What Should Be Discussed on These Forums?

[pocebokli]

what IS allowed to be discussed on these forums?;P

I mean as persons with scientific view on world and universe...arent you ashamed or don't you feel there's something wrong with this picture?

Is it not better to discuss and try to understand things, even if they are bad or illegal?

Isnt it better to try to explain to your kids about drugs rather than slam the door and yell at them never to mention them again since "drugs r bad, mkay?"

Is it not better to try approach problems and questions with an open and critical mind?

Is it not better, even if the post is full of religious vigor, to allow for viewers to read it and then ponder on the strenght of faith?

With all due respect, science, as far as a non-scientist such as myself understands it, is about being open, keeping a clear and critical mind.

Let people learn and experience, don't presume that your hoarde of scientific termines and titles and work experience qualifies you to dictate learning. You cant, that's not what science is about.

thank you

 

[arildno]

The mods of PF do from experience that religious threads gets flamed very quickly.
They have chosen not to have that here, and that is that, really.

Besides, religion is anti-thetical to science, however much religionists try to convince people otherwise.

 

[pocebokli]

True, been on these forums 5 years ago just popped by again and I remember from that time how flamy religious posts would get.

indeed, this should be environment of calm discussions not about convincing others that your god is right.

But instead of deleting really problematic posts or just preventing certain posters to post in certain threads if they appear to be too zealous you have chosen to entirely shut down any attempt at scientific discussion of religion (without sarcasm - this is "metaphysics section" yes?)

Same was with thread about effects of psychadelics on human brain in another section of forums. Simply got shut down? uh well what's non-scientific about inquiring about effects of psychadelic substances on human brain?

the admin who closed the thread with some really ...crude... comments would do much better job if he/she just understood that some guy is simply interested for an open debate on the field of psychadelics, and if she/he is a concerned parent she/he better get it in his head that if kids don't get anwser when they ask they'll get em on their own.

So what good was done by closing the thread?

So, i take it you are mainstream conservative scientists and there's not much that can be done here^^ oh well it's just a shame:-) i like these forums very much, and i think someone has done hell of a good job with this project and the initial idea itself.

 

[arildno]

As for any SCIENTIFIC discussion of religion, you can't have that without as your very first premise being that miracles do not happen or has ever happened, and hence, any report of such phenomena is basically lacking in truth.

I would have been glad to discuss the causes and effects of the delusions of religion, but that is considered inflammatory towards the religious segment.

 

[pocebokli]

Hmm I seriously doubt that one has to put miracles in every discussion about religion, and trust me, religious people or even theologists don't sip their coffee while talking enthusiastically how local chicken had a golden egg the last day.It is extremely hard, or better, wholely impossible to discuss religion from a pure scientific (materialistic) point of view, that's why we have philosophy and, notably, meta-physics.

But yes, i understand your point, you claim that scientific discussion of religion is only possible to the extent to which religious beliefs manifests themselves in material world (as you put it, "causes and effects of the delusions of religion").

At this point i'd like to ask you how do you feel about latests (well "latest") discoveries on field of quantum physics? I'd call them...miraculous? But then, quantum physics is an acknowladged (more or less) branch of science and while your reason might reject it's discoveries you will still try to understand them simply because it's something that can be observed (can it be?) and is considered science.on the other hand, you swiftly reject in 2 (dogmatic) sentances any connection of science and religion or possibility that science can try and understand religion or religious beliefs.

 

[pocebokli]

As far as I understand it, delusions and illusions of religion come from within human reason/brain.

As far as science goes so far that is merely a chemical process. So what is un-scientific about it?

wouldnt it be interesting to find out which chemical process causes people to "believe" or "see miracles"?

Or are such things merely an unwanted pawn on the chess board of science, with scientists eager to get rid of it so they can send their blistering queen boldly into new discoveries? weren't some checkers left undiscovered?

To what extent do you actually understand the "universalism" of science if you so hastily proclaim that it can not deal with another part of human thinking and universe?

 

[arildno]

Religious beliefs are of equal value as the conviction of a man who thinks he is Napoleon.

You can't prove that the guy claiming to be Napoleon is erroneous in his belief, can you?

