The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Dizredux]

but rejecting philosophy is what can get us in trouble.

I am saying nothing about rejecting philosophy.

rejecting all means of rational thought other than science, is in fact scientism.

True.

(here is a definition of scientism that I thought was interesting)

is an ideology that attempts to apply conventional scientific principles to fields of knowledge where it has no business being. Scientism is an exaggerated belief in the knowledge that science provides and the ability of science to use that knowledge to solve all manner of problems, human and otherwise. Hardcore scientism asserts that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge. Only science can provide access to truth. All other forms of human inquiry and experience are not to be trusted.

Religion, metaphysics, philosophy, ethics, and even psychology are unscientific and, therefore, inferior.

The definition is really not a very good one in that it is loaded with emotional baggage and judgements. A good definition should not act in advocacy for a cause which this one does.

Basically Scientism is the view that only science can give information about reality. It is a philosophical view in that one cannot show that the natural world to be all there is which is the philosophical basis for scientism. Science generally works on the principle that the supernatural may be possible but until it can be measured and studied in some way, science will ignore it for sake of doing scientific work.

How could you treat the supernatural as a variable in research?




Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

the majority of atheists are weak, and not a newer type of atheism. I suspect atheists in this forum were all weak at one point or another and have evolved due to being pinned down by theists in debate. For example, prove there is no God. You can't. Because it's impossible to prove a negative non existence of anything. This has changed the ideas of atheism to a newer style which resembles a close ally to atheism, agnosticism.

I am not real sure of what you are trying to say here and am a little confused as to the point. Could you clarify a tad.

see not only is there a problem with scientism, but also bad science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method

The same here. What point are you trying to make with the article? It would be again useful if you could clarify a little.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

you obviously have not heard of scientism. But it is exactly what you guys are commiting, "to the T."

We are simply requiring god claims to be evidenced like everything else.

 

[Loudmouth]

never said that you guys did so, all I am saying is that this is a variance to the norm of atheism historically and traditionally.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell, 1952

Even in 1952 we can see atheists wanting to see evidence for god claims, and withholding acceptance until that evidence is given.

 

[biggles53]

the majority of atheists are weak, and not a newer type of atheism. I suspect atheists in this forum were all weak at one point or another and have evolved due to being pinned down by theists in debate. For example, prove there is no God. You can't. Because it's impossible to prove a negative non existence of anything. This has changed the ideas of atheism to a newer style which resembles a close ally to atheism, agnosticism.

see not only is there a problem with scientism, but also bad science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method

Grady, I see you are still in the business of just throwing words at the screen, hoping that some of them will stick...!

None of this makes any sense....for your education, so-called 'weak' atheism is simply the position that most atheists hold that says that belief is withheld due to a paucity of evidence for gods....that's it.

'Strong' atheism is that position held by a minority of atheists in which a claim is made that 'no gods exist'....it is a position which is not supported logically...

Agnosticism points to KNOWLEDGE, not belief...! It is possible to be a theist AND an agnostic....

No...don't thank me....the lesson comes free.....

 

[createdtoworship]

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact
In the scientific method

1. you have observation
2. you have the proposal of a question or problem
3. you have a hypothesis (educated guess)
4. you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)
5. you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)
6. you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)
7. but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.

what is evolution?

evolution is none of the above, it is technically a scientific model (a way to interpret the evidence).

evolution is not a natural law (by anybody), and it is (as we will see) not even a theory.

Why? Due to the fact that evolution from one genus to another is not repeatable it is not open to observation and testing. It therefore cannot be a theory at all. Creationism is in this same boat, it is not a theory but it is in fact a scientific model. Most miracles in the Bible are not repeatable and not observant. But it is in fact in the same boat evolution is. But what are federal dollars paying for? Not Creationism thats for sure.

This is why we should at least teach the controversy. ID at least has some forensic evidence for origins (which I wont get into completely here). But the fact (2nd law of thermodynamics) that the universe is winding down, It therefore must have been wind up before and must have had a beginning due to the laws of causality. We know these things, it is unprobably due to this natural law that the universe was uncaused or caused by nothign, as nothing results in nothing, never does spontanious generation occur. This is bad science and this is what I was talking about. So we see evolution, abiogenesis and many other naturalisms failing to meet the laws of science here. So again why are my tax dollars paying for this?

 

[createdtoworship]

Changing the bars with the Athiests:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist."

above excerpt from:

William Lane Craig's study on atheism
Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith

 

[Dizredux]

Grady

The problem is when you start off with a basis of a lot of incorrect statements it makes it unproductive to go any further.

the Scientific method cannot prove a fact

Science can prove nothing because science does not do proof. To make this kind of statement implies that you do not understand science very well.

In the scientific method
you have observation

True

you have the proposal of a question or problem

Also reasonably accurate.

you have a hypothesis (educated guess)

This is where you start to go wrong. A hypothesis is a bit more than an guess educated or not. It is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon developed for the purposes of testing.

you have experimentation (scientific experimentation)

Not necessarily, what you have is hypothesis testing. It is hard to do an experiment with geology, astrology or paleontology as examples. You are sliding further off base here.

you have a theory (basically a hypothesis with a high degree of probability)

Very wrong. A scientific theory is an explanation of facts stated in such a manner that scientific predictions can be made. You have facts and you have theories to explain those facts and you have hypothesis as a way of testing scientific ideas and theories.

you have a natural law (theory validated on a universal scale)

No, in science, theory is as good as you can get. A law is a different ball of wax. It is a statement, usually put in mathematical terms, of a set of observations. It can be conditionally considered to be universal or it can be limited in scope such as Ohm's Law.

but you don't see any facts proven, the best you get is a natural law.

