realm or anything outside of scientific investigation is "fraudulent", yet your own restrictions don't let you make that claim consistently.

>>2105894
>Not sure what artificial wombs have to do with anything.
we could basically assemble a human from raw carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc... no magic/soul/spirits involved. You would see that creating life is an entirely physical process.

>I think the spiritual component of consciousness is precisely the problem in trying to produce an actual AI.
So are you claiming that atheists are spiritual too or that an atheist AI would be the solution?

>My general assumption is that all living things have a kind of soul. You can't know for sure, even if other minds exist. You can only make reasoned guesses.
So dolphins are not spiritual but have souls. What is the relation between those things exactly?

>>How does one investigate something spiritually?
>Through reason and experience mostly. And using those, through various forms of scripture or revelation.
Reason, i.e. logic sounds awfully like scientific method. And scripture is just written something by other humans, so something you could be able to come up with too. This only leaves revelation, could you elaborate on how that works
?

>>2105934

>>So what? Use science to investigate scientific claims, and use religion to investigate religious claims. It's not complicated.

Religion isn't a methodology. You can't actually use it to investigate claims. And the fact that a religion makes claims that fall within the domain of science invalidates the defense that science and religion are distinct, separate disciplines.

>>That's your dogma. Your dogma is wrong.

No, it isn't. It's the conclusion of cognitive neurobiology. Everything currently known about the brain supports a purely biochemical model of cognition. Ergo, no spirits, for the same reason that the biochemical explanation for illness discredits the spiritual alternative.

>>The whole spiritual realm is an area of investigation which you refuse to investigate, because science cannot investigate it.

What spiritual realm? You haven't demonstrated that one exists yet.

>>There is nothing "provable" in that realm or any other, without first assuming axioms within that realm from which you want to prove other things. You are the one claiming that the whole investigation of that realm or anything outside of scientific investigation is "fraudulent", yet your own restrictions don't let you make that claim consistently.

I claim it's fraudulent because every time a claim regarding spiritual phenomena has been testable, and we've tested it, it's been discredited. Every time. It's hard not to recognize the implications of that pattern.

>>2105934
>The whole spiritual realm is an area of investigation which you refuse to investigate, because science cannot investigate it. There is nothing "provable" in that realm or any other, without first assuming axioms within that realm from which you want to prove other things.

Then please layout those axioms for us and present your investigations based on those axioms.

>>2105934

How exactly is a natural world different to a supernatural one?

All god does is hide in the gaps, explaining nothing, retreating ever further as science advances.

>>2105894
>How does one investigate something spiritually?
>Through reason and experience mostly. And using those, through various forms of scripture or revelation.

That's funny, that is exactly the same method I used to decide that I was an atheist.

>>2105902
>Faith is, in practice, believing something without supporting evidence.
That has nothing to do with any faith I've ever heard of. That is the atheist caricature of faith.

>Any religion which promotes faith as virtuous is inherently anti-empirical.
I can play word-games too. Historically religion has been the promotion of reason. Therefore anything that contradicts religion is anti-reason.

>He stated science would eventually displace religion entirely. And I agree.
So what? Those aren't scientific claims. They are just opinions based on a poor understand of religion.

>Cognition is a physical phenomenon.
Prove it.

>That doesn't stop theists from claiming souls exist. It's directly analogous. For a time, people insisted that just because microorganisms cause disease didn't mean that evil spirits were not also responsible in part.
That's true. Spirits could play parts in many things. Science doesn't preclude that spirits play a part in which microorganisms are successful on a macro scale. Nevertheless, science can tell us a good deal about the mechanisms of disease and how to combat it by physical means.

>>2105954
My bad, forgot pic.

well, since we're running in circles now... some entry level arguments in picture format.

>>2105938
>we could basically assemble a human from raw carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc... no magic/soul/spirits involved. You would see that creating life is an entirely physical process.

Wow -- let's try to make a bacterium first. If that works, I'll start working on any answer for you as to how it might be working spiritually. If creating life fully artificially proves impossible, how will you explain that possibility?

