/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1471455]

Science Must Destroy Religion

by Sam Harris

http://machineslikeus.com/articles/ScienceMustDestroy.html

[Anonymous No.1471476]

If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail.

[Anonymous No.1471482]

"universal truth does not equal mass appeal"

immortal technique

[Anonymous No.1471490]

In the spirit of religious tolerance, most scientists are keeping silent when they should be blasting the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.

[Anonymous No.1471506]

We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity – birth, marriage, death, etc. – without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.1471515]

Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

[Anonymous No.1471556]

science and religion are not mutually exclusive you fags.

[Anonymous No.1471565]

>>1471556

of course they are you liberal scumbag

[Anonymous No.1471586]

>>1471556
Define science for us.

[Anonymous No.1471594]

>>1471565
>>1471586

someday you guys will grow up...

[Anonymous No.1471601]

>>1471594

says your heathen god

[Anonymous No.1471608]

>>1471556

[Anonymous No.1471611]

>>1471594
>gets asked to define science
>calls the other person a child
Wat?

[Anonymous No.1471614]

>>1471565
>>1471601
>>1471608

lol some pictures aren't going to sway me. science and religion can coexist.

[Anonymous No.1471615]

[Anonymous No.1471621]

>>1471611

[Anonymous No.1471623]

>>1471614
Define science... or do you like semantical trollfests?

[Anonymous No.1471626]

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experimentation, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new discoveries is called scientific research, and the people who carry out this research are called scientists.[2][3] This article focuses on science in the more restricted sense, what is sometimes called experimental science. Applied science, or engineering, is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous No.1471634]

>>1471614

not with the way you define religion and you define science.

impossible.

[Anonymous No.1471641]

The problem of induction called, he wants your ass back.

[Anonymous No.1471651]

>>1471626
I was hoping for it in your own words but wtv.

>Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about nature and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
Now then, science is a means of understanding the universe correct? Religion however makes claims about the universe, claims that are "faith based" and thus be definition incompatible with science. They are incompatible in that respect regardless of people going to church in the morning and studying for a high school biology test in the afternoon.

[Anonymous No.1471660]

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

icon of social progress

[Anonymous No.1471656]

holy fuck it's easy to troll this place.

[Anonymous No.1471677]

>>1471656
>gets called out on his ridiculous bullshit, claims he was trolling

[Anonymous No.1471707]

>>1471677

[Anonymous No.1471739]

Just because you have faith doesn't mean that you're blind to science. If you truly believe this, you are not very logical. You're shrouded in hate.

Think of religion as an extension. They are completely different topics. They don't go together, but you can certainly be a scientist and have religion.

Fun Fact: The Catholic Church accepted the Theory of Evolution.

[Anonymous No.1471748]

>>1471739

u mad?

[Anonymous No.1471755]

>>1471739

> religion an extension of science

0/10

[Anonymous No.1472161]

guy is OP's pic is an obvious douche...just look at him and tell me otherwise

[Anonymous No.1472174]

>>1471739
The fact that a cactus and mustard can exist in the same room doesn't mean the go together. Science and empiricism is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally incompatible with anything faith based such as religion.

[Anonymous No.1472183]

>>1472174
I forgot my sage ;_;

[Anonymous No.1472186]

>>1471455
i thought that was fucking zoolander.

[Anonymous No.1472193]

>>1472174
10/10
You're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.1472228]

>>1472193
I don't thing you have been posting on 4chan long. You don't know what the rating system is for apparently.

[Anonymous No.1472234]

Agnosticism is the easiest religion to troll.

[Anonymous No.1472273]

LISTEN.

Science is a way of looking at the world in a way that gives us facts, based on evidence. If we can just look at religion, see the incompatibility, and decide that science must not apply then we could do that for anything, and that's FUCKING DANGEROUS. RELIGION IS NOT SPECIAL.

Every piece of evidence, everything we observe, tells us that your religions is incorrect, and yet you claim we were created by God. So what you say is that God created us in a way that we would look around and see what bullshit his existence must be, but then DENY OUR REASON AND SENSE and believe in him anyway because your respective prophet says so.

