Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not (Redux)

[Nihilist Virus]

Change is what's apparent. You are pointing at that change and say it happens due to some unseen mechanism you call time, but you never demonstrate the time as a mechanism. You are merely pointing at the system changing and say "it's because of time". How do you know that time exits... other than outside of your axiomatic assumption that time is mechanism responsible? How do you know it's not something else causing this change...

Please be patient... I'm getting somewhere with this.

I disagree entirely with your assessment. If you're going somewhere with this, just go there. I have no response to your claim that I'm wrong because the justification for my position is so basic that I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms.

 

[devolved]

Christ, or The Most High God [exists.]

Other than that (i.e. forgetting spiritual connections, and strictly dealing on observable planes of existence) no, I cannot give an example of absolute truth. That is the point.
.

Ok, we speak different language, which would be difficult to interface when we are having this discussion... so let's just agree to disagree before we can both unpack the meaning of words that we speak

 

[devolved]

I disagree entirely with your assessment. If you're going somewhere with this, just go there. I have no response to your claim that I'm wrong because the justification for my position is so basic that I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms.

So, to sum up:

I: Can you provide me a proof for the concept of time

You: ...

... Time: the mechanism by which a system changes from one state to another.

We observe systems changing from one state to another, so the existence of time is apparent. I used common notions to reasonably demonstrate the existence of time. Now, what was the point of that?

I: But you are observing change and you merely defining that change as time. You are not observing time... you are observing the system changing. How do you know that it's the time that's the causal agent of that change?

You: I disagree, you are not going anywhere with this.

I: Well, your disagreement is noted, but you haven't really answered my question here. How do you know that the time is the causal mechanism of that change when you don't really observe "the time" directly? You are merely pointing me to the change of state... or watch counting the movement of its own hand. I think it should be a fairly simple question to answer given the obvious nature of it....

You don't know. You presuppose something called "time" as a mechanism for the change you observe, and axiomatically invoke it. You basically say - well, things change... therefore time . But you are not explaining the time as mechanism and as to how it causes change to happen. You don't really seem to care beyond providing some point of reference that we can build upon when we are talking about one set of changes relative to other.

Hence, when we are talking about God, I could say that God is a causal creative processes of reality, meaning the processes that have certain consistency in their attributes. And I can draw you up a very similar verbal diagram you gave me:

1) Observable Reality - Collection of consistent processes that maintain certain temporary semi-permanent state as they transition into something else (likely back into non-consistent state or reality, which is not observable).

2) God - A process that "spawns" various processes in a way that produces and maintains observable reality with distinguishable attributes that are able to assemble into functional patterns.


So, since the reality consists of functional patterns that both maintain certain permanent state, and are able to perform complex functions when assembled together, it's reasonable to assume that such creative and maintaining process exists.

That's not a precise formulation of my support for God, but I'm attempting to transfer it into a language and logic you used to describe your support for the concept of time.

 

[devolved]

My children are not "back up copies" of myself.
My children are brand new individuals, which can be traced back to me - sure. But they are not copies of me nore are they backups of me.

Also, what if I die without having children?

My point was not to reduce your or my children to a mere backup copies. My point was that we are a part of the "super-organism" which is human being.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, to sum up:

I: Can you provide me a proof for the concept of time

You: ...



I: But you are observing change and you merely defining that change as time. You are not observing time... you are observing the system changing. How do you know that it's the time that's the causal agent of that change?

You: I disagree, you are not going anywhere with this.

I: Well, your disagreement is noted, but you haven't really answered my question here. How do you know that the time is the causal mechanism of that change when you don't really observe "the time" directly? You are merely pointing me to the change of state... or watch counting the movement of its own hand. I think it should be a fairly simple question to answer given the obvious nature of it....

You don't know. You presuppose something called "time" as a mechanism for the change you observe, and axiomatically invoke it. You basically say - well, things change... therefore time . But you are not explaining the time as mechanism and as to how it causes change to happen. You don't really seem to care beyond providing some point of reference that we can build upon when we are talking about one set of changes relative to other.

Hence, when we are talking about God, I could say that God is a causal creative processes of reality, meaning the processes that have certain consistency in their attributes. And I can draw you up a very similar verbal diagram you gave me:

1) Observable Reality - Collection of consistent processes that maintain certain temporary semi-permanent state as they transition into something else (likely back into non-consistent state or reality, which is not observable).