>So are you claiming that atheists are spiritual too or that an atheist AI would be the solution?
The human mind is fundamentally a spiritual thing, including the atheistic mind that rejects the notions of spiritual things.

>So dolphins are not spiritual but have souls. What is the relation between those things exactly?
Affections and understanding are spiritual things, which all higher animals certainly have. What distinguishes humans is freedom and rationality. We not only love, but we can chose what to love, and what to think, and can use reason to rise above instinct, to become less natural and more spiritual.

>Reason, i.e. logic sounds awfully like scientific method. And scripture is just written something by other humans, so something you could be able to come up with too. This only leaves revelation, could you elaborate on how that works?
The idea of scripture is generally something that is inspired by God to serve as revelation for human beings. A person comes to the conclusion that some work is actually revelation from their own personal experience with that work, through meditation and reflection. People experience a connection with God through certain written works. They the proceed based on the idea that this connection is a real thing, and this work (scripture) is a useful vehicle for connecting with God. Reason is much more than scientific method. It is critical thought, logic, reflection, and insight.

>>2105954

>>That has nothing to do with any faith I've ever heard of. That is the atheist caricature of faith.

If that's true, when I ask you for evidence of your beliefs, you won't say "I don't need it, I have faith". Right? You'll actually provide evidence?

And what of the countless Biblical definitions of faith? "Blessed is he who has not seen, but has believed"?

>>>I can play word-games too. Historically religion has been the promotion of reason. Therefore anything that contradicts religion is anti-reason.

I'm not playing word games. When I say that empiricism affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence and faith denies that necessity, it's a statement of fact. Do you understand the terms being used?

>So what? Those aren't scientific claims. They are just opinions based on a poor understand of religion.

Carl Sagan agreed with Hawking on that point. He called it the "retreat from copernicus". It's an observed historical trend of religion being proven wrong on questions increasingly large in scope, starting with things like what drives the weather or causes disease up to the origins of the universe and life.

>Prove it.

Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527520.400-firing-on-all-neurons-where-consciousness-comes-f
rom.html?page=1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7140165.ece

>That's true. Spirits could play parts in many things. Science doesn't preclude that spirits play a part in which microorganisms are successful on a macro scale. Nevertheless, science can tell us a good deal about the mechanisms of disease and how to combat it by physical means.

So do you believe evil spirits play some part in causing disease?

>>2105946
There is no "god of the gaps" except in the straw men of atheists. The spiritual world is the world of causes, like Plato's world of the ideal; the natural world is the world of effects.

>>2106004

>>There is no "god of the gaps" except in the straw men of atheists.

Then you allow for purely natural causation of the big bang? Or do you reserve a place for him there because science has yet to fully understand it?

>>The spiritual world is the world of causes, like Plato's world of the ideal; the natural world is the world of effects.

Prove it.

>>2105943
>Religion isn't a methodology. You can't actually use it to investigate claims. And the fact that a religion makes claims that fall within the domain of science invalidates the defense that science and religion are distinct, separate disciplines.
Religion is indeed a methodology, and you can indeed use it to investigate claims, and people do so by the billions every single day. People investigate claims religiously through meditation, reflection, prayer, and consulting scriptures.

>No, it isn't. It's the conclusion of cognitive neurobiology.
Cognitive makes no such conclusion. It borders on the delusional to say so. It makes the assumption, because making the assumption is the only way it can proceed.

>Everything currently known about the brain supports a purely biochemical model of cognition.
Nothing known about the brain explains why subjective awareness should exist at all.

>Ergo, no spirits, for the same reason that the biochemical explanation for illness discredits the spiritual alternative.
You believe spirits don't exist because neurobiology doesn't investigate them. This is a logical disconnect.

>What spiritual realm? You haven't demonstrated that one exists yet.
The spiritual realm is where you and I exist. Our spirits are evidence of the spiritual world, as our bodies are evidence of the natural world. One could deny that our bodies exist, and that they are just imaginings of our spirits, but that would be just as senseless as the reverse.

>I claim it's fraudulent because every time a claim regarding spiritual phenomena has been testable, and we've tested it, it's been discredited. Every time. It's hard not to recognize the implications of that pattern.
What are these testable spiritual phenomena?

mfw they talk about the 'spiritual world' before they even define it, let alone prove it exists.