THAT'S RETARTED.

[Anonymous No.1472293]

>>1472273
I agree, but,
>THAT'S RETARTED.
does NOT help your case.

[Anonymous No.1472294]

>>1472228
I do. I was sufficiently trolled. I raged. I gave a 10.

[/sci/entists No.1472300]

The gap between science and religion is widening and religion will lose — make no mistake about that — leaving a 'moral void' of sorts. Science will continue enticing us with clean water, food, comfortable shelter, sights and sounds, medical technology, a 90-year life expectancy, microwave ovens, microwave burgers, microwave coffee, microwaveable instant water ("just add water"), computer games, and the stuff of the next millennium which I can't even begin to imagine.

~The best keyboardist on earth, Jens Johansson

[Anonymous No.1472327]

>>1472294
A poster can only be an idiot or a troll, especially if you give them a 10/10 rating on the troll scale. Giving them 10/10 is a compliment, like saying they are smarter than you.

Now you know the error of your ways.

Not that it matters. He wasn't trolling, science and religion are incompatible. Faith is the antithesis of empiricism. Just because some people are scientists and still go to church doesn't make them compatible.

[Anonymous No.1472351]

>>1472327
That's not what he meant by incompatible. He meant that reason doesn't have to interfere with certain things, like faith. When he says they're incompatible, he means that you can have both, because they don't affect each other. Which is what you mean by compatible. Neither one of you is wrong, but you're looking at it from opposite definitions.

[Anonymous No.1472737]

science and religion can co-exist

100% I.D. theorybro here

[Anonymous No.1472746]

>>1472737

-10/10

[Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI No.1472781]

>>1471556
>>1471739
>>1472737

gtfomy/sci/

[Anonymous No.1472791]

Sam Harris is going to turn out to be one of the most important people of this generation.

[Anonymous No.1472884]

We are like a simulacra (like puppets) that try to sustain the illusions of being "somebodies". The truth is, physicalism (a scientific viewpoint of the universe that believes physical properties to be all that exists) ENTAILS determinism. Moreover, it indicates the universe is devoid of any intrinsic meaning... meaning is entirely mind-dependent. Thus, we have no moral responsibility whatsoever then... I find it interesting how Richard Dawkins and these other new-age atheists avoid taking physicalism to its conclusions.

Determinism and a lack of man-made meaning in the external world are pretty much accepted by the scientific community. What do I mean about being 'nobodies' though? Well, empirical data is no-where near "complete". Metaphysics still has its uses. For example, many neurophilosophers such as (which is different from philosophy of mind since it mainly on empirical neuroscientific studies) Metzinger are starting to conclude the self to be fictitious. It is an inner representational model of the system as a whole (aka a virtual model) from which a first-person perspective and subjectivity arise. It is a phenomenal model that constantly undergoes change. We are not aware of this construction process for it is transparent since 'naive realism' (the idea our perceptual representations capture the 'thing-in-itself') has an evolutionary advantage.

[Anonymous No.1472888]

>>1472737

[Anonymous No.1472890]

>>1472884

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST

As you can tell, there are many interesting philosophical implications here. What are we exactly? Even if neuroscience is able to give the complete mechanistic outline of the recognition of identity, there still lies the question, "Who are we?" Was the Buddhist Nagarjuna right when he said "everything is empty of inherent existence"? This is not a happy conclusion... Zen is actually pretty pessimistic once you get down to it, but what is uncanny is how neuroscience is starting to reveal this apparent "emptiness": there is no immutable self, hell it may simply be an illusion (aka simulacrum with nothing underneath) that sustains us. Well, I've recently been reading about the BLUE BRAIN PROJECT where they are using reverse engineering to model the entire human brain. It seems, if consciousness truly is not unitary, then they will move on to finding the neuromatrix which sustains the self.

