Science Doesn't Work

[variant]

Says the person who presupposes the concepts aren't different. How many times can we go over this? 1429 bottles of beer on the wall, 1429 bottles of beer...

I don't presuppose anything, I have explained my reasoning.

Interesting how the point you consider vague and useless (without asking for more detail, hmm) is precisely the answer to the other points in this quoted section.

Oh my. Please elaborate what a "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" is, other than vague and useless.

Nobody says they don't generalize to those. What's of relevance is how easy people give up. That says everything. If I were to conclude all women are insane after having a single terrible relationship, then either I'm correct or not. Likewise apropos this subject.

Excepting of course that religious thinking does share general concepts and themes.

Question begging.

I'm speaking from experience. The arguments I have with you are not materially different than those I have with Mormons. So, why would I find their religion more appealing?

Refined according to whom? You're committing the line drawing fallacy here: science and religion are both epistemologies, and they're both more refined than a naked epistemology that precedes systems. But according to your arbitrary definition, religion doesn't make the cut but science does.

According to both of us, you have yet to explain your methodology.

Tell me how I can test religious concepts and we will speak further as men.

I have, dad. And I disagree that religious belief has no standard for determining whether it's the case or not.

Then present your standards.

That just reflects the gag reflex you have toward religion. Here are religion's criteria for determining whether something works or not: the same criteria for pretty much everything. Which is: it holds X and Y which when fulfilled promises Z, and when you've tried to actualize X and Y without getting Z, the particular belief system in question has failed its own criteria, then you discard and move on.

It depends on what X Y and Z are I would suppose. Examples please.

 

[Received]

I don't presuppose anything, I have explained my reasoning.

Where?

Oh my. Please elaborate what a "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" is, other than vague and useless.

So now you're asking me to expand on something you've define as vague and useless. Do you even read what you write before you rush to the "Submit Reply" button?

I'm speaking from experience. The arguments I have with you are not materially different than those I have with Mormons. So, why would I find their religion more appealing?

Because you think about their concepts, including their practical application to your life, consistency, and most importantly how well they explain everything theoretically as pragmatically as possible.

According to both of us, you have yet to explain your methodology.

Tell me how I can test religious concepts and we will speak further as men.

That's the thing: I have no "methodology", if you understand this literally with regard to science (which you've been doing). I have a set of criteria or standard, which I've explained multiple times this thread.

It depends on what X Y and Z are I would suppose. Examples please.

Goodness, so I give you a standard and now you're asking for examples.

 

[variant]

Where?

My reasoning that science and religion have remarkably different processes? Start at the beginning of my posts and read.

So now you're asking me to expand on something you've define as vague and useless. Do you even read what you write before you rush to the "Submit Reply" button?

I am asking you to expand what you mean because what you presented was vague and useless.

I think you're presenting me with fluff, so elaborate if you wish.

What theological ideas are "good selection of serious and good theological ideas" and why.

Because you think about their concepts, including their practical application to your life, consistency, and most importantly how well they explain everything theoretically as pragmatically as possible.

Religious ideas are correct because they appeal to human sensibilities?

Reasoning is good I'll agree, you should definitely do that.

That's the thing: I have no "methodology", if you understand this literally with regard to science (which you've been doing). I have a set of criteria or standard, which I've explained multiple times this thread.

Having a methodology is what I mean by refined here. A specific way to test if ideas are true or not.

Goodness, so I give you a standard and now you're asking for examples.

I find your standard vague enough to be functionally useless so I asked you to give a few examples.

Try this one:

X = "there is a god" what are Y and Z?

 

[variant]

Everyone please keep in mind that I'm not arguing (at all) that science doesn't work. I'm appealing to the type of fallacious reasoning a person would commit like with the OP. And you can replace science with the following:

I tried dating a woman who ended up being crazy...and concluded I shouldn't date because all women are crazy.

I tried a protein smoothie blend that gave me indigestion...and concluded I shouldn't try any protein drinks because they all give me indigestion.

I tried debating with a Christian but he was an idiot...and concluded that all Christians are idiots.

You get it.

If you just want to be against hasty generalizations that's fine, but to accuse everyone who rejects religion that hasn't tried multiple ones of hasty generalization is incorrect.

If the religions share the important features the person is rejecting there is no reason to go one by one.