>>2106010
>Then you allow for purely natural causation of the big bang? Or do you reserve a place for him there because science has yet to fully understand it?
I allow for nothing "purely natural". The understanding of science has nothing to do with the place of God. God acts in all natural things.

>>The spiritual world is the world of causes, like Plato's world of the ideal; the natural world is the world of effects.
>Prove it.
I cannot prove it, except to myself. I can only encourage you to investigate it for YOURself.

>>2106027
>implying science can prove the natural world exists

>>2106025

>>Religion is indeed a methodology, and you can indeed use it to investigate claims, and people do so by the billions every single day. People investigate claims religiously through meditation, reflection, prayer, and consulting scriptures.

That isn't a methodology. There are no consistent, formalized criteria for what constitutes proof or disproof. Results can't be independently verified. Scriptures are simply a collection of assertions without supporting evidence.

>>Cognitive makes no such conclusion. It borders on the delusional to say so. It makes the assumption, because making the assumption is the only way it can proceed.

What you're saying is essentially creationism, as applied to neurobiology instead of evolutionary biology. Of course that's the current conclusion. It's stated plainly in the literature. Cognition is spoken of implicitly as a biochemical phenomenon because that's what all of the available evidence supports.

>>You believe spirits don't exist because neurobiology doesn't investigate them. This is a logical disconnect.

But it has investigated them. Numerous times. Near Death Experiences were investgated and found to be hallucinogenic, the result of neurochemicals like DMT released into the brain at the time of death. Portraits bearing key words were placed high above the positions of patients prior to operations, in positions they could only see from the top of the room looking down. Afterward, those who reported NDEs and claimed to have hovered over their bodies were asked what the portraits depicted. They had no recollection of portraits.

>>The spiritual realm is where you and I exist. Our spirits are evidence of the spiritual world, as our bodies are evidence of the natural world.

What spirits? You have yet to demonstrate that spirits exist.

>>One could deny that our bodies exist, and that they are just imaginings of our spirits, but that would be just as senseless as the reverse.

Except we have plenty of evidence for the existence of our bodies, but none for the existence of spirits.

>>What are these testable spiritual phenomena?

See earlier in the post. Any spiritual phenomena which puport to affect the natural world in any way can be tested at the point where the interaction is alleged to occur.

>>2106060

Sorry man, I think at this point they've just gone full retard. No way we're going to be able to get a coherent argument out of them.

Proceed to outright mockery?

>>2105999
>If that's true, when I ask you for evidence of your beliefs, you won't say "I don't need it, I have faith". Right? You'll actually provide evidence?
All religious belief is based on evidence. It's just not generally empirical evidence. Much of it is subjectively experienced evidence.

>And what of the countless Biblical definitions of faith? "Blessed is he who has not seen, but has believed"?
That has nothing to do with believing arbitrary things. Only believing what can be experienced with the senses amounts to living a life of the senses which is an animal life, rather than a life of reason. The life of reason deals with the mind, even mathematical things which can be proven, but which cannot be sensed.

>Carl Sagan agreed with Hawking on that point. He called it the "retreat from copernicus".
Do you really want to have a competition of arguments from authority? Should I quote Newton for you?

>>Prove it.
>Okay.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
How does that prove your claim?
>http://www.insidestory.iop.org/mri.html
How does that prove your claim?
>http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-05/aps-lai053105.php
How does that prove your claim?
>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527520.400-firing-on-all-neurons-where-consciousness-com
es-f
rom.html?page=1
I don't have full access to New Scientist.
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/medicine/article7140165.ece
How is this a proof?

>So do you believe evil spirits play some part in causing disease?
I can't rule it out.

>>2106080
>Much of it is subjectively experienced evidence.
Could you elaborate? What are some key differences between empirical evidence (that which can be observed through our senses) and experienced evidence? Is it not observable through senses? If so, how is it observed?

>So do you believe evil spirits play some part in causing disease?
>I can't rule it out.

This is of course, true. Nothing can be ruled out, but do you see any reason to rule it in?

