Science is the final arbiter of the paranormal?

[showme2]

"Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes."

=============================================

I see. So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?

Who SAID " "Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes." ?
Well, it was no less than James Randi.

[Suezoled]

Hey, Rolfe, is it possible to swipe that little "guy smashing his face into the keyboard" smilie you use on occasion?

[BTox]

Originally posted by showme2
[BI see. So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?
[/B]

Science judges all events.

[Zep]

Originally posted by showme2
"Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes."

=============================================

I see. So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?

Who SAID " "Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes." ?
Well, it was no less than James Randi. And the paranormalists NEVER make mistakes...??

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Hey, Rolfe, is it possible to swipe that little "guy smashing his face into the keyboard" smilie you use on occasion? It's on the smilies list. Coded as colonhbcolon. But you knew that, didn't you.

:hb:

Rolfe.

[SRW]

Originally posted by showme2
"Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes."

=============================================

I see. So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?



So science is to unreliable to judge paranormal events, so we should use the far more reliable method of making ***** up?

[patnray]

1. Because even the mistakes and failures of science advance our knowledge of the world. They are not hidden, denied, or explained away. They enlighten us.

2. Because it is the only reliable method for bringing us closer to the truth.

3. Because it works. After thousands of years of living in darkness it has delivered mankind previously unimagined advances in health, comfort, wealth, and productivity, all in a relatively short time.

4. Beacuse all other methods failed, for thousands of years, to produce any understanding or results. If you are to replace science, it must be with something new, not something which has already failed time and time again...

[showme2]

Thanks guys.
But NOBODY has answered the question.

[thaiboxerken]

"So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?"

Because no other method even comes close to being as reliable. Do you know of any other method that is as reliable as science?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
Thanks guys.
But NOBODY has answered the question.

Patnray answered your question about an hour before you posted.

[SteveGrenard]

4. Beacuse all other methods failed, for thousands of years, to produce any understanding or results. If you are to replace science, it must be with something new, not something which has already failed time and time again...


For some perhaps, not all. There are people on this planet who continue to suffer unimagineable bouts of disease and deprivation science so far as been powerless to remedy. Science has failed time and again as well as having suceeded. It both fails and suceeds throughout history.

What are the "all" other methods you refer to which only fail. Are you defining sucess as being due to science only , and failure as, say, due to philosophy or some other "method."

[thaiboxerken]

For some perhaps, not all. There are people on this planet who continue to suffer unimagineable bouts of disease and deprivation science so far as been powerless to remedy. Science has failed time and again as well as having suceeded. It both fails and suceeds throughout history.

That's sad that you would use the suffering of people to justify your distrust of science. Science is working continuously to remedy disease as well as starvation. Science has fed well over a BILLION extra people because of genetically engineered crops and harvesting ability. Technology has vastly improved the lives of BILLIONS of people. Yes, there will always be new diseases and problems to solve, but that is not a failure of science. That is the nature of the universe. There are many discoveries to be made, to say science has failed because they have yet to discover them is idiotic.


What are the "all" other methods you refer to which only fail. Are you defining sucess as being due to science only , and failure as, say, due to philosophy or some other "method."

Can you name ONE method of gaining knowledge that has out produced science?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by showme2
"Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes."

=============================================

I see. So how come we can rely on science at any particular time to judge paranormal events ?

Who SAID " "Real sciences are distinguished as much by their mistakes as by their successes." ?
Well, it was no less than James Randi.

The quote does not say "Using Science is bad if you wish to gain new knowledge", I think you are taking the quote out of context.

[Gregory]

First of all, Randi didn't say that. He was quoting one of his readers, EL. And the context seems to be that scientists are willing to abandon flawed ideas, whereas believers of the paranormal are not.

[SteveGrenard]

In case anyone has missed the significance of the pro-science posters here, in fact, most notably TBK, what is at issue here is what is known as scientism.

What is scientism? Well, it is certainly well exemplified by TBK's response
Congratulations Ken on providing a superb example.

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only 1 method of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that Christian or Islamic fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be obtained by the scientific method.

Fundamentally scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Fine. I don't agree. I see science as one means, yes, one very powerful means, of accessing knowledge but not the only one.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Steve, where did TBK say that science is the only method that can answer questions about the natural world? What he said was that it is the best method. You can refute that claim with a counterexample.

~~ Paul

[thaiboxerken]

In case anyone has missed the significance of the pro-science posters here, in fact, most notably TBK, what is at issue here is what is known as scientism.

Ad hominem, through and through, you wish to tear me down by claiming that I have a religious adherence to science and find that science is the only thing people need in the world. This is false, of course. When it comes to gaining knowledge of the universe, science is the only reliable method. There are other methods, but none have come even close to being reliable.


Unlike the use of the scientific method as only 1 method of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.

Is there any other method that is reliable?

[SteveGrenard]

LOL. Ken...thanks for proving my point which was not, by the way, ad hominem. It was, as you yourself illustrate, simply a, er, scientific fact.

Adherence to scientism is not something to be ashamed about or should be considered an insult. It is just one point of view which can be debated.

PS: Paul .. he didn't have to. Everything he says points in tht direction. Let him say that philosophy and religion can also provide truth, knowledge and provide some kinds of sustenance and relief for the world's problems. I didn't think I heard him say that.

[thaiboxerken]

I am not a follower of scientism, as science can't really explain what good art is.. what a good story is or other subjective subjects.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I am not a follower of scientism, as science can't really explain what good art is.. what a good story is or other subjective subjects.

Let's get off the pedantry shall we? You are using art or story criticism as an example when I am talking about millions dying of AIDS and starvation...... get real.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Let's get off the pedantry shall we? You are using art or story criticism as an example when I am talking about millions dying of AIDS and starvation...... get real.

Hardly, there are many subjective things that science shouldn't, and doesn't try to explain. When it comes to objective reality of the universe, however, there really is no method as good as science.

Tell me, what other objective methods do you use to explain the universe if not science? Is there any other method that has helped decrease starvation and the effects of AIDS?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Hardly, there are many subjective things that science shouldn't, and doesn't try to explain. When it comes to objective reality of the universe, however, there really is no method as good as science.

Tell me, what other objective methods do you use to explain the universe if not science? Is there any other method that has helped decrease starvation and the effects of AIDS?