 

[bhsmte]

If anything, it's me not making a point hard enough, given how short it is and how I basically made it between clients. Also because I'm using my evil therapist skills by leaving things at a very concise level so we can have a discussion. I couldn't made the point of the OP then, but I honestly didn't think I'd get this much non sequituring with science being taken literally.

Just my observation, but sometimes you seem to get out over your skis a bit.

 

[Received]

Just my observation, but sometimes you seem to get out over your skis a bit.

Oh, you're on to something there.

 

[Paradoxum]

Now, I think there are more variables here. A person grows up with a particular religious perspective he thinks is true. He builds his life around it. This means when the cards come down that he's much less emotionally inclined to be motivated to respond reasonably by giving other perspectives a shot.

I wouldn't say that giving other religious or theistic beliefs a shot is necessarily the reasonable path... it's the biased one (IMHO).

I have a friend who is Catholic, but is interested in eastern religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism, who said (2 years ago) that if I lose faith, I shouldn't give up on the God idea... and should seek wisdom from other traditions.

I can see how that can seem reasonable, but I think it's based on bias. The only reason I ever believed in a God is because of the experiences and teachings of my childhood and teen years. If they all turn out to be lacking, there's no reason to assume that a God exists and is worth looking for. Just like I don't look for fairies or the spirit of Santa, I also don't look for God once there seems to be no evidence for God.

There's no reason to think other religions or theologies have anything to offer that the old one didn't. Maybe the do, but I see no reason to waste time to find that out... again, just like I don't waste time looking for the spirit of Santa. It all seems to be made up to me.

I think this fits nicely with Paradoxum's insightful comment, implying that if God was really there, he'd sort of give us a hand when we try a theology that fails. That right there is the philosophical crux of the reason why people don't try again.

I think a God would help the first time round. eg; I believe in my friend because I've seen them and talked to them. Why believe in a God that is apparently an omnipotent person, but seems almost (or completely) non-existent?

By the way, I did try to change my theology when the conservative theology seemed faulty to me.

Why do you think that God doesn't make himself know? Can't he?

I think you can take this variable and run with it, proving it experimentally. One day when I have a fancy PhD, I'll try doing just this: seeing if the emotionality and reasoning associated with the above moderate not wanting to give other theological perspectives a chance. So far I think the hypothesis is a good one.

Maybe that's true with some people, but as for me I did try... I tried hard to find a Christian theology which made sense.

But in the end I wont do that forever. In the end Christianity falls into the category as Zeus, fairies and Santa, and you give up caring any more. Christians don't seek evidence for fairies, just like I don't go out of my way (any longer) to look up random theologies. I've been there, done that, and come away wanting.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, you're on to something there.

Could be an easy fix, like switching to decaf.

 

[Received]

Could be an easy fix, like switching to decaf.

Good one! Decaf as an easy fix. Oh my, I've heard 'em all.

 

[GforPerplexed]

Random debate dosen't work?

 

[bhsmte]

Good one! Decaf as an easy fix. Oh my, I've heard 'em all.

The fix could be easy, the execution of the fix, may be quite difficult.

 

[KCfromNC]

Like I've said a few times: trying something a fair number of times that encapsulates a good selection of serious and good theological ideas.

This seems like a variation of the complaint that atheists don't address sophisticated theology. See Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology - Must Atheists Study Sophisticated Theology to Address God, Religion?, for example. One takeaway is that it is easy to claim that there are sophisticated arguments that atheists are ignoring but much harder to actually show it. I think this thread shows that - note how the OP still won't tell atheists what these alleged serious and good theological ideas actually are. Makes one wonder if they exist at all.

 

[Received]

This seems like a variation of the complaint that atheists don't address sophisticated theology. See Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology - Must Atheists Study Sophisticated Theology to Address God, Religion?, for example. One takeaway is that it is easy to claim that there are sophisticated arguments that atheists are ignoring but much harder to actually show it. I think this thread shows that - note how the OP still won't tell atheists what these alleged serious and good theological ideas actually are. Makes one wonder if they exist at all.

I'm not addressing "atheists". I'm addressing particular individuals who commit the OP's fallacy.

 

[Received]

Which doesn't, BTW, apply just to religion.

 

[Received]

I wouldn't say that giving other religious or theistic beliefs a shot is necessarily the reasonable path... it's the biased one (IMHO).

I have a friend who is Catholic, but is interested in eastern religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism, who said (2 years ago) that if I lose faith, I shouldn't give up on the God idea... and should seek wisdom from other traditions.

