h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Noggin,

I don't see how we can 'test' our senses, as to do so would be to use our senses to see if our senses work. Like asking someone who was either lying or telling the truth if they would give an honest answer to the question. Regardless of the answer, we have no better knowledge of whether they are lying or not. Therefore, uncertainty.

blub-blub

proof that god ( whatever form it takes ) DOES NOT exist lay in the dead corpses siain in its name.

Does that mean that the proof science is not true lay in the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

blub-blub

Yours isn't an argument against the existence of a god, but what people do *in the name of* god

excuse my thickness but could you please restate your question ?

Certainley, bad things are done in the name of god. This is due to misinterpretation. Just because bad people use a god as an excuse to do bad things, even if a god is directly responsible, it dosn't disprove its existence.

Just like just because people use science to do bad things (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) it dosn't mean it's not true.

blub-blub

Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Add religion and good people do evil things in the name of religion

>> >> "People don't 'observe miracles', they observe *events* and then interpret those events"

>>"And this is different to science how? The only difference is the theories used to explain these events."

I disagree - it's different because a believer in miracles can't make a single prediction about future miracles beyond "I'll be able to see a miracle in almost any disaster".
If all science did was give convoluted post-hoc explanations of past events, you *could* compare it with religion. However, science can make worthwhile predictions of future happenings based on simple and compact explanations of how the world works.

>>"Because scientists are always open-minded right?"

Being open-minded isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about people with explanations so flexible that they could be applied to *any* conceivable result not being equivalent to scientists. Which they aren't

>>"Most scientists wouldn't dismiss non-scientific theories out-right would they? of course not!"

If you could you describe a 'non-scientific theory', and why a scientist should take it seriously, maybe I could try and give you my answer to go along with your own, unless your question was purely rhetorical?

>>"How do we get ALL of our information of the outside world?
Through our senses. Do our senses work to "a fair degree of accuracy"? No."

Well, I guess I'd have to disagree with you there. My senses give me a great deal of information about the world which is actually pretty accurate in the light of future revelations - in combination with my mental model of the world, my eyes can give me a very good idea of the likely mass/texture/material constituents of an object before I touch it, I can run over undulating muddy ground and have my feet hit the ground at the time they expect to with little sliding, I can identify many substances from smell, I can hit objects some distance away simply by throwing something at them, I can ride a motorbike at speed on winding roads while thinking about other things, I can abseil rapidly in low light while bouncing down an undulating wall covered in sharp rock flakes, I can recognise someone at a distance simply from the way they walk.

>>"So we are aware of our senses decieving us in minor ways. Therefore it is reasonable (and probable) to assume they are decieving us in other ways we are *not* yet aware of. These desceptions would have to be more extreme than those we are aware of otherwise they wouldn't being decieving us."

Senses being imperfect isn't quite the same thing as *decieving* us, which almost implies a level of paranoia. There are
Also, we have communication with other people who also experience reality, seemingly along very similar lines to ourselves, and we can construct machines which measure and record reality on our behalf, observing on physical scales and timescales much larger and smaller than human senses are built to sense. Interaction with other people and with machines can at least help make us *more* confident that we actually do experience the world with a fair degree of accuracy, and to understand the areas where our perceptions differ, and possibly even *why* they do so.

Neither do I follow your logic of small deceptions implying larger ones - it seems like saying: "I know that someone hasn't been entirely honest, so it's probable they have lied about other things, *and* those lies must be bigger than the ones I know about, otherwise I'd already know what they were".
I rather hope you never get called upon to do jury service.

>>"We have every reason to assume we do *not* have an accurate picture of 'reality'."
But do we have any sensible reason to believe that there is *no* reality? Do you ever *act* as if you thought there was no reality?

>>"It's still a description of the argument many theists use to justify god not being imminent in the world. An argument you hoped you'd distracted my attention from (probably because you didn't actually even attempt to rebut it)by going off on some tangent about people who think they've talked to god."