 

[Evo]

Same was with thread about effects of psychadelics on human brain in another section of forums. Simply got shut down? uh well what's non-scientific about inquiring about effects of psychadelic substances on human brain?

the admin who closed the thread with some really ...crude... comments would do much better job if he/she just understood that some guy is simply interested for an open debate on the field of psychadelics,

There have been dozens of threads discussing hallucinogens, they all go absolutely nowhere and there is no scientific value in them, they end up locked. It's not a discussion on the neurological effects on the brain, but some stoner's skewed perceptions while under the influence. Sorry, there are lots of forums on the internet where people that choose to use drugs can discuss getting stoned, this is not one of them.

and if she/he is a concerned parent she/he better get it in his head that if kids don't get anwser when they ask they'll get em on their own.

I also raised two intelligent kids that never did drugs, I gave them an answer, drugs will make you feel drugged and pointed out people that did them and let them decide for themselves. Observing the lack of control and/or grasp of reality that people on drugs exhibited was enough to steer them away.

Arildno is spot on with why we do not discuss religion here.

This forum does not want to be a place to discuss everything under the sun.

 

[Hurkyl]

Besides, religion is anti-thetical to science, however much religionists try to convince people otherwise.

No it's not, no matter how much the atheists try to convince people otherwise.

 

[arildno]

Yes it is:
"I believe there is a green elephant floating about the sun, though I haven't the slightest justification for believing it. But you are obliged to regard my utterances as deep and more spiritual than your own"

Before religionists bother to reply, they might do well to read the following essay by Bertrand Russell:
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes it is:
"I believe there is a green elephant floating about the sun, though I haven't the slightest justification for believing it. But you are obliged to regard my utterances as deep and more spiritual than your own"

(1) Your post is, of course, a parody of religion, rather than an apt analogy.

(2) Religous people do have a justification for believing in it. Obviously it doesn't live up to your standards (whatever they may be); that's why it's their belief and not yours.

(3) I challenged you on the claim that religion was antithetical to science -- but you didn't even attempt to argue that for your strawman.

(4) Where did "spiritual" come from?


But I'm not just here to point out that you're making flawed assertions; I actually want to argue the opposite position. And your strawman is a sufficient example, because it isn't "antithetical" to science.


Assuming that there is a green elephant floating about the sun is not diametrically opposed to the scientific method. In fact, it's quite compatable: once we make this assumption we can turn to science to tell us what orbits it could inhabit, and by observation put bounds on how large the elephant might be.

Yes, this assumption is not a scientific hypothesis. But so what? The only thing to which it's antithetical here is your implied position that empiricism is the only road to "truth".

Something that offends me¹ both as a Christian... and as a mathematician.

If you want to take absolute empiricism as the foundation of your belief system, then fine. But don't try to impose your beliefs on everyone.


1: Okay, I admit I'm being melodramatic. I find it more amusing than offensive, at least at this point in time.

 

[arildno]

How do you know that green elephants are observable?

Or do you find it utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities?

Or is it meaningful to speak of invisible entities as long as we provide them with omnipotence?

Okay, then, my elephant is omnipotent, it then logically follows it possesses the power to hide itself from our instruments.

 

[Hurkyl]

Okay, I'll play along.

OOC: This post written as if I was a believer in a green elephant floating around the sun[/color]

How do you know that green elephants are observable?

I don't.

Or do you find it utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities?

Of course not. I should hope that you don't either! (It is safe to assume you believe in things like electrons, right?)


OOC: The following is written as if I also believe said green elephant is omnipotent[/color]

Okay, then, my elephant is omnipotent, it then logically follows it possesses the power to hide itself from our instruments.

Yes it does. So what?

 

[arildno]

The belief in the existence of electrons is validated by that the consequences of the predictions that can be made out of that hypothesis are empirically found to hold.

I am shocked that you would imply that the belief in God is of the same order as the "belief" in electrons.

edited by Evo

 

[Hurkyl]

The belief in the existence of electrons is validated by that the consequences of the predictions that can be made out of that hypothesis are empirically found to hold.

In other words, it's not utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities.