Religion - tell someone to keep praying and they'll eventually die of disease or starvation, but they'll die happy expecting to be greeted by the big daddy in the sky. Also through their death the total number of people suffering decreases. To top it all of this method of aid is much more cost effective too!

:D

[SteveGrenard]

Ookay, lets take religion or to be more specific, a religious construct. As you know the U.S. has sent millions and millions of dollars worth of AIDs drugs to Africa but as you may also know aside from the victims living in the capitals and big cities, the majority of people in outlying districts have no way of getting the drugs until relief organizations and missions (and medical missionaries) got involved in the distribution and administration of such drugs to those who could not reach them in any way possible. And still this was not enough. SO here is religion and science working hand in hand. Science developed and produced the drugs and medical missionaries, people on a mission literally from God, have delivered those drugs and the care that goes along with it. Unfortunately without enough religionists to do this work, thanks in part to the efforts of anti-religonists, the battle is still uphill all the way.
What many of you may know is that over the past few years there have been serious efforts to mesh the efforts of religon with science in order to deliver medical care.

example: How many hospitals are there in the U.S. owned and operated by religions? How many Catholic nuns find their mission by becoming nurses as well? If it wasn't for the collection plates and donations of people going to church we would not have these organizations to deliver the wherewithal that science provides.
Science cannot do it alone. It can try but it can't. That was my point.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ookay, lets take religion or to be more specific, a religious construct. As you know the U.S. has sent millions and millions of dollars worth of AIDs drugs to Africa but as you may also know aside from the victims living in the capitals and big cities, the majority of people in outlying districts have no way of getting the drugs until relief organizations and missions (and medical missionaries) got involved in the distribution and administration of such drugs to those who could not reach them in any way possible. And still this was not enough. SO here is religion and science working hand in hand. Science developed and produced the drugs and medical missionaries, people on a mission literally from God, have delivered those drugs and the care that goes along with it. Unfortunately without enough religionists to do this work, thanks in part to the efforts of anti-religonists, the battle is still uphill all the way.
What many of you may know is that over the past few years there have been serious efforts to mesh the efforts of religon with science in order to deliver medical care.
Unfortunately, I dont have such an optimistic attitude when religion tries to work with science.

In the instance America providing Africa with millions in AIDS treatments, I think that's nice. However, I think the groups involved in the distribution of these drugs, while they have good intentions, their motivations are shallow. The motivation is "because my god tells me so". I think its more "righteous" to do good deeds out of the kindness of your heart, not because you are told to do so by your religious beliefs.

I'm sure just as many supplies would arrive and be distributed to just as many Africans regardless of whether the organization distributing the supplies were secular or not.

Here is an incident that was discussed on the boards:

American troops were unable to bathe for weeks due to a water shortage in Iraq. A man who happened to own a 500 gallon pool of clear water had offered to let the troops bathe... under one stipulation: They had to agree to get baptised. (Source: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/iraq/5554317.htm)

This practice is not uncommon with the missionaries who distribute supplies and aid to Africans.

example: How many hospitals are there in the U.S. owned and operated by religions? How many Catholic nuns find their mission by becoming nurses as well? If it wasn't for the collection plates and donations of people going to church we would not have these organizations to deliver the wherewithal that science provides.
Science cannot do it alone. It can try but it can't. That was my point.

There are plenty of "St. Mary's Hospitals". In fact, about a 5 minute drive down from my house is a "First Methodist's Hospital". While its nice that religious groups will donate to hospitals, I still the think the motivation ("god tells me so") is shallow. I'm not attacking the nature of religion, just the nature of people. Unfortunately, the only motivation behind most people's generoscity is the shallow motivation, I just hope the donations collected never get funded into such as "Christian Science" (I especially never hope to see those donations funded into organizations which are descriminatory).

[SteveGrenard]

There are plenty of "St. Mary's Hospitals". In fact, about a 5 minute drive down from my house is a "First Methodist's Hospital". While its nice that religious groups will donate to hospitals, I still the think the motivation ("god tells me so") is shallow. I'm not attacking the nature of religion, just the nature of people. Unfortunately, the only motivation behind most people's generoscity is the shallow motivation, I just hope the donations collected never get funded into such as "Christian Science" (I especially never hope to see those donations funded into organizations which are descriminatory)

There are literally 1000s of hospitals in the U.S. and worldwide owned, operated and run by churches. There are literally 1000s of Nuns who have dedicated their life to God and their services to man as Registered Nurses.
Where I live there is no quid pro quo. You do not go into the ER of Mt Sinai Hospital, owned by the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, in Manhattan and before you are treated are asked to become Jewish. While I agree part of the good work done by medical missionaries may have, at one time, included attempts to convert the local people served, conversion was never a requirement to obtain services. Those providing the services consider their work its own reward. Your cynicism is noted, however. Unfortunately the secular establishment cannot fill the void which would be left should religions get out of the health care business so I am afraid you are stuck with that.

PS: Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Scientists do not have hospitals. If you talk to them they will tell you they have no need for them. The rest of Christianity and every other faith doesn't seem to agree with them. LOL.

[thaiboxerken]

Ookay, lets take religion or to be more specific, a religious construct... SO here is religion and science working hand in hand. Science developed and produced the drugs and medical missionaries, people on a mission literally from God, have delivered those drugs and the care that goes along with it.

Religious people may be helping to give the MEDICAL care and the SCIENTIFIC treatments. However, as a method, religion had very little to do with discovery of how to cure AIDS or feed people. All the religion has done is motivate people to help, this is hardly a method that is exclusive to religion. Oh, and these people are not "literally" on a mission from "God", as that statement would assume a god exists.

Unfortunately without enough religionists to do this work, thanks in part to the efforts of anti-religonists, the battle is still uphill all the way.

This is BS, there are secular organizations that work to help feed starving people. There just happens to be more religious people in the world, and thus more religious charities. Also, secular organizations do not discriminate on who they will help.

What many of you may know is that over the past few years there have been serious efforts to mesh the efforts of religon with science in order to deliver medical care.

Mesh religion and science?! That simply doesn't work. The religious organizations can help deliver care, but the religious method does nothing to help actually find cures or discover knowledge.

example: How many hospitals are there in the U.S. owned and operated by religions? How many Catholic nuns find their mission by becoming nurses as well? If it wasn't for the collection plates and donations of people going to church we would not have these organizations to deliver the wherewithal that science provides.