2) God - A process that "spawns" various processes in a way that produces and maintains observable reality with distinguishable attributes that are able to assemble into functional patterns.


So, since the reality consists of functional patterns that both maintain certain permanent state, and are able to perform complex functions when assembled together, it's reasonable to assume that such creative and maintaining process exists.

That's not a precise formulation of my support for God, but I'm attempting to transfer it into a language and logic you used to describe your support for the concept of time.

I used common notions to reasonably demonstrate the existence of time. By invoking God, or some process that creates things presumably ex nihilo, you're nowhere near common notions.

 

[devolved]

I used common notions to reasonably demonstrate the existence of time. By invoking God, or some process that creates things presumably ex nihilo, you're nowhere near common notions.

I didn't really say anything about ex nihilo. You are injecting that into this conversation to beef up the difference .

To create a viable analogy ... you say "without time things would not change". I say without God, things would not have consistent attributes (based on definition of God I've provided).

Why would that be far off from "common notions" to reasonably demonstrate God in such case?

You point to a change in state, and I point to a functional permanence. So, you are pointing to some agency mechanism that's responsible for change in state, but when I point to functional permenance... you say.... no no, that stuff is a bit of an overreach. It's likely that it just happens by itself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I didn't really say anything about ex nihilo. You are injecting that into this conversation to beef up the difference .

If this was atheism vs theism, you'd have a point. But this is atheism vs Christianity, and the prevailing belief in Christianity is creatio ex nihilo. Besides, I did qualify it with "presumably."

To create a viable analogy ... you say "without time things would not change". I say without God, things would not have consistent attributes (based on definition of God I've provided).

I didn't give any analogy; I gave a direct explanation.

Why would that be far off from "common notions" to reasonably demonstrate God in such case?

You aren't demonstrating God. You're assuming God.

You point to a change in state, and I point to a functional permanence. So, you are pointing to some agency mechanism that's responsible for change in state, but when I point to functional permenance... you say.... no no, that stuff is a bit of an overreach. It's likely that it just happens by itself.

Straw man, misquoting me, completely fabricating details.

I see nothing of substance on this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point was not to reduce your or my children to a mere backup copies. My point was that we are a part of the "super-organism" which is human being.

Your point makes no sense.
A population of any given species is not some "super-organism".

 

[DogmaHunter]

P1 - All agnostics lack the belief in god(s)
P2 - All atheists lack the belief in god(s)
A - All atheists are agnostics.

P1 is false.

It's actually: "All agnostics don't know / don't claim to know if there is a god or not".

You can be an agnostic theist as well you know: not knowing if there is a god, but still believing there is one.

Something has happened here that seems wrong but is hard to nail down why.

Not hard at all. P1 is incorrect. Period.

The first two terms are equivocated

BY YOU!

P1 - All agnostics make no knowledge claims (this premise is also false but work with my assumption)
P2 - burden of proof rests on those making knowledge claims
P3 - All atheists are agnostics
A - Therefore (from 1,2,3) atheists have no burden of proof

P3 is wrong.
Not all atheists are agnostics by definition.
There can be atheists who would also make the knowledge claim that there are no gods. I personally don't know such atheists, but there is nothing about "atheism" that excludes that possibility.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For example, we have unit tests in software development. We have a function (a model), we predict the output that this model will give (expected result) based on certain input. So, if the test produces the expected result, it passes and the function is useful. BUT, there's more than one way to give you the same result, hence if you test two independent functions that produce the same exact result... it would be false to automatically assume that they are the same function.

I think this here lies at the very core of your reasoning error.

Let's consider that the piece of software is a single batch method wich does some stuff.
3 parts here are relevant:
- the functional requirements
- the actual business logic
- the unit test, to see if the business logic actually does what the functional requirements specify.

You say that the business logic is "the model". This is an incorrect analogy to scientific research.

The actual business logic (the code), is rather the equivalent of the "phenomena" that needs explaining. The model, would then be the functional requirements.

In analogy to science, what we get is just the code - the phenomena. And we need to find out how it works / what it does. So the unknown here, are the functional requirements.

So we develop a hypothesis concerning what these requirements are. We then develop unit tests to see if we get the expected result. When we don't, then we need to alter the hypothesis / model: the functional requirements. The code is what it is and does what it does.

And we could do all kinds of tests, which directly relate to the hypothesis and which would zero-in on the actual requirements. For example, suppose we suspect that the method does a division. We could then write a test which would cause the code to divide by zero and then see if we get the specific exception that is thrown when trying to divide by zero.
If that test is succesfull, then we KNOW that a division by zero has occured and that at the very least, that part of the model is actually correct.