I am shocked that you would imply that the belief in God is of the same order as the "belief" in electrons.

I didn't mean to. I was just responding to your implication that it is utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities.

Besides, they are entirely different types of beliefs. We obviously have differing opinions on them, but their respective merits are not what is on trial in our discussion -- the issue is whether they are compatable, as I claim, or antithetical, as you claim.

(At least... that's the issue I was trying to discuss)

 

[arildno]

The belief in God is as intelligent as the belief in the green invisible elephant floating about the sun.

It is that simple, and Christians are entitled to as much respect for their belief in God as I am willing to respect the ideas of the green elephant believer or the guy who thinks he is Napoleon.


It has nothing whatsoever to do with the tolerance/intolerance issue, rather it has to do with that private knowledges or beliefs are just that, private. The individual having those essentially unjustified beliefs cannot go about demanding that his personal fantasies are to be accorded the same degree of respect as for example those beliefs that are founded on reason and objective evidence is accorded.

To do so (demand equal respect), is just sheer arrogance on the part of the believer, nothing else.

 

[Hurkyl]

Since I've explicitly challenged it at least two times, and you haven't attempted to present a defense, I'm going to assume that you are abandoning your assertion that religion is antithetical to science.

The fight you're trying to pick is precisely what is against forum policy. If you really want a response, you're going to have to take it to PMs.

 

[arildno]

The religious attitude is indeed wholly anti-thetical to science, since private unscrutinized fantasies are regarded of equal weight as ideas founded on reason&observation.

 

[Hurkyl]

Non sequitor. However, if you replaced "science" with "empiricism", I would agree with you.

Again, I'm not going to respond to the fight you're trying to pick: this forum is not the appropriate place for it. I know you have an axe to grind, but I had hoped you would be able to restrain yourself so that we could discuss the issue.

 

[arildno]

You are the one showing yourself unable to discuss this rationally, not me.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is nicely proving why these topics are verboten. We can't even agree to disagree that we disagree without it degenerating. And we're only on post 21.

 

[arildno]

Not really.
Again, it merely shows that those in favour of religion are unable/unwilling to come up with any solid argument as to why their belief in God should be regarded as any less silly than whatever hare-brained fantasy you might cook up.

As long as they refuse to offer such arguments, they are the ones who have shut down communication. As could be expected in the first place.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...personal fantasies ..."
"...sheer arrogance..."
"...silly..."
"...hare-brained fantasy you might cook up..."

The logical fallacy here is called "poisoning the well" - a preemptive ad hominem attack upon the opposing team (in this case, anyone with religious beliefs).

These are not the words of someone interested in open dialogue; these are communication closers. These are emotional, inflammatory words, words of someone trying to pick a fight - because they won't or can't discuss the topic rationally.

 

[arildno]

Well, religion IS a personal fantasy.

Please argue otherwise if you don't agree, the burden of evidence is on you, since a religious person is the one making staggering claims as to what exists or does not exist.

Is it really that unreasonable to demand to be shown some sort of evidence for these fantastic claims? There is nothing unobjective with that epithet, nor with any of the others.

For example, do you deny that the belief in a green elephant whizzing about the sun is just a hare-brained, silly fantasy?

As for the arrogance thing, it is indeed the height of arrogance to demand others to respect your beliefs merely because YOU believe in them.
If you cannot justify or substantiate your beliefs in any manner acceptable to the non-believer, you'll have to accept he is within HIS right to dismiss your beliefs as unfounded.

 

[Hurkyl]

Please argue otherwise if you don't agree, the burden of evidence is on you, since a religious person is the one making staggering claims as to what exists or does not exist.

Is it really that unreasonable to demand to be shown some sort of evidence for these fantastic claims? There is nothing unobjective with that epithet, nor with any of the others.

You are the only one in this thread making any claims as to what exists or does not exist. (And going off-topic to do so)

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not suggesting you don't have valid points, I'm merely pointing out that, valid or no, you are unable or unwilling to discuss them without emotion and inflammation. It seems to me you're committing the classic sin usually attributed to the opponents in this particular debate topic - those who argue from emotion.