I *do* so enjoy having people tell me what my intentions were. That way I get a chance to explain what I said in hopefully simpler language less open to mistaken interpretation, so here goes:
"Deity [allegedly] says 'Without faith, I am nothing, so I refuse to prove I exist'"
However, deity has some followers who claim to have actually had contact with the deity, yet still believe in that deity.
If we are to assume that not *all* the followers who claimed contact were mentally ill or decieved by some false god, then seemingly God *doesn't* mind doling out proof to some people, AND proof of a deity's existence *isn't* a deal-breaker for faith.
Possibly someone may argue that only those *already faithful* are given access to divine proof, which I guess must mean that no waverers have ever had their faith bolstered by divine contact, and no doubters ever had sudden conversions as a result of divine contact?

In any case, a great many believers seem to think there is more than adequate 'proof' of God's existence. Granted, such 'proof' may be of the circular logic form typified by the miracle-believers, but I'm not sure I've ever heard someone claim that [their percieved] proof of God's existence actually made them lose even a scrap of faith.

There may well be people who don't see 'proof' yet have a deep faith, and to whom the existence of some doubt to struggle with is actually a very important part of their spiritual life, but I don't know how many of them would give up believing if God *did* do some spectacular act of self-demonstration. I could be wrong, but I'd doubt that many would give up their faith. Maybe it's those [few?] people God doesn't want to disappoint?

>>"So, to paraphrase you, being Christian produces beneficial results for the majority of people for the majority of the time, but this dosn't make it true. Ok, I agree."

That's not paraphasing, that's distorting.
I didn't say that *I* thought that being Christian would make any particular person happy, or most people happy, I merely said that someone *could* think that they personally would be happier *if* they were a Christian whilst still not having faith in any of the divine aspects of Christianity - they could see the potential usefulness of a system while *not* subscribing to it.
Indeed, someone could consider they would be happier if they were a Christian even if that particular person knew they would *never* be able to actually believe in any elements of the faith.
The point I was making was that confidence/belief in the practical usefulness of science simply doesn't require any 'faith' in any particular part of science itself - *were* there any scientific dogma, it would be entirely unnecessary to believe any of it with religious zeal in order to consider that science itself was useful.

>>"You also say; Science *produces beneficial results for the majority of people for the majority of the time*. Ok, I agree. The only thing I'd add is that *but this dosn't make it true*."

Actually, I didn't even say that science was necessarily beneficial either (maybe that was someone else?). What I'm saying is that if it is Useful, it doesn't matter if it is True.
When it comes to science, it's also rather debatable what it means to say "it is true" - the conclusions of science are clearly only considered as provisionally true, unless/until something better comes along.
Trying to get certain 'science is faith' believers to state what about science actually needs to be believed in *with faith* in order for one to be a scientist has proved rather like pulling teeth. Via the wrong orifice.

>>"But neither am I a blind believer in science. Probably because they're so similair, I've simply learnt from the past that faith=not always a good thing, so I refuse to put complete faith in science."

Please define what you think a blind believer in science actually *believes*, and whether doubting those beliefs a little actually stops someone being a scientist, or makes them a better scientist.

There is a piece of chocalate cake revolving around the world - your mission - to disproove this statement. my forefathers from 2000 years ago said it was so. There is documentory proof of this in a book called cake which was written at the time. There have been wars fought over my existance and a lot of people have started there own faction saying that the cake was not even choc to start with- arguing that the said cake was a nasty piece of propaganda started be anti-cake fascists who should be wiped off the face of the earth !!!!!! But im probably wrong

A scientist should never FULLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY beleive anything because science in , itself , is self doubting

BigT,

Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Add science: good people do bad things, and evil people do evil things that are more evil, on a bigger scale, to more people.

Potholer,

Lets deal with religion/science first: From what you're saying I think we have similair views.
To sumarise: Science has been generally beneficial/useful up to this point, but none of it is necceserily true.

I'm afraid I didn't see (until you're last post) that you believed the second clause, it's someone who doesn't challange science (and I mean the fundamentals and method, not just detail) who I would call a 'blind believer'.

What I also say is that: Religion has been generally beneficial/useful up to this point, but none of it is necceserily true.

Now, the nature of reality

"My senses give me a great deal of information about the world which is actually pretty accurate"

You can't know how accurate you're "mental model of the world" actually is as you can't compare it with reality.