FYI, these "religious" hospitals are not run solely off of donations from the church people. They charge insurance companies and patrons for the medical care. The religion might motivate people to do "good", but the religious method is not solely responsible for that. It is a secular trait of society in general.


Science cannot do it alone. It can try but it can't. That was my point.

Science can discover knowledge and truths alone, sorry. So I ask again, what other OBJECTIVE method has worked to produce facts about the universe? What method has helped to feed starving people and strive to cure AIDS? It is science, science has fed BILLIONS of people. Religion only played the middleman, which can be a part played by anyone.

You've simply pointed out that religious organizations help people. That is not answering the question about discovery.

[ImpyTimpy]

Let's not confuse religion with human kindness people.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Can you name ONE method of gaining knowledge that has out produced science?

Can you name other methods besides science?

[T'ai Chi]

Most atheists seem to suddenly forget all the religious scientists from the past and present who have contributed much to the world. (and no, not just "in spite of" religion, but directly because of their religious leanings)

I doubt religious medical people do it just for God, but from their own heart in addition.


It is science, science has fed BILLIONS of people.


Sorry TBK, food fed billions of people. No one sat down and ate science.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Can you name other methods besides science?

Uhm, that's why I asked the question. It's because I know of no other reliable method of gaining knowledge.

Most atheists seem to suddenly forget all the religious scientists from the past and present who have contributed much to the world.

No, no atheist here has made that inference. What is being said is that scientific method is contributing knowledge to the world, have religious methods done such a thing?


Sorry TBK, food fed billions of people. No one sat down and ate science

Genetically engineered food to be precise, and most foods have technology involved with their production. The food is available because of scientific method. Billions of more people can eat because of science.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Let's not confuse religion with human kindness people.

Exactly. If it is religion, and religion alone, that drives these people to help the less fortunate, that is simply depression.

There are plenty of people who help the needy who are not religious. I have no statistics on hand, but did you ever consider that the reason many charity groups are religious might be because most *people* are religious?

Steve, you're trying to say that science can't do it alone. The truth is, it is non-believers who can't do it alone, simply because there are not enough of us. I imagine that in the absense of religion, many of these people would be helping others regardless.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Most atheists seem to suddenly forget all the religious scientists from the past and present who have contributed much to the world. (and no, not just "in spite of" religion, but directly because of their religious leanings)

You're claiming that without their religious leanings, they wouldn't have made their discoveries? Please cite some examples, and provide some evidence for this position.

Sorry TBK, food fed billions of people. No one sat down and ate science.

Food that wouldn't be available without science. You know exactly what he meant, so this comment is totally unnecessary.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Let's not confuse religion with human kindness people.

Exactly. If it is religion, and religion alone, that drives these people to help the less fortunate, that is simply depression.

There are plenty of people who help the needy who are not religious. I have no statistics on hand, but did you ever consider that the reason many charity groups are religious might be because most *people* are religious?

Steve, you're trying to say that science can't do it alone. The truth is, it is non-believers who can't do it alone, simply because there are not enough of us. I imagine that in the absense of religion, many of these people would be helping others regardless.

[Lendri]

SteveGrenard wrote

Unfortunately the secular establishment cannot fill the void which would be left should religions get out of the health care business so I am afraid you are stuck with that.

and

If it wasn't for the collection plates and donations of people going to church we would not have these organizations to deliver the wherewithal that science provides.

Just thought I'd point out that in Britain (and other European countries AFAIK) the provision of health care is almost entirely from state and non-religious private institutions. All aspects of medicine, from medical school to health clinics, are essentially secular.

[Giambattista]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Also, secular organizations do not discriminate on who they will help

Not true, many secular charity organizations discriminate on who they will help. Organizations set up with donations to help handicapped people only cater to handicapped people. Organizations set up with donations to help immigrants assimilate only help immigrants. And what about secular organizations who take donations to only help animals? Now that's specist!

[nick]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Genetically engineered food to be precise, and most foods have technology involved with their production. The food is available because of scientific method. Billions of more people can eat because of science.

Most of the big advances in food production in the last 30-40 years - the kind on the scale that let, say, India become self-sufficient in food - have been done with good selective breeding and lots of fertiliser, rather than genetic engineering of the "Monsanto" variety. That's not to side with the "GM food is bad" lobby - I'm sure GM has another level of productivity to contribute - it's just that I don't think GM has had the big, worldwide, numerical impact yet.

That, of course, is partly because of uninformed opposition. And a very big part of that opposition comes from the same people who would ban most fertilisers because they're "unsustainable" and "poison people", etc etc, they'd have us going back to "natural" food production methods. No matter that this would require quadrupling the land area under agriculture because - here's the clever bit - they have a plan to limit population growth (although, for some reason, that doesn't usually apply to well-educated Westerners).

"Natural" is good, of course, because, erm, well, fresh fruit tastes nice, so, erm, that means "natural" is good, it brings you into contact with nature, the Earth is not just a planet, it's a living organism, Gaia will care for us, we are sinners in front of, erm, nature... (I've usually switched off listening by now)

[SteveGrenard]

Lendri in England writes:

Just thought I'd point out that in Britain (and other European countries AFAIK) the provision of health care is almost entirely from state and non-religious private institutions. All aspects of medicine, from medical school to health clinics, are essentially secular.


True. The majority of healthcare is provided by socialized medicine schemes in the UK and Europe. However, the last time I knew anything about this, religious hospitals continued to exist, even in the UK.
St Anthony's Hospital in Cheam, Surrey for example was one I was familiar with.
With thousands of people waiting long ques to get open heart surgery in Holland as well as the UK, I was involved in establishing an open heart surgery program at St. Anthony's back in 1970. We established an open heart air bridge from Holland to Cheam. When my assignments were finished, I returned to the U.S. and lost track of where such programs are today.

These religious order hospitals, which are admittedly few, had a choice of opting out of the NHS when it was set up and some did so.

This is not, however, the case in the United States, where religious organizations build and operate many hospitals and health care facilities and provide such care without discrimination as implied by others. And in an ironic paralllel, in places like Africa and other underdevloped enclaves of humanity such organizations are delivering such care under enormously corrupt secular regimes.