Thus this has not been a debate at all; it has been merely a rather sedate shouting contest.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm not suggesting you don't have valid points, I'm merely pointing out that, valid or no, you are unable or unwilling to discuss them without emotion and inflammation. It seems to me you're committing the classic sin usually attributed to the opponents in this particular debate topic - those who argue from emotion.

Thus this has not been a debate at all; it has been merely a rather sedate shouting contest.

I'd have to agree with Dave and Hurkyl here, alridno.

I, myself am not religious, and I'm in fact a scientist-in-training (third year physics undergrad, but 5-7 years in college. Only declared once.)

The impression you've given me, aldirno, from your membership awards to your choice of words (as analyzed by Dave above) is that of someone who has not known anything but science his whole life.

Unfortunately for you, society doesn't function wholly on the study of science (even if society reaps the rewards and suffers the consequences) and we scientists make up a small percentage of the population.

There's a humanitarian side to this all (something that you yourself have unwillingly confessed to in your passionate rebuttals). There's conscience involved here, which is a wholly beautiful and unexplainable phenomena itself.

The belief in the existence of electrons is validated by that the consequences of the predictions that can be made out of that hypothesis are empirically found to hold.

The belief in the electron is a religion, primarily because of the word 'belief'.

As a scientist though, you well know that the electron is a current working model that helps to describe reality. It is validated and verified yes, but we don't really know what the hell it is, or the full extent of its capibilities.

Science becomes a religion when individuals ram it down people's throats, protesting that it's the only right way to think, and that any other path of life walked is silly and ridiculous. What's exceptionally ironic is that most people doing this haven't actually done all the tests themselves, and have only read and been taught this version of reality we call science.

You, my friend, sound like my mother who used to hit me on the head with the King James Holy Bible and tell me I was going to hell. The only difference is that you've got a textbook in your hand.

Religion has its place and purpose in human survival. You would do well to learn to have respect for those who give it a good name and those who highlight the parts of it that are most applicable to the human experience. Much can be learned beyond the realm of science.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Although I see the points of you folks who disagree with arlidno, I can't agree with you. I don't see the emotion in his post that the rest of you do. You want to see emotion go to a discussion by evangellists on evolution!

People have various reasons that seem good to them for adhering to a religion. But the religious POSITION, that there are supenatural forces driving the universe, is strictly speaking an irrational one. And most religions acknowledge this: they counsel the abandonment of rationality for enlightenment. This is not just an assertion from a scientific point; most philosophers since Kant have believed and taught that religion is irrational.

Irrational is not necessarily "crazy" you know; much much of our lives is and probably must be irrational. But irrational has no place in science or really in philosophy.

 

[arildno]

The utterly strange thing about this is that otherwise rational persons totally abandon their usual principles of critical thinking whenever the theme is religion.

1. For example, consider that one day, a co-employee storms into his boss's office saying "Everyone out of the building! I feel it in my heart there is a bomb here somewhere!"
When asked for why he believes that, he merely replies "I don't know it, I just feel it so strongly! The very least you can do is to respect my belief and let me go and save myself, even though the rest of you choose to perish".

In this case, the rational response is to call a nearby psychiatric ward.

If the employee had been able to come up with SOME evidence for his claim, for example that there was a piece of unattended luggage standing in the hallway, then his outburst IS worthy of some respect, and he cannot be dismissed as mere lunatic.


2. A second example:
Now, I happen to believe (without any solid justification!) that the universe/space/time etc. are essentially discrete phenomena.
On basis of that, I have a lingering suspicion that world modellings might more properly be handled using difference equations, rather than differential equations. Furthermore, since it is well known that solutions of difference equations can be strikingly different from the solutions of similar-looking differential equations, it might well be that one day, one comes up in precisely those types of troubles in our world-modelling, that a differential equation approach simply fails.

Now, as I stated, I know that I personally have no solid evidence upon which I believe this.
However, I am not going to be affronted in the slightest if somebody else dismisses my idea as silly, primitive etc.
They are perfectly within their intellectual rights to do so, PRECISELY BECAUSE I CANNOT JUSTIFY WHAT I BELIEVE.
My belief simply resonates with something in my being as "true", that's all there is to it, really.