Such an exception is ONLY thrown if division by zero occurs, after all.

See, in such an analogy, science is not the development of the software. In such analogy, the software already exists (and can't be changed) and we are trying to find out what it does.

The same is valid for any given scientific model, which don't exist in vacuum and are built on foundation of pre-existing axiomatic assumptions that feed into it. If you presume that space and matter are discrete, then of course you will arrive with atomic theory. If you don't, then you will arrive with something else.

And yet, the predictions of atomic theory check out and it allowed us to build nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations.

But the consistent output of the reality is what normalizes any given model. Models tend to conform to pre-existing data and assumptions.

And are changed accordingly when testing it and uncovering new data. And assumptions are dropped like yesterday's newspaper in case they are shown wrong through this testing.

The point being in all of this, you seem to imply that only models that are not aware of some data prior to formulation of these models matter. That's simply not the case. We can predict outcomes we already know the answer and data to.

The predictions aren't arbitrary. They are an inherent part of the model.

If you are questioning the utility of religous model, then you don't have to look far-beyond Western Civilization. I can give you a dozen of socio-political advantages that such system would present for any developing civilization.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything with arbitrary social/political structures. I could also point out that life in the west exponentially improved once we kicked the church out of government, turned to science for answers and installed secular democracy. But it would be irrelevant, because none of this matters to the points at hand.

We are talking about explaining the nature of reality and the phenomena of nature. We are not talking about how to organize a society.

Not entirely.... atomic model was not developed in a philosophical vacuum. The philosophy drives science, and not the other way around. Each successive iteration of atomic theory is based on previous axiomatic assumptions that are existing prior to any models are formulated.

And yet, nukes explode and nuclear power stations generate electricity.

You are merely shifting semantics into a process that's detached of human agency.

Not at all.
I can "ascribe" / "attribute" ANYTING to unfalsifiable/undectable entities. And the merrit of doing so is exactly zero.

Contrast it with for example nested hierarchies and evolution....
Nested hierarchies aren't just "ascribed" to evolution theory.
Rather, evolution theory predicts the existance of such hierarchies. As in: if evolution is correct, then such hierarchies MUST exist.

To predict: "if this, then that"
To ascribe: "entity-X-did-it"

That's the difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmm. Again, you are having a process continuum problem here. Predictions can't be "direct result" of a model, because any model is not an independent framework.

Nonsense.

Take the model of evolution. It's a description of how the process of evolution works.
As a direct result of that process, life should fall in a patter known as nested hierarchies.

It's inevitable. IF evolution happens as detailed in the model, THEN nested hierarchies are the only possible outcome.

It is a direct result.

You inherit an axiomatic framework, and you work through it. Whatever framework you have will feed all of your models of reality.

And if your "framework" is wrong, so will your models.

And again, I used "ascribed" because we are talking about human agency here when formulating explanations. You can't squeeze human agency "thought the model" to get the output. Humans construct the model, feed the assumptions, observe and normalize data and ascribe properties... based on the new or pre-existing data.

I'm talking about the predictions.
The predictions aren't arbitrarily defined. They rather flow from the model as a direct result of the model.

As in: Evolution results in nested hierarchies.
Nested hierarchies aren't arbitrarily "ascribed" to evolution. They are rather an inescapable result of the model of evolution.

I think I've explained it, but I'll condense it here:

1) Utility of explanation will always takes precedent over "previously unknown prediction" in science.
2) There's nothing inherently wrong with "post-diction", and we can use pre-existing data to form conclusions in order to formulate better models. Data is data. It makes no difference whether we look for it in history, or if we look for it in a new experiment that collects it.

You seem to be confusing "scientific predictions" with some kind of "prophecy" or "fortune telling". A scientific prediction that flows from a model, doesn't necessarily concern things that are presently still unknown.

Take evolution again.... The hierarchical nature of the different species was already known to some extent before Darwin came up with evolution theory.
Nevertheless, the process of evolution "predicts" that life should fall in a nested hierarchy. It's inevitable. This is why it is important to understand what it means that a prediction "flows from a model".

"IF this and this, THEN that" - no matter if "that" consists of data that is already known.
It either fits the model or it doesn't.

Sure, there's always danger of confirmation bias, but so is with any new experiment.