And yes, Catholic, Jewish or Protestant hospitals in the U.S. will take payment from people with insurance or who can afford to pay. If not, they provide care anyway. Staff and bills have to be paid and earning money on some care enables such organizations to provide care to those who cannot afford it. Its called "cost shifting" and
"case mix." There was also a secular Federal program in the U.S. called Hill-Burton, which is just about gone now, obligations under it having run out .....which required non-profit secular or religious hospitals that obtained federally backed loans to provide free care to indigents as well.

There are also many hospitals in the U.S. which are investor owned .... they have owners (stockholders) and these types of hospitals require assurance of payment and/or insurance cards before they would even give a bleeding person a band-aid.

We have a real hodge podge of different frameworks for healthcare here. I dont know if this is good or bad.

[SteveGrenard]

ERK Exactly. If it is religion, and religion alone, that drives these people to help the less fortunate, that is simply depression.

I am sorry you find this depressing. I would be interested in knowing how you determine this?


There are plenty of people who help the needy who are not religious. I have no statistics on hand, but did you ever consider that the reason many charity groups are religious might be because most *people* are religious?

Of course there are. Knowing whether the religious people in some organization that do this would do it anyway if there was no religion is basically untestable. I am sure we can construct scenarios where religious teaching have had such a profound effect on some people that they decided to be kind and helpful and that if it were not for these "teachings" they may not be. Again, untestable.

Steve, you're trying to say that science can't do it alone. The truth is, it is non-believers who can't do it alone, simply because there are not enough of us. I imagine that in the absense of religion, many of these people would be helping others regardless.

Untestable. You would have to figure out some way of eliminating religion and then determining if the same people who have done this work under religious auspices would contnue to do so under secular. Would the Nuns who become nurses become nurses anyway if they were not Nuns? I don't know and I don't know how anyone could know. I suppose we could ask them although this would not rise to the level of being extremely/scientifically reliable.

I freely admit that there are not enough secular organizations to do all the work that needs to be done. Whether there are not enough non-beievers is a question I cannot answer for this particular category of person (e.g. non-believer).

Religion and James Randi

DB: When I think of Randi, I always remember the pent-up adolescent rage he expressed in some comments quoted in "Skeptic" Magazine (I don't know the issue number): "...My opinion (is) that the notion of a god is a basic superstition and that there is no evidence for the existence of any god(s). Further, devils, demons, angels and saints are myths; there is no life after death, no heaven or hell; the Pope is a dangerous, bigoted medieval dinosaur, and the Holy Ghost is a comic-book character worthy of laughter and derision. I accuse the Christian god of murder by allowing the Holocaust to take place - not to mention the 'ethnic clensing' presently being performed by Christians in our world - and I condemn and vilify this mythical deity for encouraging racial prejudice and commanding the degradation of women..."

It is hard to disagree with Randi on what he says about many religious practices and their consequences. On the other hand, religion like race, sexual orientation, language and so forth sets up a framework for discimination which is an all too human characteristic. If it weren't for religious differences man would find other reasons to fight wars, enslave each other or degrade women. I am happy, therefore, to accept and encourage religion's role in good works but will not overlook the evil some factions have launched on humanity.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


There are literally 1000s of hospitals in the U.S. and worldwide owned, operated and run by churches. There are literally 1000s of Nuns who have dedicated their life to God and their services to man as Registered Nurses.
Where I live there is no quid pro quo. You do not go into the ER of Mt Sinai Hospital, owned by the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, in Manhattan and before you are treated are asked to become Jewish. While I agree part of the good work done by medical missionaries may have, at one time, included attempts to convert the local people served, conversion was never a requirement to obtain services. Those providing the services consider their work its own reward. Your cynicism is noted, however. Unfortunately the secular establishment cannot fill the void which would be left should religions get out of the health care business so I am afraid you are stuck with that.

The establishment of hospitals and medical services by religion is not, in and of itself, a solution to health problems provided exclusively by religion. Hospitals and health services still rely upon the accumulated medical knowledge that has been developed through scientific endeavor. There is a mixture here; religious organizations have built hospitals, which make use of science. One cannot point at such hospitals and say, "See what religion has done?" without also saying, "See what science has done?"

As I understand it, when AIDS first became known, it carried the stigma of being a "gay man's disease", and those who had the illness were subjected to the indignity of having their illness not taken seriously by politicians who could potentially have worked to contain the spread of AIDS, except that they did next to nothing, because on "moral" or "religous" grounds, it was a "sinner's" disease. Religionists in the early days of AIDS literally claimed the disease was a judgment from God. This would be an example of religion impeding social welfare.

Other examples of religion mixed with science, and causing harm, is evident from the most recent bombings carried out by fanatics.

It cannot legitimately be argued that religion has been all bad, or that science has been all good, or vice-versa. Neither discipline will solely provide solutions to human dilemmas. I tend to separate religion from ethics; the combination of ethics and science is, I think, essential to human progress.

Science is good and important, but, in the absence of ethics, can be used for immense harm. This we know from the long history of human warfare.

We may claim that religion can point toward philosophical truths about humanity, but it is clear that people disagree about what "truth" is. Science, as a systematic method for testing the "truth", is an invaluable tool for understanding reality and our place in reality. A scientist who has faith in his results, without testing them, or allowing them to be tested by others, may likely see his work fail, or worse.

Religion, on the other hand, requires faith and belief without attendant tests. Religion's value is contained in that faith, but as a way to describe or investigate reality, it does not function.

Religion may point to a "truth", but it is science that tests the "truth".

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Giambattista


Not true, many secular charity organizations discriminate on who they will help... Now that's specist!

Your argument completely ignores the point and the meaning. I am sure that you understood that I meant that secular organizations don't discriminate against people simply because of religion.

[renata]

Originally posted by Ohrryp



As I understand it, when AIDS first became known, it carried the stigma of being a "gay man's disease", and those who had the illness were subjected to the indignity of having their illness not taken seriously by politicians who could potentially have worked to contain the spread of AIDS, except that they did next to nothing, because on "moral" or "religous" grounds, it was a "sinner's" disease. Religionists in the early days of AIDS literally claimed the disease was a judgment from God. This would be an example of religion impeding social welfare.


Catholic churh's opposition to usage and distribution of condoms, even at height of the epidemic is yet another such example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.
.....
The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact."