 

[octelcogopod]

I concur with arildno, but what I don't agree with is this:

It is that simple, and Christians are entitled to as much respect for their belief in God as I am willing to respect the ideas of the green elephant believer or the guy who thinks he is Napoleon.

While you may not agree with or even like christians, I think all people deserve respect for whatever they believe in.
While christianity has brought a lot of ignorance and quite direct pain to people, nowadays if people are open minded (christians usually aren't) then I don't think it's wrong to believe in God and what have you.

You are quite right about this though:

Now, as I stated, I know that I personally have no solid evidence upon which I believe this.
However, I am not going to be affronted in the slightest if somebody else dismisses my idea as silly, primitive etc.
They are perfectly within their intellectual rights to do so, PRECISELY BECAUSE I CANNOT JUSTIFY WHAT I BELIEVE.
My belief simply resonates with something in my being as "true", that's all there is to it, really.

 

[Hurkyl]

But irrational has no place in science or really in philosophy.

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment. And any sort of reasoned discourse must be based upon some sort of first principles which cannot be ratonally justified.

There is nothing about the scientific method that requires it to be applied only to "rational" things, nor to be held as the pinnacle of truth.

An example of the former is training a neural net to classify things. An example of the latter is gathering empirical data to support a mathematical conjecture.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment. And any sort of reasoned discourse must be based upon some sort of first principles which cannot be ratonally justified.

There is nothing about the scientific method that requires it to be applied only to "rational" things, nor to be held as the pinnacle of truth.

An example of the former is training a neural net to classify things. An example of the latter is gathering empirical data to support a mathematical conjecture.

Every principle put forth as a part of science is subject to constant testing both for internal coherence (lack of self contradiction) and for agreement or lack thereof in regard to experiment and observation. No principle is ever more than provisionally accepted and even the most cherished of them is only as good as the latest failure to falsify it.

Show me a religion that works on that principle.

 

[Hurkyl]

Show me a religion that works on that principle.

Nobody was arguing that religion is strictly empirical, so I don't understand why you would say this.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nobody was arguing that religion is strictly empirical, so I don't understand why you would say this.

I said it to respond to this:

Science is based upon a specific irrational methodology: experiment

You can call the experimental method irrational, but I don't have to accept your terminology which I find strained. Comparison of scientific standards of acceptance of basic principles with religious ones was intendd to make that point.

 

[Hurkyl]

You can call the experimental method irrational, but I don't have to accept your terminology which I find strained.

Surely you agree that science is not pure reason? You admit it in post #32. The position that experiment is a source of knowledge is, strictly speaking, an irrational one.

Irrational is not necessarily "crazy" you know.

I had previously been avoiding the term due to its negative connotations. I had assumed that, in post #28, you established that we can safely use "irrational" in its literal sense: something not rational. Was I wrong?

Comparison of scientific standards of acceptance of basic principles with religious ones was intendd to make that point.

How, pray tell?

Science is not religion
Religion is not rational
---------------------
Science is rational

is a fallacious argument.

 

[Exitsign]

In my opinion, it isn't very nice to try and take a happy life from someone who wants to believe in their religion; by telling them otherwise. But this is a discussion forum and they should prepare themselves to hear it when they come here.
Anyways.
There IS a part of the brain that has been found to.. haha well its called The "God" Spot.
I'm not going to explain on this thread but for those who want to read,
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

 

[arildno]

"The position that experiment is a source of knowledge is, strictly speaking, an irrational one."

No, it is not, neither loosely speaking or strictly.

If you want to know what happens IF you make an experiment, an eminently rational decision is to PERFORM that very experiment.

 

[Hurkyl]

And if you're an ancient Greek seeking Apollo's guidance, an eminently rational thing to do is consult the Oracle at Delphi.

 

[arildno]

And if you're an ancient Greek seeking Apollo's guidance, an eminently rational thing to do is consult the Oracle at Delphi.

If you say so..

 

[Pythagorean]

the point is that an individual's reasoning skills has little to do with whether he's a religious or a scientist. All four cases happen. And Evangelists are religious salesmen, they're trying to be persuasive, they're not informative; There's persuasive scientists too. They get jobs in politics as 'advisors', and they're not rational, they're there to persuade the public.

