The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by MrCode Humans are physical entities just like everything else in the universe and are thus subject to the same laws that govern them. How does that not suggest predetermination?

But there's a lot more to being human than that. How can physics explain creativity and emotions, for instance? Human beings are not machines or dead matter (although in some cases, that's debatable).

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H My theory is complete,

IT is not. Currently you have this: "universe is somehow infinite, somehow existed forever, which somehow haven't caused all radioactive elements to decay and all stars to burn out. And energy is somehow recycled using blackholes". There are way too many "somehows", and you refuse to support your theory with anything. Another problem that if the universe was created it doesn't mean it was created by a "god". A link I provided to you previously explains a way to launch a big bang and make an extra universe. It will require an insane amount of resources and time, but doesn't require a god. You're free to check whether what this guy says is correct or not. You'll need a scientific forum for that, though.

Originally Posted by MrCode So…butterfly effect? Great, so effectively everything is predetermined. No action you do could have been done otherwise.

Butterfly effect doesn't mean predetermination. Small event can launch a chain of other events, but it doesn't mean you can predict what will happen. Wikipedia had an "clockwork universe" article. An "opposition" part of that article includes free will and quantum physics (randomness).

Originally Posted by MrCode This is the main beef I have with the strictly scientific worldview.

This "main beef" happens strictly within your head - you want to see predetermination in order to hate it. If randomness is ingrained into universe, then you'll have butterfly effect AND everything will not be predetermined.

Originally Posted by MensaWater My problem with religion has always been the one you claim for science. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being then it means everything we do is predetermined by him. Religious folks often say "it was part of HIS plan" when they can't explain things.

I'd advise to play Sims or SimCity one day. That will you give a good idea what kind of "plan" deity (if there is one) may have.

I made some kind of thread like this before. I should've added a poll. That was a nice touch.

Originally Posted by brianL But there's a lot more to being human than that. How can physics explain creativity and emotions, for instance? Human beings are not machines or dead matter (although in some cases, that's debatable).

This is an argument from ignorance. We don't know much about the very very complex nature of emotions and creativity, therefore the scientific worldview is wrong. All this says is that our knowledge is incomplete. The scientific worldview is accepting that we don't know, is being ok with not knowing, and in tackling the mysteries of the universe with a critical and open mind. Not filling the gaps in knowledge with supernatural mumbo jumbo.

I do not think that is what brianL meant.

Besides, your own argument could be qualified as an argument from ignorance. The "God of the gaps" is just a rhetorical figure, and a suspicious one at that. It presumes that "knowledge" is vaster than what it is today and that, therefore, anything beyond current knowledge is just a gap that will be filled in time. But how do we know something we do not know anything about (yet)? That is where the argument from ignorance steps in: "we do not know that it is any different, therefore it must be true". At best, the "God of the gaps" is one of the pragmatic rules of scientific methodology, much like wearing boxing gloves is part of a boxing match. But I do not think anyone will conclude from the rules of boxing that boxing gloves must be worn at all times, inside and outside the ring.

Originally Posted by jay73 I do not think that is what brianL meant. Besides, your own argument could be qualified as an argument from ignorance. The "God of the gaps" is just a rhetorical figure, and a suspicious one at that. It presumes that "knowledge" is vaster than what it is today and that, therefore, anything beyond current knowledge is just a gap that will be filled in time.

I disagree that it presumes gaps in knowledge will be filled eventually. I don't know of anyone who claims that science can tell us everything there is to know about the universe or answer every question.

That is where the argument from ignorance steps in: "we do not know that it is any different, therefore it must be true". At best, the "God of the gaps" is one of the pragmatic rules of scientific methodology, much like wearing boxing gloves is part of a boxing match. But I do not think anyone will conclude from the rules of boxing that boxing gloves must be worn at all times, inside and outside the ring.

Straw man. The claim is, "we don't know any different, therefore the reasonable course is to provisionally accept the current state of evidence". It's well accepted that you cannot say science is "true" with philosophical certitude - scientific truths are always provisional.

All I was saying is that human beings are more complex than, to quote MrCode: "physical entities just like everything else in the universe".

Originally Posted by reed9 The scientific worldview is accepting that we don't know, is being ok with not knowing, and in tackling the mysteries of the universe with a critical and open mind.

Heheh, that's really funny. You're saying that most people believe this ? Yeah right.

Well, this thread has become uninteresting again, so I will leave it, again.

Originally Posted by MrCode I understand that this is an old post, but it seriously caught my attention (just about anything like this does these days ): So…butterfly effect? Great, so effectively everything is predetermined. No action you do could have been done otherwise. …get in a car crash? Sorry, there was nothing you could have done to prevent it at any time beforehand, it was destined to happen. …failed that test you needed to pass in high school? Sorry, it couldn't have happened otherwise, like it or not. …painting a picture that you hope will turn out nice? Sorry, it's already determined exactly what it will look like, and how people will react to it, like it or not. …nice knowing that everything you will do in your life has already effectively been decided in advance, like it or not, isn't it? This is the main beef I have with the strictly scientific worldview. It's beyond disempowering; it practically drains me of any confidence in anything. I don't understand how other people can stand it; do they just play dumb and not think about it? Do they even realize the implications? I'm amazed that this hasn't come up at all in any significant way in this recent discussion. …although now I suppose I've set off the chain reaction of responses that will probably inevitably turn this thread into a free will/determinism debate. Either that or a series of lash-backs at me for posting this in the first place, which IMO is more likely.

I don't know how you could go from "butterfly effect" to "predestination." That's quite a logical leap. I also don't know how I could possibly be accused of posting anything in defense of predestination.

There's a world of difference between the statement "A influences B" and "A causes B."

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Well, this thread has become uninteresting again, so I will leave it, again.

You'll be back.
©Arnie

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Heheh, that's really funny. You're saying that most people believe this ? Yeah right.

but that's exactly what science is all about, wanting to find out the answers. Lots of religious nuts attack science because it thinks it has all the answers, but that's not correct. Science doesn't think it has all the answers, that's why there is more and more scientific research happening year on year, continually working things out, and then finding even more new things to work out.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Heheh, that's really funny. You're saying that most people believe this ? Yeah right.

He didn't say that most people believe that. He did say that all scientists do.

Well, this thread has become uninteresting again, so I will leave it, again.

It's annoying enough when Sigterm keeps repeating that. Don't you start too.

Originally Posted by brianL All I was saying is that human beings are more complex than, to quote MrCode: "physical entities just like everything else in the universe".

I don't get what's so simple about other physical entities in the universe that human beings are obviously so much more complex.

A flock of birds flying in perfect formation seems pretty astounding, and yet the rules underlying it are quite simple. There's lots of examples of complexity arising from humble beginnings. What's the problem?

There's lots of examples of complexity arising from humble beginnings. What's the problem?

The problem, as it were, is that you can essentially then "explain away" responsibility: one's actions are explainable via simpler rules, so in effect it goes from "he did it" to "<x> caused him to do it; he could not have done otherwise, because of <x>". It's about using reductionism to dissect one's actions into logically sequential and inevitable steps.

EDIT: Goddammit I knew I would just end up posting here again.

Straw man. The claim is, "we don't know any different, therefore the reasonable course is to provisionally accept the current state of evidence".

Straw man? Your previous post did clearly presume the existence of gaps:

Not filling the gaps in knowledge with supernatural mumbo jumbo.

To qualify what is filling the gaps as "metaphysical mumbo jumbo" presumes that:
1) they are really gaps
2) they can, should and will be filled in a scientific way instead
3) only scientific knowledge is real knowledge
A lot of presuppositions there.