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have HIV - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
.......
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America.



Previously discussed in this thread

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28428

[thaiboxerken]

Most of the big advances in food production in the last 30-40 years - the kind on the scale that let, say, India become self-sufficient in food - have been done with good selective breeding and lots of fertiliser, rather than genetic engineering of the "Monsanto" variety. That's not to side with the "GM food is bad" lobby - I'm sure GM has another level of productivity to contribute - it's just that I don't think GM has had the big, worldwide, numerical impact yet.

Penn and Teller did a documentary about GE foods and a man responsible for feeding BILLIONS of people. Maybe their facts are wrong, but I doubt it. Still, the selective breeding and fertiliser are results of science and still supports my point.


"Natural" is good...

"Natural" has just become another marketing tool aimed at hippies and the ignorant. It is a word that is being used to spread ignorant and woo-wooism with things such as homeopathy and naturopathy. Too often I hear people say "it must be good for you because it's natural". I guess people don't realize that many poisons are natural as well. I think we are getting way off topic.

[thaiboxerken]

Untestable. You would have to figure out some way of eliminating religion and then determining if the same people who have done this work under religious auspices would contnue to do so under secular.

You are correct, I think that we do need to eliminate religion. Well, education is helping, maybe in time religion will completely diminish.

Would the Nuns who become nurses become nurses anyway if they were not Nuns?

Probably just nurses.

I don't know and I don't know how anyone could know.

We might not be able to determine specifics, but generally, it is logical to assume that people will still be kind to each other without religions. This is evidenced by the fact that there are many atheists that are kind.


Now, how has religious METHOD helped to feed starving people and help cure AIDS. All you've demonstrated is that religion is a motivator and motivation is not the topic.

Is there another method as reliable as science at discovering knowledge and new truths of the universe?

[SteveGrenard]

TBK: Your argument completely ignores the point and the meaning. I am sure that you understood that I meant that secular organizations don't discriminate against people simply because of religion.


LOL. That's why they are secular. This statement is priceless. However, you need to know that there are secular organizations, even government agencies, that discriminate because of race, religion, ethnicity, economic class, etc. but they disguise the fact they are doing this.
Is it right? No. Do they do it? Yes.

[Ratman_tf]

I note that no one has yet offered a method of attaining knowledge that has produced as much as science.

Heck, no one has offered a method of attaining knowledge besides science at all!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

LOL. That's why they are secular. This statement is priceless. However, you need to know that there are secular organizations, even government agencies, that discriminate because of race, religion, ethnicity, economic class, etc. but they disguise the fact they are doing this.
Is it right? No. Do they do it? Yes.

USA government agencies doing this? Evidence please.

[SteveGrenard]

There goes that wonderful habit posters here have. Where did I say "U.S. government agencies"? Do you accept the fact that there are government agencies which are not U.S. government agencies? State agencies? City agencies? County agencies? ... get it now?

When you correct your question, I will answer it ..... unless maybe you can now figure it out on your own.

Oh yeah, please spare us the retort that I "implied" U.S. government agencies. I did no such thing. There is just no getting around the penchant of people to mistatribute and misquote.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
ERK

I am sorry you find this depressing. I would be interested in knowing how you determine this?



All I meant is that it should be human compassion, not desire for a place in heaven (you can call that a straw man, but I'm almost sure it's true for so many people), should drive people to do good things.

Untestable. You would have to figure out some way of eliminating religion and then determining if the same people who have done this work under religious auspices would contnue to do so under secular. Would the Nuns who become nurses become nurses anyway if they were not Nuns? I don't know and I don't know how anyone could know. I suppose we could ask them although this would not rise to the level of being extremely/scientifically reliable.

Many previously benevolent people, after losing their religion, continue to be benevolent. This might suggest that they were inherently good, with or without religion. It also might suggest that religion transformed them into another person, a transformation that lingered (in a good way) after they lost their faith. I am guessing that the latter is not a likely answer.

[Paladin]

Any human agency is bound to be discriminatory to some degree. It is the nature of the human beast. The best we can do is to try to diminish the amount of discrimination. Some countries are more successful at that than others.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


"Natural" is good...

"Natural" has just become another marketing tool aimed at hippies and the ignorant. It is a word that is being used to spread ignorant and woo-wooism with things such as homeopathy and naturopathy. Too often I hear people say "it must be good for you because it's natural". I guess people don't realize that many poisons are natural as well. I think we are getting way off topic.

Furthurmore, and this should be obvious to anyone at this forum, that certain products are 'natual' suggests that evil products are 'supernatural'. Of course, that's not what they mean; obviously, they intend the opposite of 'natural' to be 'artificial' or 'manmade'. But, of course, all 'artificial' things are composed of natural materials. So, how exactly do these people draw the line between natural and artificial?

[thaiboxerken]

There goes that wonderful habit posters here have. Where did I say "U.S. government agencies"? Do you accept the fact that there are government agencies which are not U.S. government agencies? State agencies? City agencies? County agencies? ... get it now?

You've baited me good with your government agency comment. I will admit that there are many governments that are corrupt and do discriminate. I will also add that many of these governments that discriminate are theocracies.


When you correct your question, I will answer it ..... unless maybe you can now figure it out on your own.

Eat crap, pig boy. I will not allow you to be condescending towards me without retribution.

Oh yeah, please spare us the retort that I "implied" U.S. government agencies. I did no such thing. There is just no getting around the penchant of people to mistatribute and misquote.

It's reasonable to assume that you were talking about US government agencies because everyone knows that there are corrupt governments in the world. Your dishonesty is noted.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

This practice is not uncommon with the missionaries who distribute supplies and aid to Africans.



You seem to know a lot about the practices of missionaries in Africa. Where did you learn?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Heck, no one has offered a method of attaining knowledge besides science at all!
Introspection and meditation are useless?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk

Introspection and meditation are useless?

Neither are objective methods for gaining knowledge and discovering new truths of the universe.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Neither are objective methods for gaining knowledge and discovering new truths of the universe.

Interesting assertion; you believe it I guess. ;)

I doubt we could even agree on a definition of "objective", let alone "truth". :(

[Jeff Corey]

The closest we can approach "objective: is "intersubjectivity", a term Cantor used to describe the process whereby independent observers agree about the occurence or nonocurrence of some event or agree about a measurement taken in studying some phenomenon.
In practice, it boils down to that. That's why we calibrate our measuring devices and do not trust anecdotal evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

Interesting assertion; you believe it I guess.

