are you an atheist?

the "so" is that science is not a self-sufficient generator of objective truth; nor could it be; nor should it be.

this definitely not to say this is some flaw with science. the "blank slate" is not something that even makes sense scientifically (where is the observer?) and even suggests that, were it achieved, science would cease (or at least cease to develop). and then what?!

pointing being that the highly contingent basis of scientific investigation is its condition--that distinction between known/unknown, say--and if you want to get really into it you could even say that the very logic of science *produces* the unknown as its postulate of investigation. does this mean science presumes the hidden transcendental as the very horizon of its own progress, that science materializes or actualizes what earlier ages called God and that is essentially what science *is*? I sometimes wonder!

other point being that, yes, science does a good job of leaving itself open to revision (in some ways, not others) and religion should adopt similar methods (and has before).

Ryan otm. I need to just read this thread for a while and stop posting.

that's a nice lil post but still has nothing to do with what I'm saying the advantages science holds over religion, which you've already agreed with.

the "so" is that science is not a self-sufficient generator of objective truth; nor could it be; nor should it be.

right. Don't know why this is a "but" to "science is a better method".

feel like that's getting back into Science being a capital S thing rather than science being a method.

How's next Weds for everyone? We can run through this all again?

Also, the afterlife thing, I've read the Bible three times and haven't run across a single mention of it.

― ▴▲ ▴TH3CR()$BY$H()W▴▲ ▴ (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, April 2, 2014 12:51 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

...heaven? Grandpa is smiling down on me but he would like a word with you and your denial of the afterlife

lso, the afterlife thing, I've read the Bible three times and haven't run across a single mention of it.

This is preposterous.

Evan, may I recommend Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a more modern theory of scientific methods than the logical positivism of Popper?

all for lower case science!

there's perhaps a bigger discussion to be had, in which id like to fold science into a more general semiotics of determination. but just to focus things: insofar as science distinguishes itself from other endeavors it achieves scientific meaning only insofar as it reproduces that distinction. this means that things like art, history, religion, politics, and all that are necessary, well not parts of science, but co-participants in society with science. I'd even argue that non-scientific ways of knowing are a necessary part of how science evolves.

that's really only true in the same sense that art, history, religion, politics also play a role in how baseball is played.

well sure, but then no one is saying the World Series winner is really the objective champion of the world
or that the MLB playoffs are a path to metaphysical certainty.

close enough tho, right?

no direct references to the afterlife in the OT

well if there were any, I'm sure it'd just be a metaphor

one oblique ref: "Jacob was gathered onto his people" when he dies otherwise nada

whatever else that fact should challenge the assumption that religion is primarily about fear of death

There is a sequel to the OT tho

I disagree

more of a spinoff I guess, none of the same characters but based in the same continuity. a lot of crazy retcon, too.

If the major religions don't believe in spirits I concede

"O get this I was around the whole time, even before Abraham. My scenes just all got cut for time."

At best NT is fanfic

"the World Series winner is really the objective champion of the world"
wait isn't this true by definition?

I don't think any Japanese teams get to play in the World Series.

just to clarify a bit: i think the distinction between science and religion tends to be under the most pressure at the limits of its present competence (this is probably obvious). these are questions that seem to brush up against transcendental questions: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc.

but as in that quote from Into the Cool above shows, even transforming religious questions into scientific questions tends to leave a negative transcendental residue (ie, "God can neither be proved nor disproved") that, i should think, leaves the door open for further questioning even if specific scientific questions get answered. that there is no obvious end (in either sense) to science is not a question to be addressed scientifically.

and while this is "moving goalposts," surely, i think this its a good thing! onward.

At best NT is fanfic

ok, finally a lol

just to clarify a bit: i think the distinction between science and religion tends to be under the most pressure at the limits of its present competence (this is probably obvious). these are questions that seem to brush up against transcendental questions: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc.

true, at the limits is where the questions religion and science seek to answer converge. still very divergent in how they go about attempting to answer them.

"Faith needs no basis. At the most objective level you could say it is an inherited trait, much like your eye color or geographic location of birth. To many people, belonging to a religious organization is something they were born into."

So you knew about your personal interpretation of god the same way a baby sea-turtle knows to go to the ocean right out of the shell?

"needs no basis" = illogical. Which is fine, not everything needs to be logical, but let's not pretend it isn't. If one thinks Logic isn't the end all be all then one shouldn't throw a fit when something gets called illogical.

i'd be curious to see the budget breakdowns of major religions devoted to transcendental research. I didn't think they moved much funding past telescopes and observatories and such?

haha. it's a travesty I tell you!

it'd be cool if some vatican money had been siphoned into the hadron collider. (either in research funding or literally dumped in there)

the "Institute for Transcendental Research" sounds like it would be cool but it would prob turn out to be some Scientology-esque cult.

Or a prog psych record

The "Institute for Transcendental Research" has its own myspace page.

just an idea, but I wonder if religion and science seem so tightly coupled (to a frustrating extent even) because they got a part/whole kind of dialectic going on. given that science produces information only through artificially constraining what phenomena are to be be observed (producing knowledge through partiality) then religion seems like the only game in town for (spurious?) claims about totality. you might say art already made this play with romanticism.

i'd be curious to see the budget breakdowns of major religions devoted to transcendental research.

not a 'major religion' per se but chabad def has a budget for this + institutions such as pop culture chabad transcendental org http://www.meaningfullife.com

Can you classify charity as transcendental research?

i would not, no

re: religion/science coupling, i'd chalk it up to which institutions historically had money to throw at research, the parallel to art being patronage.

science is a better method for discerning empirical "truth."

What makes you think science can access truth? Anyway, my problem with people arguing for atheism is that they never seem to be addressing me; just some other people who share a label.

your fault for choosing that label for yourself

:) yeah I guess so (though I never label myself, of course, I mean the label of 'theist')

Science gave us the human genome. That's a hell of a lot of truth.

boils down to theists making a claim, and other people not being convinced by it. it's just due to the nature of language and the human mind's yen for categorization that these people get labeled "atheists" (there's no equivalent term for those who deny the claims of moon conspiracy folks, anti-vaccine folks, etc). It's really difficult to "attack" a person or group solely on the basis of certain claims not convincing them, and yet...
The "argument for atheism" so far as one exists is "what makes you so sure?". Evidence so far presented in response has been very weak to those who value logic and reason.

Science gave us the human genome. That's a hell of a lot of truth.

I'm too drunk to get into a whole thing about this; but really? Always sucks having to quote Pilate :)

What makes you think science can access truth?

Says guy typing his thoughts out on a computer, nearly instantly able to be read by people all over the world in their own homes.

Evidence so far presented in response has been very weak to those who value logic and reason

see my problem with some atheists--not all and as I said I consider myself one at times--is that they don't value logic and reason enough!

Yeah...that doesn't tell me much. Which comes from the position of (somewhere near) radical skepticism.