[Anonymous No.1472892]

>>1471455
I didn't know that guy from tropic thunder and night at the museum was a voiced atheist

how interesting

[Anonymous No.1472961]

Religion and science can coexist under these terms -

- Religion is a "hobby", and if any of its tenets directly clash with scientific postulations, they are simply to be ignored

- Under no circumstances would logic derived from a religion overpower logic derived from science/sound reasoning

- Under no circumstances would religious beliefs impede with your opinion on scientific fields or theories

Now, scientists can roll like that, because they don't actually take it seriously. So then are they even religious per se? For example a large portion of Japanese identify themselves as buddhist/shinto.. however, it is more of a cultural observance thing; they do not pray for advice from the thunder gods and sure as hell wouldn't die for them, etc. So in a sense they are "religious" but not in the dogmatic, policy-altering sense. I mean, granted, that's hardly even being religious at this point.. but honestly that's all the power that such factions should ever be granted in this day and age.. a sort of guideline/state-of-mind/cultural thing, not something that dictates your life.

The problem is that seriously-religious people who follow Abrahamic religions (ChristianityIslamJudaism) rarely seem to give in the other way around. And so they must either take a backseat and acknowledge themselves as quaint cultural relics, like pretty much all other religions have, or be eliminated.

[Anonymous No.1473033]

>>1472884
>>1472890

Go suck Deepak Chopra's dick on your own time, fag.

[Anonymous No.1473074]

A scientific viewpoint on existence (physicalism) entails three conclusions:

A) Determinism is true. You are puppets and even your behavior is easily predictable:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-say-free-will-probably-d-2010-04-06

Don't stop believing? What the hell? So even if free-will is an illusion we should sustain the illusion? See, even scientists are starting to "fear" their results.

B) The world is devoid of an apparent meaning. Since A) is true, it would be absurd to assume people have "moral responsibility". A puppet murderer shall only be judged by the puppet judge.

C) The self is fictitious (check out my explanation of the self model theory of subjectivity 2 posts above here). This is the most commonly held view among neuroscientists.

To quote Lovecraft, "To quote Lovecraft, "The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Seriously, shut the fuck up you morons. You guys aren't saying anything interesting at all. Why don't you open your eyes and realize the game show you're playing in. Your lives... completely meaningless... shallow. The human phenomena... should end.

[Anonymous No.1473097]

I meditated on a mountain in India for a fucking year. Don't lecture me on what my qualifications to critique religion are.

[Anonymous No.1473106]

>>1473033

Actually, I cited some empirical research that supported my conclusions.

A scientific viewpoint of the external world is physicalism. This is what I am: a physicalist. I don't buy substance dualism or property dualism. I believe physical matter is all there is. I am a scientist too.

You are just retarded and can't understand the science I sourced.

For example, do the rubber hand experiment: conceal your hand in the dark and put a rubber hand in view. Now synchronously rub both. Eventually, you'll confuse the rubber hand for being your own. This is an example of the self model's phenomenal target property of mineness being extended, or to put it lay-man's terms, "Your sense of self being messed with." This can be done with virtual machines too on the ENTIRE body. Olaf, a neuroscientist, did research on this. Soon, the human brain will be modeled (BLUE BRAIN) project, and you'll see how the self is fictatious. You'll understand the neurocomputational processes involved in keeping this illusion... up.

Seriously, kill yourself. You're retarded if you couldn't comprehend me. End this misery.

[Anonymous No.1473110]

I take my scientific viewpoint of this world to its absurd conclusions. I want all life destroyed because it is simply prolonging the game show...

[Niveus !qyCeV9YlYI No.1473152]

>>1473106

this kind of "i understand the cause and effect explanation behind how something works, therefore it doesn't exist" reasoning is utter nonsense.

[Anonymous No.1473179]

>>1473106

>fictatious

[Anonymous No.1473189]

>>1473074
Deterministic yet completely impossible for any human to compute. Thus, while we may be puppets, for all practical purposes nothing has changed.