All this is far enough off base to invalidate any conclusions based on it so the rest can be ignored.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Grady
The problem is when you start off with a basis of a lot of incorrect statements it makes it unproductive to go any further.

I was stating the popular view of science, I never said that was my view. In other words how many times have you heard that evolution is a scientific fact. This is technically innacurate to say this statement.

the rest of your post is conjecture, and opinion.
but thanks for the comment.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Changing the bars with the Athiests:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist."

above excerpt from:

William Lane Craig's study on atheism
Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith

Which most atheists would consider a logical fallacy.

 

[biggles53]

I was stating the popular view of science, I never said that was my view. In other words how many times have you heard that evolution is a scientific fact. This is technically innacurate to say this statement.

the rest of your post is conjecture, and opinion.
but thanks for the comment.

WRONG...!! How many times do you people have to be educated before it sinks in....!?

Evolution IS A FACT...! Got that...? It is a FACT that allele frequency varies over time....we can observe it, we can measure it.....it is a FACT...!

 

[PsychoSarah]

WRONG...!! How many times do you people have to be educated before it sinks in....!?

Evolution IS A FACT...! Got that...? It is a FACT that allele frequency varies over time....we can observe it, we can measure it.....it is a FACT...!

We can even observe new species come into existence, such as new bacteria.

 

[biggles53]

Changing the bars with the Athiests:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist."

above excerpt from:

William Lane Craig's study on atheism
Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith

Exactly correct.....we make a presumption, based on the evidence....or in this case, the absence of evidence...

And we do this all the time when behaving rationally. You proceed through a green light, because you presume that the drivers to your right and left will be obeying a red light...

Remember this is NOT making a declarative statement that god/s do not exist, however we proceed on the presumption that they do not.....further evidence could always overturn that presumption...

I fail to see what point you are trying to make, but then, that's not unusual when I read your posts.....

 

[biggles53]

We can even observe new species come into existence, such as new bacteria.

True...and in the plant and animal kingdoms as well...

What Grady and other befuddled thinkers fail to grasp, despite the fact that it has been explained to them over and over, is that this FACT of evolution is then explained by the THEORY to which it relates....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly correct.....we make a presumption, based on the evidence....or in this case, the absence if evidence...

And we do this all the time when behaving rationally. You proceed through a green light, because you presume that the drivers to your right and left will be obeying a red light...

Remember this is NOT making a declarative statement that god/s do not exist, however we proceed on the presumption that they do not.....further evidence could always overturn that presumption...

I fail to see what point you are trying to make, but then, that's not unusual when I read your posts.....

I don't think we should necessarily presume god doesn't exist solely on the lack of evidence for existence, but also take into account evidence that suggests that no deity has to exist for life or the universe to exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True...and in the plant and animal kingdoms as well...

What Grady and other befuddled thinkers fail to grasp, despite the fact that it has been explained to them over and over, is that this FACT of evolution is then explained by the THEORY to which it relates....

Just like gravity is explain by its theory. I think they confuse theory with hypothesis.

 

[biggles53]

I don't think we should necessarily presume god doesn't exist solely on the lack of evidence for existence, but also take into account evidence that suggests that no deity has to exist for life or the universe to exist.

Why not presume...? After all, do you not presume that fairies are mythical...? Santa..? Easter Bunny...? If you can confidently presume that these things are imaginary, why not gods, for whom there is an equal amount of evidence available.....?

 

[biggles53]

Just like gravity is explain by its theory. I think they confuse theory with hypothesis.

I think it's wilful confusion....

As has been often said...ignorance you can fix, with education....but those who deliberately shield themselves from knowledge, they have no hope....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why not presume...? After all, do you not presume that fairies are mythical...? Santa..? Easter Bunny...? If you can confidently presume that these things are imaginary, why not gods, for whom there is an equal amount of evidence available.....?

I have the evidence of the price tags on toys to suggest Santa didn't put them their; I can catch my mom in the act of hiding Easter eggs. Not telling my mom I had lost a tooth and just putting it under my pillow affirms that the Tooth Fairy isn't real. My mom really shouldn't have tried to uphold those childish myths, I wasn't buying it.

However, I can't catch my mom creating the universe in the place of god. What I view as a small amount of evidence against a creator is numerous flaws in the universe, primarily in reference to the existence of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

WRONG...!! How many times do you people have to be educated before it sinks in....!?

Evolution IS A FACT...! Got that...? It is a FACT that allele frequency varies over time....we can observe it, we can measure it.....it is a FACT...!

Observing a frog jump from Point A to Point B doesn't mean it can jump the Grand Canyon.

Observing bacteria or fruit flies evolve into more bacteria or fruit flies doesn't mean man came from apes.