I'll repeat, I'm not religious, and I'm a scientific student, and not once I have used rational thought in the light you two are putting it. For me, 'rational' means listening to my teachers and proving things with math. We build these nice little models with pictures and diagrams and use math and gemoetry and a littl ehand waving. Sometimes they're consistant with reality, sometimes they're not, so we fudge things, we make mathematicians cringe to fit our model better.

I haven't really proven a lot of this to myself in the real world with actual analytical measurements and experiments. I just kind of take the "Giants" word for it (the giants on whose shoulders I ride).

A good Religious leader does the same exact thing, but their subject is morality and personality and character and social interactin, rather than mass and length and physical interactions. A good religious leader has actually been around the block and knows that how you treat people and how you act in your society has consequences and rewards. They use their spiritual teaching practically.

This is an argument about quality really, which applies to both realms.

A religious person with crappy reasoning skills flies loose at the hinges and doesn't use any practical applicatins, they always revert to THE WORD IS ALL, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL (like... my mother for instance)

a scientist with crappy reasoning skills isn't much different. They make broad generalizations, pretty much blindly accept everything they were taught as TRUTH (i.e. they won't accept light could be both a wave and a particle, it can only be one or the other.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you say so..

I do. Why would you think otherwise? I'm going to harp on this because it's getting close to the point I was originally trying to make. (and because I think it's important on its own merit too)

For me, 'rational' means listening to my teachers and proving things with math.

That's the sort of picture I had as well -- and the reading I've done while posting this thread supports it. Reasoning is the act of producing "knowledge" through something resembling logical deduction.

In its strictest form (i.e. "pure reason"), all you have is axioms and proofs -- nothing else, not even experiment or religion, is a source of knowledge. I don't think anyone participating here subscribes to such a strict form of rationalism, which is one reason why I find the responses I've seen somewhat perplexing.

But reason can be applied to any set of premises, whether you got them from pure reason, empirical observation, religous dogma, or anything else. And this is a point I think is too often overlooked.

Going back to my ancient Greek example, we are looking at the thought processes of someone who believes in Apollo, and believes that he speaks through Oracle at Delphi. AFAIK, nobody here agrees with those beliefs, but that is not grounds for anyone to call him irrational when he deduces that consulting the Oracle is a way in which he might get guidance from Apollo.

 

[arildno]

If you had said "logical" rather than "rational", I would certainly agree with you on all points.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you had said "logical" rather than "rational", I would certainly agree with you on all points.

So for which points do you think the distinction matters?

Do we at least agree on:

"I saw an interference pattern" is not rational. (it's raw sensory experience)

"I saw an interference pattern, so I'm more inclined to believe in QM" is rational. (a conclusion is inferred from said raw sensory experience)

 

[arildno]

The distinction comes in that, essentially, a rational approach endeavours to get TRUE premises in order to get necessarily true conclusions through logically valid arguments.

The endeavour to get those true premises is NOT part of logic. That is an alogical element of rationality.

It goes without saying then, that most often, the conclusions of a rational approach, say science, only holds provisionally, i.e, as long as we have no reason/evidence to believe that our premises are untrue.

So I agree to that "seeing an interference pattern" is not an element of logic, but it certainly should be a premise in any rational deliberation over the nature of light.

 

[Pythagorean]

The distinction comes in that, essentially, a rational approach endeavours to get TRUE premises in order to get necessarily true conclusions through logically valid arguments.

The endeavour to get those true premises is NOT part of logic. That is an alogical element of rationality.

It goes without saying then, that most often, the conclusions of a rational approach, say science, only holds provisionally, i.e, as long as we have no reason/evidence to believe that our premises are untrue.

So I agree to that "seeing an interference pattern" is not an element of logic, but it certainly should be a premise in any rational deliberation over the nature of light.

so when a taoist says "I see the the way the river flows", it is not rational. But whe says "I see the the way the river flows because I am starting to understand the teachings of yin and yang" then you certainly wouldn't argue with him...

However, in any 'rational deliberation' over the yin and yang (the ebb and flow) of the river, seeing how the river flows must be a premise.