[Anonymous No.1473208]

>>1473152

Nope, the self is a transparent construct we look through it. It is not a "thing" but rather an on-going process. It is where subjectivity originates in our simulation of the world (which goes on in the brain). The neuromatrix which sustains this pheomenal construct is REAL, but the construct itself is merely an illusion. It disintegrates and is reactivated when we awaken, for example. It has an evolutionary function in keeping our species alive basically. I admit, there are issues with the self model theory of subjectivity, even though there is interesting empirical research backing up its assertions, but regardless of that, the thing is the self is "empty of inherent existence" as I will explain below....

Furthermore, this construct can be totally replaced. Many people have had brain strokes resulting in the total annihilation of their past selves (need sources, not hard to find really). They need to learn their motor skills and etc. all over again. Granted, one can apply the funny logic problem "Sorite's Paradox" on this which is why I said the self is empty of inherent existence. It is constantly in a flux, and a brain stroke is one example of an "extreme" change. But what constitutes an extreme change? Meaning, our current sense of identity is like an illusion, and in this sense I find neurophilosopher's Metzinger's notion of self intriguing. Whether there is a more mechanistic, rather than representational, description of self is besides the point of this pessimistic rant... since we are both materialists and agree that the self has an origin in the brain. I just think this also means the self is empty of inherent existence, no definable qualities associated to it due to the flux.

[Anonymous No.1473227]

>>1473189

It does matter.

YOU HAVE NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER? Why feel bad for murder? Why condemn murderers? Seriously, why? You are just a puppet prolonging the game show. Why do you even... feel a connection with your own thoughts? You know that self-y feeling, right? Well, if there is a specific neuromatrix that sustains it, you may be in for a surprise. Granted, I don't deny the possibility of a more mechanistic explanation.

The universe is devoid of an inherent meaning... Why create illusions that there have to be some? There is no God, no friends (just images of what you conceive those puppets to be), no loved ones, no hope... You're only right is the right to die.

[Anonymous No.1473242]

>>1473227

Your*

Damn, my rant messes up my spelling. Well, I hope I've dispelled myths about the "greatness" of life. Mankind ought to end of its own will.

"We come from an inconceivable nothingness. We stay a while in something which seems equally inconceivable, only to vanish again into the inconceivable nothingness." - Peter Wessel Zapffe

[Anonymous No.1473274]

>>1473227
You seem to be making an error. Even if the universe is deterministic, empathy and guilt still exist. They aren't just wished away because you no longer believe in self responsibility.

[Anonymous No.1473303]

>>1473274

That doesn't rebuke my claims however...

[Anonymous No.1473324]

>>1473303
It absolutely does.

Why feel bad for murder?
Physically it exists
And with respect to evolution it's beneficial

Its like you think your actions no longer have any meaning simply because you aren't in control of them

[Anonymous No.1473329]

>>1472791
>>1472791
>>1472791
>>1472791

>hah hah, oh wow.jpg

[anonymous No.1473340]

>>1473324
your murder is predetermined like everything else. nothing exist, nothing.

[Anonymous No.1473356]

>>1473324

It's useless to condemn people for their actions, however. You can "correct them", assuming you have a model of what is "correct". Coupled with the fact the universe is devoid of meaning because of the cyclical nature of knowledge... The world is devoid of any apparent meaning. Knowledge is gained from a CLOSED SYSTEM about the CLOSED SYSTEM, so you cannot think anything inside of it, from inside of it, drawing from inside of it, as anything but inside of it, which means that you have no contrast or comparison or anything to know if it is meant or not meant! This is pretty much an accepted truth among scientists for meaning is simply mind-dependent and independent of the external world. There is no need to feel bad for "immoral" actions because they just don't exist amongst this puppetry.

[gary !!g42A/otOWbE No.1473385]

>>1473106
Okay, you guy, if humanity should be eradicated as you have expressly stated above, why not go mass murdering everyone everywhere right now?

[Anonymous No.1473406]

>>1473385

Well, who said I'm not a delusional faggot? When I'm not looking at the truth, I'm studying neuroscience or watching cartoons. Existence sucks ass, so I might as well encourage myself to be delusional. In that sense, we're no different than religious fundies.