There is no confirmation bias in proper scientific predictions.
Again the evolutionary model as an example....

Regardless of the data we already have, because of the very nature of the process as described in the model, it can ONLY result in nested hierarchies.
These nested hierarchies either exist or they don't.

There's no bias there. It's as objective as it can be.
The process as detailed in the model factually results in pattern X. It's inescapable.
If the pattern does not exist, then the model is wrong. Pure and simple.

The pattern furthermore, actually exists in living things or it doesn't. Pure and simple.
This is as objective as it gets.

Hmm. That would be the case for any given hypothetical entity.

No. It is only the case for unfalsifiable, undetectable entities (or processes or what not).

The very fact that they are unfalsifiable and undetectable, results in knowing nothing at all about it. So whatever you "ascribed" to that entity/process/what-have-you, it could never be shown wrong or accurate. It is entirely without merrit.

The limit is the minimal and consistently observable reality one is willing to accept as an effect of any given entity given an adequate model of explanation.

Keep in mind that our knowledge is a form of "consentual overlap of concepts". We don't all hold the same understanding of concepts, and we generally reference our own models of pre-existing experience to interpret and communicate any given model.

Likewise, language is representational at any level. For example, the concept of a father is a multi-layered stream of various functional concepts strung together ranging from biology to human experience, to psychological trauma, to whatever. Language must be unpacked before we discuss issue like religion and God.

You seem to be attacking packed language without attempting to understand the model that I propose.

No. I'm "attacking" unfalsifiable and undetectable entities that are simply assumed to exist. And explaining how "ascribing" anything to such entities, is a waste of time and an exercise in futility.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, everything that we do is based on a "dreams" and "visions", because this process is an inseparable process of our brains.

Nevertheless, "dreams and visions" is not how we learn about reality.
We learn about reality by actually studying reality. And by then accepting the results - regardless if they agree with "dreams and visions".

What we consciously see is a simulacrum of the reality outside of our senses. I doubt few would dispute this today.

The scientific method exists, because our senses alone are not reliable.

Hence you do have plenty of people waking up at night with an idea, because that's when your brain "calculates" through various permutations of data. It's not really that much far off from a concept of "religious vision". All of our visions are predicated on the cultural context of the stories that we tell each other.

Which is precisely why it is not a reliable method to learn about reality.

Again, religious model is rather complex and needs to be unpacked, because it deals with "macro-reality", it doesn't take the route of scientific reductionist and focuses and explains chunks of reality.

No religious model is based on actual reality. If it were, religions wouldn't demand "faith".

 

[devolved]

If this was atheism vs theism, you'd have a point. But this is atheism vs Christianity, and the prevailing belief in Christianity is creatio ex nihilo. Besides, I did qualify it with "presumably."

Christianity and theology is not a static belief. If you'd like to debate 2000 year old state of it, then you might as well debate Alchemy and blood letting.

I'd be happy to stand with you and say that Biblical literalism doesn't make much sense if you don't unpack the language, but you are trying to project that version of Christianity into this debate... hence it's not working out too well.

Christianity is perfectly reasonable when you unpack the language and reasons for Christianity existing when it comes to the evolution of human thought in general.

I didn't give any analogy; I gave a direct explanation.

You did not give any explanation . I asked you to demonstrate time, and you pointed me to change. I want you to show me time directly. You can't. You are assuming time exists.

You aren't demonstrating God. You're assuming God.

Correct. That's what theoretical science does. It assumes existence of things based on observation of data.

For example, I've shown you that you are assuming that time exists and is responsible for change. You are assuming that time is a physical and not some sort of virtual phenomenon. There's a chain of assumptions that leads you to your current worldview.

What you are essentially trying to argue is that your assumptions are better than mine, and that's what this discussion is all about.

Straw man, misquoting me, completely fabricating details.

I see nothing of substance on this thread.

Now, come on . I was not attempting to quote you. I'm attempting to demonstrate the general flow of this discussion. You are refusing to admit something that any person who understand philosophy of science would do - time is an axiomatic concept that we have to ASSUME existing, because we never actually observe time directly. There's nothing you can point me to and say "look here's time". Just like there's nothing I can point to and say "Look there's God".

 

[devolved]

I think this here lies at the very core of your reasoning error.

Let's consider that the piece of software is a single batch method wich does some stuff.
3 parts here are relevant:
- the functional requirements
- the actual business logic
- the unit test, to see if the business logic actually does what the functional requirements specify.