No, it's a fact. Meditation and introspection are influenced by a person's experiences, emotions and outside influences. It cannot be considered objective because of this.

I doubt we could even agree on a definition of "objective", let alone "truth".

Probably because you are stupid. The definition of "objective" in this context is as thus "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices".

Truth is that which exists, irregardles of the subjectivity of the person observing.

Now, go play with the other geeky kids that believe there is no spoon.

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I note that no one has yet offered a method of attaining knowledge that has produced as much as science.

Heck, no one has offered a method of attaining knowledge besides science at all!

Quite right. Science is a way of thought that produces objective knowledge. It can be applied on everything, it can be applied to gather subjective opinions so you get an accurate figure on how many believes in telepathy. It can be applied to determine if a claim of telepathy is accurate. You can sit in your room and by scientific means test your friend if he's telepathic. The scientific method is the only way to overcome human tendencies to lie to themselves on all aspects. The human preference to oversimplify everything down to a simple and easy to grasp connection can be overcome, there is a drought and you don't know why, that woman is acting a bit strange, she must be a witch, if we burn her the drought will end. Sounds strange to you? Well thats because school has tought you how rain works. If you didn't know that YOU would be one of those in the mob.

[Giambattista]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Your argument completely ignores the point and the meaning. I am sure that you understood that I meant that secular organizations don't discriminate against people simply because of religion.

You're sure I understood? Are you psychic? Am I? I had no idea what you 'meant', I was responding to what you said. You claim you were being ambiguous, but you're also pretending I should've been able to comprehend the incomprehensible. And that's rather disingenuous. If you want people to understand you, state your position clearly and have the fortitude to admit making mistakes which lead to miscommunication. It was a simple mistake of omission, it's not the end of your world and your ego won't disintigrate if you acknowledge it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The closest we can approach "objective: is "intersubjectivity",

Good idea. Let's define "subjective" to mean "objective". *I* have 1 objective data point, which I suspect is the same number *you* have. ;)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by hammegk


Good idea. Let's define "subjective" to mean "objective". *I* have 1 objective data point, which I suspect is the same number *you* have. ;)
No, you missed the point.
Now please go and sit in the corner with Insipid Ian.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by hammegk

Introspection and meditation are useless? Prior to about 100 years ago, introspection was the methodology of choice in both major schools of psychology (structuralism and functionalism). With such a strong foothold, one might assume that if introspection was a useful tool, we would be reaping the benefits of 100 years of introspective research today. Of course, introspection was abandoned because it is essentially useless. Your problems with intersubjective agreement have been done to death on other threads, so I won't address those here. My point is merely that we tried introspection and it was found wanting. Unless you twist the definition of introspection (which has been done on other threads), then, yes, I would go so far as to call it useless.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

No, you missed the point.
Now please go and sit in the corner with Insipid Ian.

There was no point, other than to note, again, that materialists & immaterialists have a basic disagreement.

Is Ian in the corner? I doubt it.

[Jeff Corey]

"How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?"
FST
"If it isn't matter, pay it no mind."
Fred Skinner

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by hammegk

Introspection and meditation are useless?

EXCELLENT! Someone has actually stepped up to the plate and offered something! Kudos.

Introspection and meditation may give insight into your personal mental and emotional condition and the conditions of others.

Science gives us knowledge of the natural world and how it works. Directly.

Introspection and meditation are useful, but not for the kind of knowledge I'm speaking of. The practical and tangible results of science.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Giambattista


You're sure I understood? Are you psychic? Am I? I had no idea what you 'meant',.. It was a simple mistake of omission, it's not the end of your world and your ego won't disintigrate if you acknowledge it.

I doubt that you are being honest now. You are taking a simple statement and twisting it to the extreme in order to make yourself feel intelligent. When people are talking about discrimination, they usually aren't talking about the accepted discrimination.. like not giving charity money to the wealthy. If you want to play the semantic game, go ahead, but don't expect me to play along with you.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk


There was no point, other than to note, again, that materialists & immaterialists have a basic disagreement.

Is Ian in the corner? I doubt it.

The disagreement comes because immaterialists insist that the world is how they wish it to be, not how it really is. Immaterialists have no evidence to support their position, and therefore, their position and opinions are worthless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:Introspection and meditation are useless?
Say it ain't so! I've spent over 1,000 hours meditating. Ask me anything.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hammegk said:
Say it ain't so! I've spent over 1,000 hours meditating. Ask me anything.

~~ Paul

Sure. Do you believe meditation is useless? :)

How many hours did it take to reach that conclusion (if that is the conclusion you reached)?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


There was no point, other than to note, again, that materialists & immaterialists have a basic disagreement.


:nope:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The closest we can approach "objective: is "intersubjectivity", a term Cantor used to describe the process whereby independent observers agree about the occurence or nonocurrence of some event or agree about a measurement taken in studying some phenomenon.
In practice, it boils down to that. That's why we calibrate our measuring devices and do not trust anecdotal evidence.

OK, now let's look intersubjectively at J. Corey's consciousness, and see if Jeff agrees with the completeness & preciseness of our analysis. :D

How should we attempt the calibration of our measuring devices with the one he uses?

See what II keeps insisting cannot be achieved by the scientific method re "consciousness"?

[Jeff Corey]

The query had nothing to do with measuring consciousness. Level of activity, ease of alerting someone are probably not what you are referring to here. You mean that little vid that keeps running in your head somewhere. Even works when you are sleeping.
Two people could agree on a color, given the appropriate sensory apparatus and independent observations, control for sensory leakage, nose peeks, mopery, and experimenter bias.
Intersubjectivity is the closest we can be to "objective", the word under discussion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Intersubjectivity is the closest we can be to "objective", the word under discussion.

Actually, the point is "What does the (subjective) scientific method bring to the table, and when should it bring it?".

Do you contend you do not enjoy one single, objective, data point -- that being *you* think?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Do you contend you do not enjoy one single, objective, data point -- that being *you* think?
No, that could be an illusion of an insane solipcist.

Once we dismiss the idea of insane solipcism, we have to allow for intersubjective experimentation, which rather strongly suggest (and I put that very mildly) a consistant external reality.