>>2106060
>What spirits? You have yet to demonstrate that spirits exist.
Your subjective conscious experience is the proof that your spirit exists. You think therefore you are.

>Except we have plenty of evidence for the existence of our bodies, but none for the existence of spirits.
The only evidence for our bodies exists WITHIN our spirits, namely through the bodily senses which are experienced by the spirit. If you deny the reality of the spirit, then why do you have faith in the veracity what it experiences through the senses?

>>What are these testable spiritual phenomena?
>See earlier in the post. Any spiritual phenomena which puport to affect the natural world in any way can be tested at the point where the interaction is alleged to occur.
But spiritual phenomena are not natural phenomena. The failure to be able to measure an interaction between the two does not test claims about spiritual phenomena.

>>2106080

>>All religious belief is based on evidence. It's just not generally empirical evidence. Much of it is subjectively experienced evidence.

Right, and most types we've discovered are neurological quirks. Temporal lobe epilepsy accounts for divine visitation, exhaustion euphoria accounts for the feeling of the holy ghost experienced in revival services, pareidolia accounts for perception of Christ in things like rock formations, etc. which you might think are silly to consider evidence and I agree, but then all of it's silly to me.

>>That has nothing to do with believing arbitrary things. Only believing what can be experienced with the senses amounts to living a life of the senses which is an animal life, rather than a life of reason. The life of reason deals with the mind, even mathematical things which can be proven, but which cannot be sensed.

I'm sorry, but having gone through six years of theological education, I know you're full of shit. Faith is understood both colloquially and within theological circles to mean believe in the absence of supporting evidence.

>Do you really want to have a competition of arguments from authority? Should I quote Newton for you?

I'm responding to your own argument from authority here: >>2105636

I would very much like you to quote Newton so we can get into a discussion of why all the great Christian scientists brought up in these arguments lived and died centuries ago, and why so few examples of modern christian scientists can be produced. Where'd they all go, do you suppose?

>>How does that prove your claim?

For fuck's sake, if you refuse to process information presented to you, I can't force you. All of them demonstrate that things like emotion, memory, personality and so on are physical. They can be modified by localized damage to the brain and with the use of fMRI we can quantify love and recognize when it's being experienced, to what degree and even whether it's romantic or platonic. It's the last nail in the coffin of metaphysical dualism.

>>I can't rule it out.

I didn't ask that. I asked if it's what you believe.

>>2106142

Asking about one person's beliefs in an argument about the basis of beliefs is just poor form and obvious attempt to build up some kind of strawman to tear down.

>>2106115

>>Your subjective conscious experience is the proof that your spirit exists. You think therefore you are.

Unless my consciousness is a product of the operation of my brain, and it's subjective because my brain is separate from others', subject to minor strucutral differences and different formative experiences growing up.

Guess which explanation has more supporting evidence?

>>The only evidence for our bodies exists WITHIN our spirits, namely through the bodily senses which are experienced by the spirit. If you deny the reality of the spirit, then why do you have faith in the veracity what it experiences through the senses?

Because our senses are completely natural. They have nothing to do with a spirit. It's well understood how smell, sight, and so on function. In each case it's material; rods and cones in the eye, chemical receptors in the nose, nerve endings in our skin and so on.

>>But spiritual phenomena are not natural phenomena. The failure to be able to measure an interaction between the two does not test claims about spiritual phenomena.

They become natural phenomena at the point where they are alleged to affect the natural world.

>>2106147

It's entirely relevant because it determines whether or not he's hypocritical for believing in souls, but not disease spirits.

>>2106153

The man's beliefs do not affect his ability to argue his point. It's wholly irrelevant.

>>2106103
>Could you elaborate? What are some key differences between empirical evidence (that which can be observed through our senses) and experienced evidence? Is it not observable through senses? If so, how is it observed?
No, not through the senses. It is observed the way an insight might be observed when reflecting on problem, or within a deep meditation. Or it might be the type of observation which we can make about our own minds, noticing how we thing or feel, which is also not through the senses. For example, a very frequent experience is to be reflecting, meditating, or praying, and experience an "answer" from within their own mind that is perceived as not coming from one's self, but from something "higher". This is obviously subject to interpretation, and subject to dismissal by those who don't experience it. It is an observation, but is not useful to those who didn't experience it.

