Science is close-minded

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Thunderbird,

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and assume that you don't have the faintest clue what indexing is, nor why it's even funnier that he even put it on an index card.


Gosh. Everyone's a critic.

[Thunderbird]

.....er ...eh....Oh now I get it....

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Everyone knows that faith in the absence of evidence is really damned stupid.

I don't know this, I only know that it isn't the scientific method.

No logical argument can prove the existence of god, none can disprove it.

Paul Dirac's religion

Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and as scientists honesty is our precise duty—we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination.... I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another...." Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks, but when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'" Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac.

Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0061316229.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I suggest it's time for everyone to grow a spine and say, "You know what? I don't really care if you're offended. It offends me how stupid you are for believing such ridiculous nonsense."

It's time to stop pussyfooting around, grow some balls, and take a stand when it comes to steering the proverbial rudder of our society's future maturation.

Imposing atheism is just as regime-like as imposing a religious faith.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not imposing anything but my own disdain for this centuries old nonsense. You are welcome to believe whatever iron age fairy tales and believe in any purple unicorns you want. However, I'm also welcome to think you're an ignorant moron who holds childish beliefs in return.


What an old thread to bump, and an old comment to respond to, Q. Trying to bait me?

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I'm not imposing anything but my own disdain for this centuries old nonsense.

Exactly what I said.

You are welcome to know that I'm not religious at all, I simply respect those that have faith and understand it being just as much of a necessity as that which we all have for many other emotions. You're also welcome to look up a bit of hermeneutics during your holiday and to note that, while it is common to take scriptures literally in some places (such as the Bible Belt), most Christians or Jews around the world do not. Wouldn't it be more constructive to encourage more schools to teach the subject? Your tit-for-tat is utterly useless, quite aside from its disparity. You are also welcome to spend your holiday attempting to find a logical and scientific conclusive argument, that I'd be unable to refute, proving that no whatsoever god exists. Let me know when you've posted it, if I'll still be online I'll be waiting for it...

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

What an old thread to bump, and an old comment to respond to, Q.

Sheeeeeesh, yo's dang' right brother! This whole thing's between 4 and 5 months old, ya can just smell the rot and the dusty mould it's covered in and choke on it! Mea maxima culpa! Since I've not been around much this summer, I've just plain missed the chance to give my own input on the topic and I should just pound salt until the next bus comes along?

You see InfiniteNow, I was looking into your behaviour, due to your recent and less recent infractions (on posts also reported by ordinary members) and I found that one example included the typical kind of futile atheist argument and I just had to reply; just couldn't help it. Your insolent rebuttal is only an extra item on the list, so don't think your holiday is due to me taking it personally; it's a consensus of mods with no objections.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Trying to bait me?

As the gasping fish yelled while flopping around in the hull of the fisherman's boat...

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I don't know this, I only know that it isn't the scientific method.

No logical argument can prove the existence of god, none can disprove it.

Paul Dirac's religion

Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0061316229.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No argument can disprove the teapot, none can prove it. The same goes for living in the matrix.
For a modern, informed, educated person, I would say it is pretty unreasonable to believe in Celestial Teapots, The One and The Matrix, or God.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Imposing atheism is just as regime-like as imposing a religious faith.

Has anyone been imposing/forcing anything here? I believe Inow is advocating a position of Conversational Intolerance. I have never seen Inow make a post about imposing on or forcing anyone to be atheist, although I have seen more than one regular poster here accuse him of doing so.

I would also like to point out(as S. Harris has) that we do not have to force anyone to not believe that Elvis marauds the aisles at Wal-Mart to keep people who believe this form occupying our board rooms, or the oval office. Anyone who professes a belief in Elvis is immediately marked as unqualified for such positions. No forcing/imposing of Elvis-atheism necessary.
I think everyone should be treated with courtesy, but the beliefs of others should only be respected when they make sense.

[modest]

I think, Galapagos, the point is...

We would not tolerate some member of Jehovah's Witness or Scientology attacking people of differing philosophical opinions saying they are "ignorant morons" or the like. Common etiquette tells us this is inappropriate and it's against the rules in any case. The situation is made all the worse when neither position can be proven.

I just got done telling someone in another thread (who was claiming of all things that science is close-minded) that science takes no position on unprovable metaphysical things like God. Meanwhile, what has been advocated in this thread is the outright attack of those with such a philosophy. That is neither appropriate for the forum nor is it a method of science. I don't see how the teapot changes that.

~modest

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by modest

I think, Galapagos, the point is...

We would not tolerate some member of Jehovah's Witness or Scientology attacking people of differing philosophical opinions saying they are "ignorant morons" or the like. Common etiquette tells us this is inappropriate and it's against the rules in any case. The situation is made all the worse when neither position can be proven.

I just got done telling someone in another thread (who was claiming of all things that science is close-minded) that science takes no position on unprovable metaphysical things like God. Meanwhile, what has been advocated in this thread is the outright attack of those with such a philosophy. That is neither appropriate for the forum nor is it a method of science.

~modest

Ah, I agree that name calling is discourteous and unhelpful. I was pointing out that respecting the beliefs if they are not of merit is not necessary, and a separate issue from treating people with courtesy.
Regarding the teapot, I just think evidence should scale with claims, or they should be dismissed. No one can disprove or prove the existence of Celestial Teapots either, but I think we can be as certain as we can about anything that the teapot isn't there.

[Qfwfq]

In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method. The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?

Originally Posted by Galapagos

I was pointing out that respecting the beliefs if they are not of merit is not necessary, and a separate issue from treating people with courtesy.

You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Regarding the teapot, I just think evidence should scale with claims, or they should be dismissed. No one can disprove or prove the existence of Celestial Teapots either, but I think we can be as certain as we can about anything that the teapot isn't there.

Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.

I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.

Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method. The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?

You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here.

Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.

I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.

Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.

Sadly it is not a live and let live situation, it's much more a live and stomp out the competition situation. Religions attacks on science have become more and more numerous, more organized, and more and more nasty. I have no respect what so ever for anyone who uses his or her belief in religion to attack science. Religion doesn't allow religion to live and let live. Each and every religion, often down to the level of individual churches in the same neighborhood detest each other take every opportunity to discredit each other. Science and rational thought is the biggest threat to religion and if nearly all religions, denominations and sects can agree on on thing it's that science is the threat to be feared, ridiculed, smeared, and attacked directly at every chance. Every time we allow these people to attack science by insinuating that religion is superior to science and we do not respond vigorously we loose. No, all religious sects do not feel this way but the lions share do and the rest do not have any love for science for the most part. It's up the the rational to defend science at every turn, to do less is to allow the light of reason and knowledge to slide into darkness