Next, please, because when you drop it, it still hits your toe :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj

No, that could be an illusion of an insane solipcist.



Or even a sane one? ;) Do you have a better solution to the problem of solipsism than gentlemens' agreement? I.E. *I* think, and agree *you* do too?

Assuming materialism true, then proving it true doesn't count. Can you logically explain why solipsism cannot be true?

[thaiboxerken]

Can you logically explain why solipsism cannot be true?

Solipsism is the belief that, because we can only verify our own experiences and no-one elses, only the self is real.

That means that everything and everyone around you is formed of your imagination.

An imagined thing can be controlled by will.

You can't control me by will.

Therefore, solipsism isn't true.


For more detailed responses to why Solipsism isn't true
http://www.vexen.co.uk/3/solipsism.html

Solipsism has no evidence associated with it and it doesn't work to produce any knowledge.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/solipsism.html

More refutals of solipsism.

[hammegk]

And for all I know you find one of them logically coherent. I don't. And did I suggest I am the solipsist? No.

Your example of "will" & control is as silly as it gets.


Rebut this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11791b.htm
Pragmatism is the most recent form of Empiricism, and as such belongs to the first form of Phenomenalism noticed above; but its psychologic attitude, and the subjectivist developments it displays, make it perhaps more fitting to mentions it here. For the system as a whole the truth of reality rests upon the subjective feeling of certainty (see Epistemology). The answers given as to why this should be are because of (1) an a priori constitution of mind, of transcendental order and for all individuals; (2) utility, coherence, or vital experience (James, Leroy, Schiller); or (3) an act of the will (Ribot). The first two accounts of the psychological fact of certainty insensibly give place to the third, which is the last word of psychological Subjectivism, except one: and that one is the theory of Solipsism. It will be observed that this line of development is one of an elaboration of a voluntaristic form of Phenomenalism. Where Schiller (Studies in Humanism) writes that the basis of fact accepted by Pragmatism depends upon its "acceptance"; "that it (acceptance) is fatal to the chimera of a 'fact' for us existing quite independently of our 'will'", and James (Pragmatism) "Why may they (our acts) not be the actual . . . growing-places . . . of the world — why not be the workshop of being where we catch fact in the making, so that nowhere may the world grow any other kind of way than this?" Solipsism goes but one step further in declaring that there is no absolute Ego nor absolute non-Ego. There is no more than the individual consciousness (cf. von Schubert Soldern). Admitting the principles, an escape from such a conclusion is difficult. The pure experience of Avenarius, the reine Erfahrung for you and for me, is theoretic and inevident. Indeed Humanism itself, as advanced by Schiller, seems to be but a kind of Solipsism. The data of thought are immanent, and we only organized them; but Schiller gives no indication of their origin; indeed he says it is absurd to ask whence the given of thought derives. The whole modern school of Immanence (q.v.) belongs to the development of this form of Phenomenalism.



Catholics have had their fair share of deep thinkers, although adherence to the scientific method is not one of their strong points.

[thaiboxerken]

Your example of "will" & control is as silly as it gets.

Why?

Rebut this:

No.

You have steered the discussion way off course and I refuse to follow you.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You have steered the discussion way off course and I refuse to follow you.

Yeah, I agree you wouldn't be able to follow. Refusal is your best course by far.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, I agree you wouldn't be able to follow. Refusal is your best course by far.

An assumption on your part. I just hate philosophical arguments because philosophy is worthless to me.

[Ratman_tf]

So! Has introspection and/or meditation told us the distances to the stars? The reason that penicillin helps to cure infection? Put any people in the air? Put any people on the moon? Created any devices? Explained why volcanos erupt? Discovered how organisms pass on traits to their descendants? Found out if the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa?

Science is the final arbiter of the paranormal?

I contend that philosophy isn't the final arbiter of anything. And therefore isn't a valid arbiter of the paranormal.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
So! Has introspection and/or meditation told us the distances to the stars? The reason that penicillin helps to cure infection? Put any people in the air? Put any people on the moon? Created any devices? Explained why volcanos erupt? Discovered how organisms pass on traits to their descendants? Found out if the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa?
Nope, but have you ever seen the materiality of an idea? How about an ideal? Do you also claim as part of the scientific method?



I contend that philosophy isn't the final arbiter of anything. And therefore isn't a valid arbiter of the paranormal.

I agree. It is only a starting point. :D

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by hammegk


I agree. It is only a starting point. :D

Bravo. Then we can dismiss both introspection and meditation as arbiters of the paranormal.

Anyone got any more ways of attaining knowledge?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Anyone got any more ways of attaining knowledge?

Yeah. Study real hard.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Yeah. Study real hard.

But study what? You're being less than helpful.

[gnome]

With regard to the original post--

May I offer a counter-statement...

Science is the final arbiter of the paranormal, when a paranormal claim is made to be able to produce measurable, objective results.

Paranormal claims of this sort are made all the time, are they not?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by gnome

Science is the final arbiter of the paranormal, when a paranormal claim is made to be able to produce measurable, objective results.

Paranormal claims of this sort are made all the time, are they not?
I'd agree. Can we chat about particle physics, paths, energies, single particles, measurements, and exactitude?

I do tend to believe any paranormal claims to date have been magic & trickery rather than paranormal, btw. It could be a question of intruding effects / measurements, and (lack of) statistics though.

[gnome]

Originally posted by hammegk

I'd agree. Can we chat about particle physics, paths, energies, single particles, measurements, and exactitude?

Sure? What did you want to say about them?
Also I've not encountered the term "exactitude" before.

[hammegk]

ex·ac·ti·tude ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zkt-td, -tyd)
n.
The state or quality of being exact.

One thing high energy physics lacks for every individual measurement.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


One thing high energy physics lacks for every individual measurement.

In science, there are two concepts here: precision and accuracy. But I think you are also mangling Heisenberg here. High energy physics lacks neither precision nor accuracy for every individual measurement. There are certain pairs of measurements that cannot both be simultaneously known with accuracy.

[thaiboxerken]

I think Hammegk's goal here is to tear down scientific method and try to place it at the same level as subjective methods. He wants to show that physics isn't "exact" or perfect, therefore science is not reliable. It's a set-up for an appeal to ignorance, I'm just waiting for the actual argument to come about.