>>2106156

>>The man's beliefs do not affect his ability to argue his point. It's wholly irrelevant.

It determines whether or not his views are internally consistent.

>>2106161

His views do not affect his ability to argue a point. He may even be arguing a point contrary to his views. Samuel Johnson was famous for doing this to try to understand his opponents and make conversation more lively. It's not uncommon.

>>2106137
>I'm sorry, but having gone through six years of theological education, I know you're full of shit. Faith is understood both colloquially and within theological circles to mean believe in the absence of supporting evidence.
Please tell me which theological school teaches that faith is believing in the absence of supporting evidence.

>>2106164

>>His views do not affect his ability to argue a point. He may even be arguing a point contrary to his views. Samuel Johnson was famous for doing this to try to understand his opponents and make conversation more lively. It's not uncommon.

In an argument it is entirely valid to attempt to show that the opposition's position is internally inconsistent. It doesn't matter that having an internally inconsistent position does not inhibit one's ability to argue. Because the position they are arguing for is....get this....internally inconsistent.

>>2106165

All of them.

>observation which we can make about our own minds
>noticing how we think or feel
>This is obviously subject to interpretation

Therefor the spirit exists

Can you fill in the blanks for me?

>>2106142
>I'm responding to your own argument from authority here: >>2105636
That was no argument from authority. That was a disproof by counterexample of the claim that religion is not a product of failure to be exposed to science.

>>How does that prove your claim?
>For fuck's sake, if you refuse to process information presented to you, I can't force you. All of them demonstrate that things like emotion, memory, personality and so on are physical. They can be modified by localized damage to the brain and with the use of fMRI we can quantify love and recognize when it's being experienced, to what degree and even whether it's romantic or platonic. It's the last nail in the coffin of metaphysical dualism.
It's one thing to look at such things and say, "ah, these things are consistent with my belief in materialism". But to thing they prove it is delusional. Maybe if you undertook the task of turning them into a formal proof, you would understand how evidence that doesn't contradict your position is not the same as evidence that proves it.

>>I can't rule it out.
>I didn't ask that. I asked if it's what you believe.
I know that the mind affects the immune system and health, so I think anything that can affect the mind can potentially affect disease.

>>2106170
I know for a fact that they do not. Which one did you attend?

>>2106195

>>That was no argument from authority. That was a disproof by counterexample of the claim that religion is not a product of failure to be exposed to science.

You missed the part where you cited your degrees.

>>It's one thing to look at such things and say, "ah, these things are consistent with my belief in materialism". But to thing they prove it is delusional. Maybe if you undertook the task of turning them into a formal proof, you would understand how evidence that doesn't contradict your position is not the same as evidence that proves it.

What do you think constitutes proof in science?

>>I know that the mind affects the immune system and health, so I think anything that can affect the mind can potentially affect disease.

Do you believe there are situations where evil spirits cause disease or not?

>>2106201

If faith isn't believing in something without evidence, then why is it that when I ask for evidence for religious claims, I am told that it isn't necessary because they have faith?

I'll be back later. I hope to find a coherent proof of the materialist theory of the mind when I return.

>>2106214
You'll have to ask whoever tells you that.

>>2106223

It was presented. You dismissed it. Just like a creationist dismisses the fossil record and genetic evidence for evolution.

>>2106229

I believe it's called moving the goalposts. He's probably going to ask for a disproof of gremlins next.

Threads like these are a waste of time. There's something deeply wrong with religious peoples' brains. They've coached themselves in doublethink to the point where you literally can't reason with them.

They're a persistent stubborn obstacle to progress in several fields of science and cannot be talked down. At some point when atheists achieve a demographic majorit as they have in other western nations like Sweden, Britain, France and so on, we'll have to forcibly remove the religious from modern society and relocate them to caves or villages of prebuilt huts surrounded by electrified containment fences.

I don't really see how we can break out of the stagnant trend we're in right now without doing something like that. We can't afford to keep dragging the dead weight of people who actively oppose evolutionary biology, cognitive neurobiology, stem cell research and so on. They have to go.