While a taoist may not be expected to see an interference pattern, he'd probably be very willing to see it, and appreciate your interpretation of it, and perhaps even cultivate it into the way he sees the river flow.

But judging by your arguments, you wouldn't ever be willing to even try and see the river, because you don't believe in it. You have a preconcieved idea of what a river is, and if a taoist pointed it out in the room, you'd probably roll your eyes and go back to your playing with your diffracting lenses and molesting the lensmakers equation.

What about creator/god based religions? There's an obvious controversy here. Corrupt religious leaders (often political) are known to use creators/gods as devices to control people. In most of these cases, the government controls economy (unless you were a noble, you really have no idea what it was like if you live in a capitalist society): they feed the people, shelter them, give them work or a roof, and the people really have no choice but to believe in them. Devotion to the 'cause' has kept them alive. Generations later, when it's time to fight for the cause that keeps them alive, they do so unquestionably.

Does this prove religion is wrong and only causes negative impact? Does it prove there's no creator or god?

I personally believe that creationists are wrong, and the Earth is ancient. Does that mean all religions are wrong?

There's some who don't personify god. The idea could be abstract as the 'glue that holds us together' or the 'collective conscience' of humanity (or the universe).

Irrational people are just irrational, regardless of their religious or scientific background. Heck, You and me and everyone on this forum/planet/universe have probably all experienced fits of our own irrationality sometime in our lives.

I'm not saying religious texts should be in scientific journals. They're not the same! But the stuborness and genius of people transcends both fields.

(OMG! i haven't completely looked over and edited this post, I'm about to miss my show! OMG!)

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think all these arguments to the effect that if I act based on some internal mind state that is "true for me" then I am acting rationally are silly. If I truly believe I can fly, and jump out the window of a tall building, is that rational?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think all these arguments to the effect that if I act based on some internal mind state that is "true for me" then I am acting rationally are silly. If I truly believe I can fly, and jump out the window of a tall building, is that rational?

No, because you'd be wrong. You're talking about something testable. In fact, I've never heard of someone so misled that they think they can fly, and jump to their death (it may have happened, but not often enough for me to hear about it). Why? Because that's ridiculous! Why would you even use that in an argument?

What I'm talking about is not the fact, but the analogies used to explain the fact. Anybody perceptive enough (whether scientist or religious) can see the facts and understand their impact (given proper exposure, of course). It's the unprovable arguments that I usually hear scientist and religious people bickering about.

Sure, there might be a green, invisible elephant orbitting the sun. I don't really care as long as it's not producing a direct, measureable affect. Or as long as the direct measurable effect can be explained in some other way, that's good enough too. I'm more interested in playing with the effect, while silly scientists and relgious peoples are bickering over what's really going on behind the scenes.

 

[arildno]

But, since religious views are untestable, which means that a religious deliberation cannot be combined by the most common way of ascertaining the truth of a proposition about the world, a religious deliberation can only be regarded as a rational procedure insofar as it is pointed out another, equally valid method of determining the truth of an existential proposition that IS usable in your religious reflections.

As far as I know, no such alternative truth-ascertaining method has ever been pointed out by believers in religion or those trying to defend religion as something rational.

By all means, try to do so.

 

[arildno]

You have a preconcieved idea of what a river is,

No, I don't. I have a post-conceived idea, based on the rivers I have seen.Give me another river, and my idea of it might change.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, because you'd be wrong. You're talking about something testable. In fact, I've never heard of someone so misled that they think they can fly, and jump to their death (it may have happened, but not often enough for me to hear about it). Why? Because that's ridiculous! Why would you even use that in an argument?

Who cares if you have heard of it or believe it? It's a case of acting on a belief, just like that Greek who believed in oracles and went to one. Lots of people believe nut things and act on them to their own damage; consider fad diets. For that matter the ancient Greek opinion on oracles was that you could never trust them. They would tell you the truth about the future, but in so gnomic or disguised form that you were (in all the stories) sure to misunderstand.

If you say it's OK to believe in things that aren't testable, i.e. things that have no observable consequences, then in my opinion you're talking about an epiphenomenon. And epiphenomena aren't worth debating.