[hammegk]

Just the pair of aces to answer Win's old, unanswered, question:
"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?".

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Just the pair of aces to answer Win's old, unanswered, question:
"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?".

1) It doesn't have to be.
2) The question presumes facts not in evidence.
3) The converse reduces to insane solipcism.

So, Hammegk, when you let that brick go at your nose level, has it ever fallen up? (I'm assuming you're not an Astronaut, or on a plane doing super-g manouevers.)

If we're all victims of the insane solipcist, there's no reason for it to go down.

If there's an external reality, there's every reason.

You can invent other reasons, but then Occam starts to shave you closer and closer.

And, Hammegk, what is energy? You tell me! :k:

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think Hammegk's goal here is to tear down scientific method and try to place it at the same level as subjective methods. He wants to show that physics isn't "exact" or perfect, therefore science is not reliable. It's a set-up for an appeal to ignorance, I'm just waiting for the actual argument to come about.

Physics doesn't have to be perfect though. After all science is self correcting.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Just the pair of aces to answer Win's old, unanswered, question:
"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?".

Another deflection. Have you nothing of substance to contribute to any discussion? If not, please stop derailing threads.

[hammegk]

Geez, Bill. Couldn't you at least mumble "I dunno ... emergent property maybe???"?

And jj, maybe that works for "energy" too. I wonder what it "emerges" from, don't you?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Geez, Bill. Couldn't you at least mumble "I dunno ... emergent property maybe???"?

And jj, maybe that works for "energy" too. I wonder what it "emerges" from, don't you?

The topic of this thread is "Science is the final arbiter of the paranormal?" How about we stay on track. M'kay?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheERK
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Most atheists seem to suddenly forget all the religious scientists from the past and present who have contributed much to the world. (and no, not just "in spite of" religion, but directly because of their religious leanings)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're claiming that without their religious leanings, they wouldn't have made their discoveries? Please cite some examples, and provide some evidence for this position.
[/B]

Prior to modern science (17th Century onwards) people tended to think that reality was wholly mysterious and beyond human intellect to fathom. When the ideas of the ancient Greeks came to their attention they were in awe of their outstanding intellect and didn't think they could ever match, never mind surpass their intellectual achievements. It was only the idea of the basic conceptualization of God which kickstarted the idea that he may have made the world discernible to human intellect. Without the Christian idea of God the world today is liable to have been what it was like prior to the scientific revolution, and most certainly the vast majority of us wouldn't be around.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Prior to modern science (17th Century onwards) people tended to think that reality was wholly mysterious and beyond human intellect to fathom. When the ideas of the ancient Greeks came to their attention they were in awe of their outstanding intellect and didn't think they could ever match, never mind surpass their intellectual achievements. It was only the idea of the basic conceptualization of God which kickstarted the idea that he may have made the world discernible to human intellect. Without the Christian idea of God the world today is liable to have been what it was like prior to the scientific revolution, and most certainly the vast majority of us wouldn't be around.

It was not the "basic conceptualization of God" that triggered this at all. It was specifically a refutation of church dogma and the rise of the age of enlightenment that ushered in modern science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I note that no one has yet offered a method of attaining knowledge that has produced as much as science.

Heck, no one has offered a method of attaining knowledge besides science at all!

Mystical experiences. Peak experiences etc.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Prior to modern science (17th Century onwards) people tended to think that reality was wholly mysterious and beyond human intellect to fathom. When the ideas of the ancient Greeks came to their attention they were in awe of their outstanding intellect and didn't think they could ever match, never mind surpass their intellectual achievements. It was only the idea of the basic conceptualization of God which kickstarted the idea that he may have made the world discernible to human intellect. Without the Christian idea of God the world today is liable to have been what it was like prior to the scientific revolution, and most certainly the vast majority of us wouldn't be around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It was not the "basic conceptualization of God" that triggered this at all.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It was the belief that reality was too complex to understand that was the stumbling block. We needed to believe that the world is susceptible to human intellect. The ancient Greeks made us reconsider our prior conviction that reality was too complex to understand, but it was the notion of a God creating an intelligible world which, moreover, was susceptible to human intellect which was the main impetus to the inauguration of modern science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
So! Has introspection and/or meditation told us the distances to the stars? The reason that penicillin helps to cure infection? Put any people in the air? Put any people on the moon? Created any devices? Explained why volcanos erupt? Discovered how organisms pass on traits to their descendants? Found out if the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa?



No, all that lies within the province of science. It is scientific knowledge. No-one specified we were only talking about scientific knowledge. Indeed it would be a bit circular to do so! Science is something we use by definition to gain scientific knowledge.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
And jj, maybe that works for "energy" too. I wonder what it "emerges" from, don't you?

So tell us what energy is, and maybe then we can tell you what it emerges from. (Bearing in mind that my definition of energy is undoubtedly different than yours.)

You can deny external reality all you want, but every time you do so you express a religious faith in insane solipcism.

I notice you won't touch that part.

Why?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Without the Christian idea of God the world today is liable to have been what it was like prior to the scientific revolution, and most certainly the vast majority of us wouldn't be around.

Do you tell this kind of falsehood just to wind people up?

As everyone who has read the history knows, it was when the "knowledge of god's" grip loosened that science and progress started to move again.

Without the "Christian Idea of God" something like the scientific method would have come earlier, instead of later. It was the dogmatic insistance on scriptural trVth that kept people dying from the plague for so many years, and kept them from developing cause-effect understanding.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sorry, but you're wrong. It was the belief that reality was too complex to understand that was the stumbling block.

Something that arose directly out of the Christian idea that it's all a mystery.

So spare us the misleading revisionist history, Ian, it's getting really tiresome.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sorry, but you're wrong. It was the belief that reality was too complex to understand that was the stumbling block. We needed to believe that the world is susceptible to human intellect. The ancient Greeks made us reconsider our prior conviction that reality was too complex to understand, but it was the notion of a God creating an intelligible world which, moreover, was susceptible to human intellect which was the main impetus to the inauguration of modern science.

Right. So now you only have to explain the 1700 years between Christianity and the enlightenment now. And that would be...?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Right. So now you only have to explain the 1700 years between Christianity and the enlightenment now. And that would be...?

If you want to get technical, we'll try the 1400 years between the Nicean creed and enlightenment, okay?