Brethren, unite against the thought police

  • Thread starter Alan1000
  • Start date
In summary, a debate between two individuals in a pub about belief in a god and the existence of a universe led to one person admitting their lack of proof for a god but arguing that both their belief in a god and the other person's belief in a universe were equally valid. The conversation was ruled out of court by moderators due to the philosophical nature of the discussion. The point was made that both religious and scientific beliefs can be considered twaddle if they are based on uncertain or imperfect evidence, but the comparison between the two is not accurate. The forum does not allow for discussions about religion.
  • #1
Alan1000
25
0
I've been debating (In a pub, where all of life's problems are solved) with a friend of mine, who's planning on becoming a priest after he finishes university, on his justification for believing in a god. He admitted that he had no proof for the existence of a god that isn't anecdotal, but that since we can't know anything absolutely for certain other than that thoughts exist, my belief in the existence of a universe is just as unfounded as his belief in a god, that they were both equally valid theories.

I'm a mere Mathematics student, so I'm not that well versed in philosophical arguments and I was unable to counter him, but something about his point dosn't sit right with me. I was wondering if any of you had counter arguments, or wether his point was valid.


Why was this thread ruled out of court? The protagonists are intelligent, well-educated, and philosophically unsophisticated; precisely the kind of context which ought to interest us most. This is a philosophical issue par excellence. The question raised is fundamental and important. Perhaps the moderators momentarily lost sight of the fact that "everything we think we know about the Universe is only an approximation" (Feynman). Perhaps they lost sight of the fact that we continue to use the theories of Newton and Einstein, not because they are correct - they aren't - but just because they work better than anything else anybody can come up with for the moment..

Religious twaddle is twaddle because it posits certain knowledge without scientific basis. Scientific twaddle is no less twaddle because it posits tentative knowledge on the basis of imperfect evidence. Given another century, we may learn to sneer at relativity theory, in the same way that we sneer at Aether theory today.

And I might add, when I was a graduate student, most of our best tutorials took place in the pub after the 'official' tutorial was finished...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Arguing with religious people is utterly pointless and is not encouraged on this site.

I take serious issue with your statement

Religious twaddle is twaddle because it posits certain knowledge without scientific basis. Scientific twaddle is no less twaddle because it posits tentative knowledge on the basis of imperfect evidence. Given another century, we may learn to sneer at relativity theory, in the same way that we sneer at Aether theory today.

I think a more reasonable comparison would be between Newton's "law" of gravity and General Relativity. No serious scientist sneers at Newton even though Einstein showed that his "law" of gravity is only applicable in limited circumstances.

Thus, I believe that your comparison of religion and science is specious.
 
  • #3
Religious threads are not allowed in this forum.
 

Related to Brethren, unite against the thought police

1. What is the meaning behind "Brethren, unite against the thought police"?

The phrase "Brethren, unite against the thought police" is a call to action against censorship and thought control. It encourages individuals to come together and resist any attempt to limit or control their thoughts and beliefs.

2. Who is considered the "thought police" in this context?

The "thought police" refers to any entity or organization that seeks to control or suppress individual thoughts and opinions. This can include governments, media outlets, or societal norms and expectations.

3. Why is it important to unite against the thought police?

Uniting against the thought police is crucial because it protects individual freedom of thought and expression. Without the ability to think and speak freely, individuals risk being controlled and manipulated by those in power.

4. How can individuals unite against the thought police?

There are many ways to unite against the thought police, including speaking out against censorship, supporting organizations that defend freedom of speech, and actively challenging oppressive systems and ideologies.

5. Are there any potential consequences for standing up against the thought police?

Yes, there can be consequences for standing up against the thought police, such as backlash, censorship, or even punishment. However, the risks are worth it in order to protect individual freedom and uphold democratic principles.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
979
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
719
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top