>>2105530

yep, if i dropped all my religious beleifs i would indeed be an atheist.

>>2105597

im not sure what you want. It seems like your question is simply asking for evidence of god. There isn't any scientifically acceptable evidence, we all know this already. But i think an important relevant point is the idea that there is more to existence than only the physical world.

>>2106257

>>But i think an important relevant point is the idea that there is more to existence than only the physical world.

How do you know this?

Hey, people asking for proof:

Do you believe the Higgs boson exists?

>>2106276

>>Do you believe the Higgs boson exists?

Not yet.

>>2106278

Your answer implies you faith that it does.

>>2106285

No, it implies a willingness to believe when they can provide evidence.

I have an identical willingness to believe in god or souls when I see evidence for either.

This is not faith. It is openness to changing my views as new evidence emerges. But you knew that. You were hoping for a cheap "gotcha".

Can I just point something out? Mormons believe that angels came to earth recently and told a guy in America some stuff from God.

This has nothing to do with whether or not there's a "first cause", or "the nature of faith". They believe a specific thing which is obviously false.

>>2106287

"Not yet" says something very different from what you're saying now.

But I guess you know all about moving the goalposts.

>>2106293

>>"Not yet" says something very different from what you're saying now.

No, it doesn't. "Not yet" means "I don't currently but may in the future". It's pretty fucking clear.

>>But I guess you know all about moving the goalposts.

Do you even know what that term means? It doesn't mean "saying one thing, and then saying something else". It means changing the criteria for proof or disproof when the original criteria are satisfied.

>>2106291
This.

He's an expert apologist (he is a Mormon after all). He's distracting us from the point. The point is that he believes that several specific supernatural events have occurred with no evidence.

That's not answering some philosophical "why". It's just believing lies.

>>2106285

Just as the theist cannot comprehend a world where people live for the sake of life, they cannot comprehend a world where people make decisions based in reality rather than dogma.

Doublethinkers, doublethinkers everywhere. It is impossible to make decisions without some sort of assertion that is not based on fact. Why did you decide to come to this board and discuss things? The reason is probably something like:
>Because I feel like it.
Deciding to do something because "you feel like it" is using faith to make a decision. You are making the assertion that doing what you "feel like" is more important than, for example, helping others, going out and doing something that you have more of a desire to do but is less convenient than posting here. Or maybe you are posting here because you want to help others understand religion and science? You are making the assertion that helping others is more important than doing what you feel like, or anything else for any other reason. If someone would care bring up a decision and give a reason for that decision that doesn't involve faith, I'd like to hear it and prove that it is ultimately based on faith.
We all use "science" to some degree and we all use "faith" to some degree.

>>2106419

>>Deciding to do something because "you feel like it" is using faith to make a decision.

How so? How does making a spontaneous decision to do something equate to accepting a claim without supporting evidence?

>>We all use "science" to some degree and we all use "faith" to some degree.

How does this support the contention that supernatural phenomena like gods or spirits exist?

>>2106419

You don't get to redefine the terms and muddy the concepts.

We are not talking about personal decisions. We are talking about science and religion.

>>2106439
Sorry about the delay, you've probably left by now anyway.

>>Deciding to do something because "you feel like it" is using faith to make a decision.
>How so? How does making a spontaneous decision to do something equate to accepting a claim without supporting evidence?
You are making a decision, witch means that you are asserting that one thing is more important than another. There is no evidence that suggests that your feeling is more important than the possibility that the universe doesn't even want you to use a computer at all and that it is a sin to post on 4chan.

>>We all use "science" to some degree and we all use "faith" to some degree.
>How does this support the contention that supernatural phenomena like gods or spirits exist?

I am not trying to support the fact that gods or supernatural phenomena exist. I am actually an atheist of sorts. Part of some religions is the belief in supernatural beings, but part of religion is also the belief that there are certain things we are and aren't supposed to do.

>>2106686
I know dude, you're right.

>>2105636
Are you daft? Science is incompatible with religion because religion is consistently proven wrong by science.
I'm out of this fucking troll thread.