Atheism's Burden of Proof

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't typically watch videos.

You are free to put in your own words, what the video claims.

No strawman, I addressed your post. As I stated, higher risk should be associated with more damage to humans over time.

...that's what I implied by referencing Martin Blank. But, since you don't watch videos, even really short ones, then ..........................................

 

[Silmarien]

And this law of nature is important to the discoveries science has made, how exactly?

If science wants to claim some privileged vantage point in providing an accurate picture of reality, then yeah, it's relevant that we don't know what laws of nature really are. If you guys are just in it for the technology, go be proper anti-realists.

 

[KCfromNC]

Science still can't figure out what a "law of nature" really is.

Given how successful science has been, if your claim is true it means the question is irrelevant to effectively modeling the world around us.

 

[KCfromNC]

My bad. I should have realized that I need to stay on the path of the straight and narrow.

Or at least explain how the flights of fancy relate to the thread you're posting in.

 

[bhsmte]

If science wants to claim some privileged vantage point in providing an accurate picture of reality, then yeah, it's relevant that we don't know what laws of nature really are. If you guys are just in it for the technology, go be proper anti-realists.

Privileged?????

Not sure what you mean by that. The way I roll, is I judge anything based on it's record of reliability, not whether it is perfect, because perfect does not appear to exist.

Our daily lives are evidence that science produces reliable results, that provide conveniences and improve lives. And when science reaches the wrong conclusions, it is designed to recognize the same, admit error and correct. Not a bad thing.

 

[bhsmte]

Given how successful science has been, if your claim is true it means the question is irrelevant to effectively modeling the world around us.

This appears to be one of those; if science doesn't know everything, the benefit is reduced and I will only focus on what it doesn't know. Not unusual to see this position on CF.

 

[KCfromNC]

And that claim is a philosophical claim

If I ask a person to remove a screw and give them a screwdriver and a paint brush, they're not doing philosophy when they pick one over the other.

(stemming from pragmatism/instrumentalism). And if you're a proponent of pragmatism/instrumentalism, then you're also most likely an anti-realist. You do realize this, right? These concepts typically go hand-in-hand. Are you ok with that philosophical position?

Considering this sort of navel-gazing is irrelevant back here in reality I have a hard time getting upset about whatever it is you think you're trying to force on me.

But it is again another example of philosophy discussions retreating into attempts to label people rather than understand the discussion at hand. Why does that happen so frequently?

 

[KCfromNC]

If science wants to claim some privileged vantage point in providing an accurate picture of reality, then yeah, it's relevant that we don't know what laws of nature really are.

In what way is it relevant? Is there some other field which is as successful as science and also can explain what the really real really is, like for real?

 

[KCfromNC]

This appears to be one of those; if science doesn't know everything, the benefit is reduced and I will only focus on what it doesn't know. Not unusual to see this position on CF.

I think it is more rationalization to get around the inconvenient fact that for all the flaws of science, it actually produces results. Unlike some other fields that people seem to be fans of.

 

[bhsmte]

I think it is more rationalization to get around the inconvenient fact that for all the flaws of science, it actually produces results. Unlike some other fields that people seem to be fans of.

Yes and to do so, they claim; science doesn't know everything, to comfort themselves.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes and to do so, they claim; science doesn't know everything, to comfort themselves.

Well, either that or we're interested in the types of questions science can't answer. But sure, go ahead and psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. That's totally not at all sociopathic.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, either that or we're interested in the types of questions science can't answer. But sure, go ahead and psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. That's totally not at all sociopathic.

Well, that threat may be real, if i claimed science could answer every question. Since i didnt make any claim even close that, it was just crude strawman you have there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that threat may be real, if i claimed science could answer every question. Since i didnt make any claim even close that, it was just crude strawman you have there.

...so, we get dissed for what you perceive to be the opposite in our case? That is, it seems you think that we are claiming that science can't answer "any" questions, in which case I could affirm that, "...i didnt make any claim even close that, it was just crude strawman you have there."

 

[Silmarien]

Well, that threat may be real, if i claimed science could answer every question. Since i didnt make any claim even close that, it was just crude strawman you have there.

You literally just said that people only claim that science doesn't know everything so that they can comfort themselves. Replying to what you actually said is now a crude strawman? Seriously, don't make stupid generalizations if you don't want to be called on them.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I see a pretty clear distinction -

Science doesn't have all answers. Religion doesn't have any answers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see a pretty clear distinction -

Science doesn't have all answers. Religion doesn't have any answers.

Thanks, 8-Foot! I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So what objective questions can religion answer that science can't?

 

[Silmarien]

I see a pretty clear distinction -

Science doesn't have all answers. Religion doesn't have any answers.

You seem to be fixated, given that we're discussing philosophy, not religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what objective questions can religion answer that science can't?

How high does one need to build a ladder in order to enter into Heaven? There's one for ya.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is there an objective answer to that question?