You're senses being flawed gives you misinformation. I described this as 'deception' because it causes your "mental model" to believe something that is not so. For example; you *see* lightning before you *hear* thunder, thus you're senses are telling you these two events occur at different times. How can you ever know that other such misrepresentations arn't going on?
Senses misrepresent things to us all the time.

"other people who also experience reality"

How do we know we have the same experiences as others? how do we know others experience things in the same way.

"But do we have any sensible reason to believe that there is *no* reality? Do you ever *act* as if you thought there was no reality?"

I personnally believe in Phenomenalism, so I do believe in 'reality'.
Also, is behaviourism really an accurate way of analysis?

blub-blub

>> >>"If religions are divinely inspired, why *can't* they agree on the number of deities, or much else?"

>>"To use your own words "the simple answer is that the conditions were just not right at earlier times" You confusing man's ability to understand and an omnipotent god's ability to pass on information."

So an omnipotent God (is that assuming only one?) didn't mind many people being mistaken by pantheism for countless generations?
Man couldn't understand the difference between 'one' and 'many' at the time that man started worshipping God[s]?
Are conditions *still* just not right for it to be made clear which religion (if any) has actually got the right end of the stick?

>>Religion attempts to understand life, the universe and everything.
>>Science attempts to understand life, the universe and everything.
>>Politics doesn't

Politics is a value-based subjective system which attempts to change or preserve the way society is structured, and the way people behave and interact. So (stripped of the alleged divine aspects) is religion. Not so for science.

Science attempts to describe the universe in an objective way such that even an alien lifeform (or some isolated humans) which developed science quite independently would ultimately end up coming to the same conclusions about the same phenomena, albeit with different mis-steps along the way. It is a system of thought and practice which strives to increase knowledge whilst accepting that its conclusions could and should be considered with skepticism, and that conflict of prior conclusions and evidence is a serious matter which shouldn't be dismissed lightly. In an ideal world, scientists should be happy to find odd results becuase it means there is still more work to be done, and should be skeptical of the claimed revelations of others, or arguments from tradition or authority.

Given Earth history, it is clear that even contemporaneous humans come up with seriously different religions which persist independently, or even fragment into numerous sects as politics intervenes, whereas (apart from cases of political interference), science is a largely unified system, and even though there are ranges of opinion in certain areas, over time opinions in those areas tend to converge as evidence is gathered, whilst new fields may emerge with a range of views.

Certainly, scientists can fail to live up to the ideals of science, but that doen't mean that science as it should be is any different, any more than the existence of one bad priest should affect how the message of a religion is looked at.

BigT,

You can see my views on a scientific system of falsifying theories in post 49.

Potholer
"So (stripped of the alleged divine aspects) is religion"

these 'divine aspects' deal with how and why life is as it is, was how the universe was created, and what everything actually *is*

You can't discard half of religion, and then examine it.

That's like stripping a chocolate digestive of the biscuit, looking at it and saying "LOOK, it's all chocolate"


"Science attempts to describe the universe in an objective way such that even an alien lifeform (or some isolated humans) which developed science quite independently would ultimately end up coming to the same conclusions about the same phenomena"
Ridiculous, easily disprovable, and trying to argue science is fundamentally correct despite lack of absolute proof.

blub-blub

Science is interested in the natural universe.
Religion/theology is interested in the supernatural universe.

They are both philosophies and that's where the similarities end because they deal with different aspects of thought.


The scientific experiment allows us to see past our flawed senses to percieve the underlying nature of the universe. I think faith may perform the same kind of role for religion - in developing a relationship with the supernatural (rather than the natural).


Using science to think about religion is fundamentally flawed. And vice versa.


Ste

>>"it's someone who doesn't challange science (and I mean the fundamentals and method, not just detail) who I would call a 'blind believer'."

I'd reiterate my request - please define what you think a blind believer in science actually *believes*, ie what the 'fundamentals' actually *are*.
If possible, explain how you challenge the scientific method, and what you think gain from such a challenge, since that may not be obvious to other people.

>>"What I also say is that: Religion has been generally beneficial/useful up to this point, but none of it is necceserily true."