You say that the business logic is "the model". This is an incorrect analogy to scientific research.

The actual business logic (the code), is rather the equivalent of the "phenomena" that needs explaining. The model, would then be the functional requirements.

When I was referring to software as a model, I meant it in proper context of the analogy structured to make a point I was making - we don't test reality. We only test our models of reality. So, your criticism and subsequent modification of the analogy is misplaced.

Obviously, in scope of this analogy I was making, the software code that we test is representational version of some other lesser known API. But restructuring the analogy into something that I was not saying... of course it would not make sense.

Back to my point which you've failed to address is precisely the point I was making:

We don't test the reality. The output of the reality will always be comparative to other outputs... hence it's ratio-metric. We recognize patterns, and then we use ratios to perform comparative evaluations and drive our predictions.

BUT, it doesn't prevent two different models predicting the same weather so to speak. The veracity of any-given model can be evaluated based on existing data.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything with arbitrary social/political structures. I could also point out that life in the west exponentially improved once we kicked the church out of government, turned to science for answers and installed secular democracy. But it would be irrelevant, because none of this matters to the points at hand.

Science is a continuum of all spectrum of human knowledge. It's not equivalent of the modern image of it with people in the lab coats bending over some instrument making notes. This particular brand of science gets more attention, because it's reductionist in nature. It bites smaller chunks off, so it solves smaller problems more often. It's great for certain things, but terrible for other. Let's not feed the illusion that that's only what science is.

Scientific reductionism with all of the progress in the past is actually leading us to plentiful dead-ends, because certain complex processes can't be explained via sum of the individual parts, especially if "explanation" of those parts is nominal and not functional.

In regards to things getting better when "church" was kicked out of government, you are merely discussing forcing a brand of religion down one's throat, and not the principles that underline that religion. You simply can't make historical case that these principles are external to these religions and are derived from modern science.

Likewise as humanity, we are always dealing with some sort of grander religious context, whether you decide to label as such or not. For example, the term "government" is an abstract term for an overarching process that all of us "plug in", directed by, and participate in. It's a "transcendent" form of our collective function. We can communicate with "the government", we can interface with it. But in reality you can't point to a thing that's "government". It doesn't exist as an individual thing.

We are talking about explaining the nature of reality and the phenomena of nature. We are not talking about how to organize a society.

And what are we, and all of those things you've described? These are not a part of natural reality? You seem to be missing the continuum here when you separate those things. Religion is a form of socio-political science, because it's primary function is to describe preferred relationship between people. And that dynamics have been proved to work for thousands of years now. Sure, we've updated the language, but the rose by any other name...

Religion is less concerned with anything else. But, it doesn't make it less testable when it comes to certain claims that it makes.

 

[devolved]

Nonsense.

Take the model of evolution. It's a description of how the process of evolution works.
As a direct result of that process, life should fall in a patter known as nested hierarchies.

It's inevitable. IF evolution happens as detailed in the model, THEN nested hierarchies are the only possible outcome.

It is a direct result.

Again you have a continuum problem here.

Evolution as a model can't exist apart from consolidated data and assumptions "bricks" that you build that model from. This model is not an ex-nihilo model, so whatever "direct result" you are looking at is transitory, and if we shift the context further, then it's a direct result of precursors that fed that model... again, the collective of underlying assumptions and data.

So, you saying that "it's a direct result" of that model is a reductionist approach that doesn't see the continuum. It's sort of like saying that Trump's wealth is a direct result of being born, absent from the fact that he's born into a wealthy family.

And if your "framework" is wrong, so will your models.

Exactly. But it's not as simple as "if framework is wrong, then it does not work". If framework is wrong, the models may still work fine, if they are functionally predicting the ratios that can be used to build some structures.

As a hypothetical example, let's say that we have a model that describes cancer being found where there's an abundance of bacteria that produces acidic environments. So the conventional wisdom that in order to treat that cancer we must remove the bacteria that seems to be the cause of cancer. We perform certain procedures that removes the bacteria and normalize the system PH. It works. The general consensus becomes that bacteria is responsible for cancer, and we should remove that bacteria in order to avoid cancer.

BUT, later we figure out that this particular strain thrives in acidic environments, and it's merely coincidental, and cancer is a result of acidic environment and not the bacteria.

If we did not make that discovery, we'd still have a functional model... but it would be wrong, even though it is functional and "tested out".