You may simply hide these thoughts in your mind, create ideals or Gods and purport they exist in objectivity, distract yourselves in pursuits, or simply project these thoughts into art as we all do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Contentions).). Just... stop the problem that is consciousness by not having kids. Encourage others to become anti-natalists.

[Anonymous No.1473410]

>>1473406
>>1473406
>fatalist fuck unsatisfied with his life
>wants to ruin the fun for everybody else

[Anonymous No.1473417]

>>1473410

[Anonymous No.1473421]

>>1473410

I am simply informing you on what logically follows physicalism, what most scientists accept.

Granted, if property dualism is proven true, I'm going to run around naked screaming, "I'm a fucking moron!" But that's not going to happen. There is no hard problem of motherfucking consciousness.

[Anonymous No.1473460]

>>1473421
>thinks he has found "the answer" because he gobbled up the musings of some depressed philosopher
>looks down on everyone else living out their "ignorance is bliss" rat race
>misses out on his own life being a bitter faggot

GUYS WE'RE TOO SMART FOR OUR OWN GOOD, WE WANNA KNOW TOO MUCH. THIS CREATES A PARADOX, WE'LL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER TO EVERY QUESTION. SO LETS JUST STOP PROCREATING, WHY EVEN TRY?

[Anonymous No.1473476]

>>1473460

This.

You know those kids in High School who pretend to be smart by memorizing a few philosophic buzz words?

[Anonymous No.1473486]

>>1473460

Notice I said this is what logically follows PHYSICALISM. A), B), and D) logically follow physicalism. Of course, like all models of reality, this is most likely wrong, but it seems like the direction mankind is heading towards. They are not "fun" conclusions, but it's pretty much set in stone:

A) Determinism is true. You are puppet, but if you want, you can love a puppet. I sure as hell do. Puppets rule.

B) The self is a construct and constantly in a flux. Apply the logic problem Sorite Paradox on someone who's had a brain-stroke, resulting in the complete deletion of one's past self, and realize there is no concrete "self" that defines a "person". I gave some theoretical neuroscience making this more understandable. Need more sources?

C) The universe is devoid of any apparent meaning. This is pretty much fact. Some people actually like this more. Meaning is completely mind dependent and independent of the external world.

[Anonymous No.1473506]

Sam Harris is taking Butthurt Atheist to a whole new level

[Anonymous No.1473541]

>>1473486
-Your first mistake is operating as if Determinism is some concrete law of nature, as if it was as readily apparent as Gravity. It's a school of thought, not a provable occurrence. It's arrogant to come in to an argument and act as if everyone who doesn't subscribe to such a theory is a fool.

-I'm not familiar with the "Sorite Paradox", I googled that and "Sortie Paradox"(at Google's suggestion) to no avail...The stroke patient is a horrible example, though. Of course their self will cease to remain the same after permanent brain damage. Do you think people have souls or something? If you delete the memories and affect the way the mind thinks, you've deleted (or at least significantly altered) the self. I don't see where you're going with that, or how it ties in to determinism and ultimate paradox of human existence.

-Once again, it's arrogant to state the Universe has no purpose/meaning as fact, considering Humanity knows so little. For someone who linked to Zapffe, that's kind of a contradictory assumption to make.

[Anonymous No.1473567]

>>1473486
>Determinism is true.
Hello quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.1473571]

>>1473567

quantom mechanics are deterministic

[OP No.1473581]

>>1473571
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indeterminacy

[Anonymous No.1473584]

>>1473571
Modern physics shows otherwise.

[Anonymous No.1473614]

[Anonymous No.1473653]

Fueling a conflict between science and religion has no practical benefits, if anything it's harmful.

e.g The UK is much less religious than it used to be, but there are far more people rejecting evolution, including doctors and teachers. In past times it was acceptable to be religious and to appreciate science - today science fans insist that only one can stay in town.

Of course, making aggressive statements about religion is an easy way to get attention, even in the absence of other accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.1473659]

>>1473653

you don't get the point

[Anonymous No.1473689]

>>1471660
Oh wow, the man is ridiculous