Measured Against Reality

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Here's a funny description of how science works compared to faith. I Laughed.

Send this post to: Digg | Reddit | Del.icio.us | Spurl | Ma.gnolia | Newsvine

posted at 2/17/2007 04:20:00 PM

6 Comments:

  • Again, you need to do more reading on the problem of induction.

    You rightly claim that science and faith are in many respects, mutually exclusive, and religious faith is irrational in many ways, but you also must know that scientific laws, predictions, and theories based on inductive reasoning (almost every single one) is irrational as well.

    Belief that the law of gravity or the law of conservation of momentum, etc, will hold true in the future is wholly irrational. More so than a simple belief in God which has the Modal Ontological Argument and Kalam Cosmological Argument to give it credence (though it does not at all prove a sectarian God as religious believers might state).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:08 PM, February 19, 2007  

  • Have you ever heard of the fine structure constant (alpha)? It's the only constant of nature that has been found to change at all, and the results are still iffy. We're pretty damn sure the rest don't change, and since the CMB matches perfectly with Inflationary Theory there's absolutely no reason to believe that Physics has been different at any point in time (or space).

    Even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that science is discovering the rules for the universe's operation here. If they are different elsewhere, then the only thing that could ever figure that out would be scientific method, and there's absolutely no reason to suspect that it is.

    Stop wasting your time with dumb philosophical "problems", as they're meaningless to me. And if you think that the ontological argument gives credence to a belief in god, then I seriously pity you.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 1:15 PM, February 19, 2007  

  • Ignorance is bliss.

    You are using induction to support your belief in induction, how quaint.

    Just because so far, nature has remained constant, it follows that it will remain constant?

    How does that follow logically?

    Just because I see the sun rise everyday of my life, I can rationally assume that it will rise again tomorrow?

    Preposterous.

    I liken your reasoning to the guy who says:

    "I believe in God because the Bible says so, and I believe in the Bible because God says so".

    But of course, you are just as ignorant as the religious fundamentalists you like to mock on your blog. Instead of rationally trying to have a discourse, you dismiss the very valid problem immediately.

    So again, once (if at all) you are ready to defend your beliefs with reason, I'll be glad to continue our discourse. If not, then continue on in irrationality. Just don't be surprised when people call you out for being a hypocrite.

    You may dismiss this as "dumb" but that just furthers your inability to respond in anyway to the argument. Enjoy your irrationality.

    At least religious fundamentalists and fideists who one debates with are somewhat tactful and not flippant like yourself (no wonder you're a Dawkins fanboy; go and read Professor Thomas Nagel's [an atheist] response to the logical poverty of The God Delusion).

    One last thing, please do show me the flaw in the Modal Ontological Argument. Logicians testify to it's validity and Philosophers affirm it's soundness, but of course, you must pity all of them.

    I don't care if you approve of this comment or not, as long as you yourself read it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:27 PM, February 19, 2007  

  • Did I ever say that it wouldn't change? I said that it never had, which is all that we can know. If they do change, we'll tackle that problem when we get to it. However, there's no good reason to believe that they will change.

    I'm not a philosopher, and I take no interest in philosophy. I don't care if something is sound or logical according to philosophers and logicians. I care about proof. If you want to debate the ontological argument go somewhere else. It's so obviously absurd that I'm not going to go into where it's flawed (try Francois Tremblay at Strong Atheism. He's actually a philosopher, and has probably written on it. Or try Debunking Christianity (link on my sidebar), they've had discussions about it. If you're Jonesing for an argument, you're going to have to look elsewhere, because I've heard it all before, it's not convincing, and I'm never going to convince you of that, so I'm not going to waste my time.

    I'm a scientist, and I care about evidence. I have yet to see any actual, physical evidence for god, and plenty to contradict the existence of any god yet posited (from Thor to Yahweh to deism).

    And finally, unless you start acting like a jackass or swearing profusely, I'll publish your comments. I just may not respond. I have some partial differential equations that are quite a bit more important.

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 2:38 PM, February 19, 2007  

  • OK, so you are a scientist. Good for you. Now, that being said, you should definitely be interested in the logicality of the inductive method (which the scientific method is built on) and the validity of the scientific theories you espouse.

    Is is wrong to examine the rationality of scientific claims, as the rationality of religious claims are examined?

    You don't have to be a philosopher or logician to want to see if your positions are rational.

    Frankly, I can't see any rational reason to hold that many scientific laws will hold true in the future.

    You said that there is no good reason to believe it will change. You are correct so far. The crux of the issue, however is what good reason do we have to believe it will remain the same? None. The problem of induction relies on a skeptical stance rather than arguing a side. It does not argue one way or the other, it argues that we have no reason to believe either way.

    As for the Modal Ontological Argument, I will visit these websites you referenced. I will reply with some cut and past of contemporary philosopher responses to what I am already anticipating to be the same tired old objections...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:04 PM, February 19, 2007  

  • Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy I discovered your website. However, I would like to see more details about this topic. I'm going to keep coming back here.

    By Anonymous Health Nwes, at 5:42 AM, February 01, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home