That's my point with the above. You can't flaunt the "your science is better than mine" when we are talking about axiomatic assumptions that feed our worldviews. Both can be functional and produce the same results, because we use the same exact data from same exact reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When I was referring to software as a model, I meant it in proper context of the analogy structured to make a point I was making - we don't test reality. We only test our models of reality. So, your criticism and subsequent modification of the analogy is misplaced.

No. I'm informing you that your analogy is incorrect.
I actually like the analogy, in fact.

You just applied it incorrectly. The unit test is not meant to test the model (the requirements). The unit test is meant to see if the code actually does what the requirements specify.

The requirements describe what the code does, how it works - not the other way round.
Just like a theory/model describes what atoms do, how they work.

In science, the code is what exists and in need of explanation. It's the "requirements" that need to be discovered.

We don't test the reality

Indeed we don't... we test the models against reality.
Reality requires an explanation. We attempt to explain it by building theories / models. We then test those models. And we test models by seeing if they match reality.

BUT, it doesn't prevent two different models predicting the same weather so to speak

2 different models, will have differences which will translate in different predictions.

Obviously if 2 models have an overlap in certain predictions, then testing those predictions won't allow you to differentiate which model is more accurate. You're gonna want to test the predictions that are NOT shared, in order to tell which model is the most accurate. You want to test those predictions that lead you to a single model exclusively.

Seems rather obvious...........

Science is a continuum of all spectrum of human knowledge. It's not equivalent of the modern image of it with people in the lab coats bending over some instrument making notes. This particular brand of science gets more attention, because it's reductionist in nature. It bites smaller chunks off, so it solves smaller problems more often. It's great for certain things, but terrible for other. Let's not feed the illusion that that's only what science is.

I'm talking about the natural sciences. Those have nothing to do with any sociological, political or cultural stuff.

Gravity is the same accross the globe. E = mc ² wheter you are a muslim, a hindu or a christian. There no such thing as "communist special relativity" or "secular democratic special relativity" either.

Scientific reductionism with all of the progress in the past is actually leading us to plentiful dead-ends, because certain complex processes can't be explained via sum of the individual parts, especially if "explanation" of those parts is nominal and not functional.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
Let's say that it is the case, for the sake of argument.
Then what? Do you have a better and more succesfull method then science to answer such questions? It would be great if you do, but my money is on "no".

In regards to things getting better when "church" was kicked out of government, you are merely discussing forcing a brand of religion down one's throat, and not the principles that underline that religion.

No. I'm actually talking about kicking religion out of government. I said "church" as a general term. I mean all of religion, and specifically all the unquestionable dogma's and doctrines associated with it.

You simply can't make historical case that these principles are external to these religions and are derived from modern science.

Ow, I surely can.
Science informs us about the world and knowledge is a requirement for making informed decisions.

At risk of going on thin ice here with the forum rules, science informs us that being gay has nothing to do with "personal choice" and "sin", for example. Science informs us that black people aren't "inferior" to white people. Science informs us that animals can also suffer and experience emotions.

Knowledge like that, obtained through science, has changed our outlook on these matters. As a direct result, we treat these subjects very differently compared to for example 300 years ago.

Likewise as humanity, we are always dealing with some sort of grander religious context,

Speak for yourself.

For example, the term "government" is an abstract term for an overarching process that all of us "plug in", directed by, and participate in. It's a "transcendent" form of our collective function. We can communicate with "the government", we can interface with it. But in reality you can't point to a thing that's "government". It doesn't exist as an individual thing.

If you wish to call that "religion", be my guest, but I honestly don't see the point of that.

And what are we, and all of those things you've described? These are not a part of natural reality?

How to organize a society, has nothing to do with explaining how nature works.

You seem to be missing the continuum here when you separate those things. Religion is a form of socio-political science, because it's primary function is to describe preferred relationship between people. And that dynamics have been proved to work for thousands of years now. Sure, we've updated the language, but the rose by any other name...

You're reaching....
Sounds like you are just desperate to stick the label "religion" on my forehead that you'll go to great lengths to do so.... You're basically re-defining what the word "religion" means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again you have a continuum problem here.

Evolution as a model can't exist apart from consolidated data and assumptions "bricks" that you build that model from. This model is not an ex-nihilo model, so whatever "direct result" you are looking at is transitory, and if we shift the context further, then it's a direct result of precursors that fed that model... again, the collective of underlying assumptions and data.