I could say that Harry Potter has been generally beneficial up to this point, and that it isn't necessarily true, but that doesn't mean it's any more comparable to science or religion than they are to each other.

>> >>"My senses give me a great deal of information about the world which is actually pretty accurate [in the light of future revelations]"

>>"You can't know how accurate you're "mental model of the world" actually is as you can't compare it with reality."

I can at least notice that the feedback I get from the world does correlate very strongly with my expectations of it, but with discrepancies which I tend to assume are my problem. If I seem to run into what seems to be a wall, I seem to feel pain just where I would expect to, and seem to hear people sympathising in what would seem to be an appropriate manner. I am quite happy to use the general correlation of expectations and sensory experience as positive evidence for my world model being largely accurate in predictive terms.

Not being so solipsistic as to see much point denying the existence of other people, I am quite happy to consider that other people likely *do* exist, with a sensory system similar to my own, and that combining our experiences can generally enable us to improve the combined accuracy of our analysis of the external world, as well as giving insight into our possible generic or individual flaws.
Similarly, having access to devices such as cameras, video and audio recordings (and being prepared to believe that they actually exist) allows me to compare my memory of past scenes with what is largely an objective record of the actual scenes, which does give me some insight into how accurate my memory is.

>>"How do we know we have the same experiences as others? how do we know others experience things in the same way."

We talk to them?
Just because some experiences will remain unavoidably personal doesn't mean that communication can't be a means to realise that there are people out there who have a *similar enough* experience of the world to our own to be make a meeting of minds worthwhile, even through the imperfections of language.

OH WHAT A BUMMER ! NOW THAT I HAVE ALL THIS DIS - INFORMATION FROM YOU LOT MAYBE YOU WILL ABSORB THIS. WHAT IF THERE IS NO GOD ? WHAT IF THE " HOKEY-POKEY" REALLY IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT ? AND THERE IS NO JUDGEMENT DAY AND NO DAY OF RECKONING ? AND IF THERE IS A DAY OF RECKONING HOW CAN YOU BE SURE THAT YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT AISLE ?
IM NOT SAYING RELIGION IS A BAD THING BUT CAN WE PLEASE PLEASE KEEP IT IN THE CONTEXT IT WAS MEANT TO BE IN
FUN FUN FUN AND , QUITE FRANKLY , A BIT OF A LAUGH

Stop shouting, asshat

SHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHS-------sorry . forgive us our tresspassessssss

>>"these 'divine aspects' deal with how and why life is as it is, was how the universe was created, and what everything actually *is*"

How many religions have any kind of divine description of how the world *is* that is remotely non-obvious yet correct, or how the world came to be that is actually even credible?


>> >> "Science attempts to describe the universe in an objective way such that even an alien lifeform (or some isolated humans) which developed science quite independently would ultimately end up coming to the same conclusions about the same phenomena"

>>"Ridiculous, easily disprovable, and trying to argue science is fundamentally correct despite lack of absolute proof."

I guess you'll easily disprove it then (in the context you selected your quote from)?

I wasn't arguing for 'fundamental correctness', but good correspondence with reality, as was obvious from the text which followed.
Fundamentally, the point about science is that hypothetical aliens *should* come to similar conclusions at a given physical scale about the atomic nature of matter and the operations of physics and chemistry, or at least, they can't come to conclusions hugely different from ours because we're looking at the same universe, as long as physics operates the same way in the region of the universe where they live. At any particular point of time, they may have more or less advanced understanding of some particular area, but with some unavoidable common ground.

Likewise, if re-running human history with various important scientists removed, we'd likely end up covering much the same ground in the end, whether fastyer or slower, and ending up with a similar understanding of nature at the various scales.
That's why there's basically one world science, and attempts at dogmatic versions (a la Lysenkoism) will fail - reality just doesn't obey dogmas as easily as people do.

And since religions differ, if they offer various explanations of how the world *is*, which are the most (and least) accurate?

*Which* religions have stunning insights about the universe that could only be confirmed by science long after the divine revelations were written down. *They'd* sound to be the ones that people should be flocking to, *unless* our don't-want-to-be-too-obvious deity is playing a double bluff.