I can see how that can seem reasonable, but I think it's based on bias. The only reason I ever believed in a God is because of the experiences and teachings of my childhood and teen years. If they all turn out to be lacking, there's no reason to assume that a God exists and is worth looking for. Just like I don't look for fairies or the spirit of Santa, I also don't look for God once there seems to be no evidence for God.

There's no reason to think other religions or theologies have anything to offer that the old one didn't. Maybe the do, but I see no reason to waste time to find that out... again, just like I don't waste time looking for the spirit of Santa. It all seems to be made up to me.

Which brings up a good point: how do we stay openminded without being biased? And I think bias is unavoidable here, and wouldn't know what a nonbiased choice of anything would look like: isn't it fair to say that any time we make a choice based on preference or even practical reasoning that we're being biased against other options?

"Not if you're reasonably considering options." Okay, but that can apply to religion as well.

I think a God would help the first time round. eg; I believe in my friend because I've seen them and talked to them. Why believe in a God that is apparently an omnipotent person, but seems almost (or completely) non-existent?

By the way, I did try to change my theology when the conservative theology seemed faulty to me.

Why do you think that God doesn't make himself know? Can't he?

Heck if I know. I don't even know how my toaster works.

Maybe that's true with some people, but as for me I did try... I tried hard to find a Christian theology which made sense.

But in the end I wont do that forever. In the end Christianity falls into the category as Zeus, fairies and Santa, and you give up caring any more. Christians don't seek evidence for fairies, just like I don't go out of my way (any longer) to look up random theologies. I've been there, done that, and come away wanting.

Well, I'd be right there with you if it wasn't for the incredibly practical theology of Kierkegaard and the mystics. At the end of the day we're not looking for "truth" so much as a theory that ties everything together as much as possible. Theology has had the option and has failed miserably in general.

 

[Received]

If you just want to be against hasty generalizations that's fine, but to accuse everyone who rejects religion that hasn't tried multiple ones of hasty generalization is incorrect.

If the religions share the important features the person is rejecting there is no reason to go one by one.

What are the rotten variables here?

Oh, and you can't know other religions have rotten variables they share without...investigating other religions, which validates my point.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not addressing "atheists". I'm addressing particular individuals who commit the OP's fallacy.

I'd be curious to know you think is making this fallacy. So far we have a claim of some unnamed people ignoring some unnamed serious theology. OK, if you say so...

 

[KCfromNC]

What are the rotten variables here?

In theology? Lack of coherence, lack of testability, lack of evidence, lack of any other way to determine good from bad, and so on. It isn't as if this hasn't been addressed multiple times in the thread already.

Oh, and you can't know other religions have rotten variables they share without...investigating other religions, which validates my point.

I thought you were talking about theology, not religions. Not that it makes a difference unless you're willing to present some examples of either which don't suffer from the problems mentioned multiple times in this thread. It's not exactly fair to pretend people are ignoring things which you yourself can't seem to find.

That's why I pointed to teh example of Sophisticated Theology (tm) that seem to come up from time to time. It is often asserted that people are ignoring it, and yet few can actually show what is actually being ignored. Seems very similar to what is going on here - this vague but cool sounding thing is asserted to be real but can't actually be presented by the people who think it is important enough to worry about. Kinda strange, almost as if it is a rhetorical trick.

 

[Received]

I'd be curious to know you think is making this fallacy. So far we have a claim of some unnamed people ignoring some unnamed serious theology. OK, if you say so...

Oh, you, you, you, and you. (Is that what you were looking for?)

Actually, there's no relevance here. I see it. You see it with other applications.

 

[variant]

What are the rotten variables here?

What religion asks of the skeptic? Usually it asks the skeptic to discard their skepticism without either a justifiable or tangible reason.

The onus is generally on the unbeliever to want to believe enough that they are willing to overlook this. The unbeliever is generally also blamed (by the theology) if they aren't willing to take this step rather than the religion.

Oh, and you can't know other religions have rotten variables they share without...investigating other religions, which validates my point.

Investigating religions from a skeptical perspective is nothing like trying them out.

You are more unlikely to convert to any religion when you begin from a skeptical perspective, that is what you are noticing.

Science works great from a skeptical perspective, based upon it's stringent methodology that seeks to reduce subjectivity.

So again, your comparison....

There is nothing hasty about adopting a general skepticism with regards to religious ideas.

Adopting a posture of skepticism with regard to science is encouraged.