So, you saying that "it's a direct result" of that model is a reductionist approach that doesn't see the continuum. It's sort of like saying that Trump's wealth is a direct result of being born, absent from the fact that he's born into a wealthy family.

You just don't get it, do you?
Did I ever say that evolution was invented "ex-nihilo"???
OFF COURSE we have been driven to that model by data. No scientific hypothesis is invented out of thin air.

Doesn't change my point at all.
The process of evolution as detailed in evolution, can only result in life that is organised in a nested hierarchy. It's just the way it is.

This prediction is a direct result of the model - wheter you like that or not.

IF evolution THEN nested hierarchy.
If no nested hierarchy, then no evolution.

Furthermore, DNA wasn't even discovered when the model of evolution was developed. DNA could have potentially blown evolution out of the water, if it didn't exhibit this nested hierarchy. But it did.

Exactly. But it's not as simple as "if framework is wrong, then it does not work". If framework is wrong, the models may still work fine, if they are functionally predicting the ratios that can be used to build some structures.

But it's only a matter of time before the disconnect will surface.
And we have a good example of that as well....
Newtonian physics. Here's a model where the "framework" was wrong, or at least partially wrong. A lot of physics wasn't known during Newton's time.

Yet, even in today's reality, Newtonian physics still works well enough that we actually even still use it for a wide variety of practical applications. But there comes a point where it no longer works well enough. Enter Einstein. His model is a lot more accurate. And where newtonian physics fail, Einsteinian physics picks up.

I'm unaware of a model which was developed with false assumptions in wrong contexts and which turned out to be smack down correct anyway.

As a hypothetical example, let's say that we have a model that describes cancer being found where there's an abundance of bacteria that produces acidic environments. So the conventional wisdom that in order to treat that cancer we must remove the bacteria that seems to be the cause of cancer. We perform certain procedures that removes the bacteria and normalize the system PH. It works. The general consensus becomes that bacteria is responsible for cancer, and we should remove that bacteria in order to avoid cancer.

BUT, later we figure out that this particular strain thrives in acidic environments, and it's merely coincidental, and cancer is a result of acidic environment and not the bacteria.

If we did not make that discovery, we'd still have a functional model... but it would be wrong, even though it is functional and "tested out".

Sure. But in that case, there will also be instances where the model will not work.
I'm also kind of wondering now why we are discussing all of this.

None of this seems to apply to religious beliefs.

That's my point with the above. You can't flaunt the "your science is better than mine" when we are talking about axiomatic assumptions that feed our worldviews. Both can be functional and produce the same results, because we use the same exact data from same exact reality.

Sure, sure....

The thing is though: not a single religion on this planet is currently "producing the same results" as science. Not even by a long shot.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christianity and theology is not a static belief. If you'd like to debate 2000 year old state of it, then you might as well debate Alchemy and blood letting.

I don't see the relevance of this.

I'd be happy to stand with you and say that Biblical literalism doesn't make much sense if you don't unpack the language, but you are trying to project that version of Christianity into this debate... hence it's not working out too well.

What are you talking about? I'm saying Biblical literalism is the most sensible possible Christian position.

Christianity is perfectly reasonable when you unpack the language and reasons for Christianity existing when it comes to the evolution of human thought in general.

LOL, no. It requires faith, which is the opposite of reason.

You did not give any explanation . I asked you to demonstrate time, and you pointed me to change. I want you to show me time directly. You can't. You are assuming time exists.

What is this "show me time directly" nonsense? With which sense do you expect to detect it?

Correct. That's what theoretical science does. It assumes existence of things based on observation of data.

Right. And then it makes predictions.

So, like I said, you're free to assume that God exists. Now use that assumption to predict something about reality.

For example, I've shown you that you are assuming that time exists and is responsible for change. You are assuming that time is a physical and not some sort of virtual phenomenon. There's a chain of assumptions that leads you to your current worldview.

What? I never precluded the possibility that we exist in some kind of simulation. There is absolutely nothing about my definition that cannot be applied to, say, a video game.

What you are essentially trying to argue is that your assumptions are better than mine, and that's what this discussion is all about.

My assumptions absolutely are better than yours. I'm invoking common notions. You're saying that a God exists.

Now, come on . I was not attempting to quote you. I'm attempting to demonstrate the general flow of this discussion. You are refusing to admit something that any person who understand philosophy of science would do - time is an axiomatic concept that we have to ASSUME existing, because we never actually observe time directly. There's nothing you can point me to and say "look here's time". Just like there's nothing I can point to and say "Look there's God".

So now we've gotten to the point. You are trying to say that time is a primitive concept. I'm perfectly fine with this notion, as it is absolutely unavoidable. However, any given idea can be taken as a composite construct if you simply juggle the primitive notions elsewhere.

For example, in mathematics, a set is a collection of elements, and an element is a member of a set. Without being privy to the prevailing convention, how would you know which is the primitive notion?

So how am I expected to know that you're taking time as a primitive notion? The universe does not come with labels attached, and it's impossible, as far as I know, to determine what is a primitive notion and what is constructed from primitive notions. And not being a physicist, I don't know the prevailing convention either.

But while it's true that you can define your system any way you like, your system is absolutely worthless if it does not make some kind of prediction about reality. So, again, feel free to assume that God exists. Now please tell me what you can predict about reality with this, or simply drop the assumption.

 

[devolved]

But while it's true that you can define your system any way you like, your system is absolutely worthless if it does not make some kind of prediction about reality. So, again, feel free to assume that God exists. Now please tell me what you can predict about reality with this, or simply drop the assumption.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of religion as a framework if you are asking this question and making this statement.

Just like mathematics, religion is an axiomatic framework of internally defined logic. Both can be mapped to reality and can be used as communication tools to frame our experience based on certain identifiable patterns. Both can be used to communicate certain patterns of reality.

But neither are science, and can't be used in a way you propose these to be used in order to prove "worthy" in your view... although both have encapsulated models that can be tested internally based on certain logic that both define internally.

Hence, you would not be running to a mathematician, asking what math predicts about reality. It doesn't. Math as a system arises from observation about reality, and it's a framework which is used to quantify it into some model. Math as a system doesn't predicts anything about reality. It is the language that we use to predict something.

Religion is similar in that regard. It provides tools to map reality based on structural framework that has been evolving for thousands of years, which formulates and embeds preferred behavioral patterns that prove to be advantageous for human beings over time.

So, you asking me to drop the assumption that religion is useful unless it makes some predictions is like asking me to drop the assumption that binary system is viable. We don't technically need to have binary system of numbers, but it maps to reality really well. Hence it becomes useful because it does.

So, just like with your demonstration of time to me as a necessary axiom for us to discuss and frame rates of change... concepts of God and religion help to frame certain philosophical concepts of ideal, moral, and transcendent.

Certainly, you may decide to frame it against some other language, but the rose by any other name....

Hence, once again, Christianity is perfectly reasonable because it maps to a vast history and network of meaning that structured the stories and preferred behavioral patterns that it presents.

Atheism is not a system. It doesn't really map to anything other than one's inability to grasp the broader meaning of the latter.

 

[devolved]

No. I'm informing you that your analogy is incorrect.
I actually like the analogy, in fact.
....
In science, the code is what exists and in need of explanation. It's the "requirements" that need to be discovered.

We both agree that we don't test the reality, but we test the model... so that's all I wanted to communicate. I don't want to say anything beyond that.

I'd like to drive this conversation closer to the point of the OP, so forgive me if I don't reply to every one of your questions or objections.

If you wish to call that "religion", be my guest, but I honestly don't see the point of that.

I would call that to be a "little brother" of religion, because we are dealing with composite entities that function as such. If you view these through a lens of reductionism, then there are just people running around doing things and there's no such thing as government as an "entity in reality". But we can reduce just about anything in such a way. Human beings are a collection of cells, and cells are a collection of smaller parts, and so on.

The point being is that there's a continuum to reality that points in a certain direction when you evaluate our aggregate experience, and the structures we form.

How to organize a society, has nothing to do with explaining how nature works.

Again... continuum problem. Society is a part of nature. It's a complex natural mechanism.

You're reaching....
Sounds like you are just desperate to stick the label "religion" on my forehead that you'll go to great lengths to do so.... You're basically re-defining what the word "religion" means.

No, I define it in a way that would explain the concept to a modern reductionist mind that would rather discuss a caricaturized view of these concepts.

Sure, sure....

The thing is though: not a single religion on this planet is currently "producing the same results" as science. Not even by a long shot.

Religion already produced the results by building a socio-political climate of ordered society that allowed for structuring larger societies prior to any formalized legal framework like we have today. Religion was a direct precursor to the legal framework.

So you are comparing Michael Jordan to James Naismith here. It makes very little sense in this context.