[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…so how has science disproven the “belief systems” you speak of?
For example, science has disproven the idea that the God Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his golden chariot drawn by fiery horses.
It is impossible to prove a negative, but there is pretty good evidence that the Greeks got it wrong on this one.
[/quote]
Who alive today believes in Greek Mythology? Anyone?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
You sound confused, so let me spell it out for you.
Belief system = a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, i.e., objective facts.
Value system = a set of values about how people should live their lives.
Belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny. Value systems are not.
Wait…so how has science disproven the “belief systems” you speak of?[/quote]
So what is the greatest physical force in the universe? Where did it come from and what makes it so?
Are metaphysical entities subject to scientific scrutiny is or is it the other way around?
Are you claiming values cannot be measured?
Science actually proves nothing. All it does is affirm the correlation relationships between various causes and effects. Such is the way of empiricism…
[quote]pat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
You sound confused, so let me spell it out for you.
Belief system = a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, i.e., objective facts.
Value system = a set of values about how people should live their lives.
Belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny. Value systems are not.
Wait…so how has science disproven the “belief systems” you speak of?
So what is the greatest physical force in the universe? Where did it come from and what makes it so?
Are metaphysical entities subject to scientific scrutiny is or is it the other way around?
Are you claiming values cannot be measured?
Science actually proves nothing. All it does is affirm the correlation relationships between various causes and effects. Such is the way of empiricism…[/quote]
I’ve been down that road with him many a time. Though last time he claimed his values were logically and scientifically derived, so that has changed a bit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…so how has science disproven the “belief systems” you speak of?
For example, science has disproven the idea that the God Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his golden chariot drawn by fiery horses.
It is impossible to prove a negative, but there is pretty good evidence that the Greeks got it wrong on this one.
Sweet, so if i claim to believe christian values, I’m now beyond the scrutiny of science.[/quote]
…ofcourse, if those values are:
…etc, then what is science going to scrutinize? When you’re attributing those values to an invisible and allmighty entity that’s the creator of everything in existence, then that falls subject to science. See?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sweet, so if i claim to believe christian values, I’m now beyond the scrutiny of science.[/quote]
How would you propose science would go about determining if something is right or wrong? Obviously, morality isn’t in the realm of science.
However, morality based on incorrect beliefs about the objective world is another matter. If those beliefs are flawed, the morality derived from those beliefs becomes suspect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who alive today believes in Greek Mythology? Anyone?
[/quote]
You asked for an example of a belief system that has been disproven by science. I provided one.
Are you suggesting current belief systems are somehow different and beyond the scope of science? If so, why?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Though last time he claimed his values were logically and scientifically derived, so that has changed a bit.[/quote]
I’ve never suggested your values shouldn’t be informed by objective reality. Quite the contrary. Basing your values on fairy tales doesn’t seem like a smart game plan.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Who alive today believes in Greek Mythology? Anyone?
You asked for an example of a belief system that has been disproven by science. I provided one.
Are you suggesting current belief systems are somehow different and beyond the scope of science? If so, why?[/quote]
Greek mythology was disproven long before science got a hold of it.
[quote]pat wrote:
Greek mythology was disproven long before science got a hold of it. [/quote]
How was it disproven?
NASA releases latest images from Hubble; Scheduled space flights scuttled amid safety concerns.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Greek mythology was disproven long before science got a hold of it.
How was it disproven?[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Who alive today believes in Greek Mythology? Anyone?
You asked for an example of a belief system that has been disproven by science. I provided one.
Are you suggesting current belief systems are somehow different and beyond the scope of science? If so, why?[/quote]
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense…especially when coming from people who seem to act as if logic is their specialty.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
NASA releases latest images from Hubble; Scheduled space flights scuttled amid safety concerns.
[/quote]
Lol.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.[/quote]
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof.
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof. [/quote]
The entire game of life is about CHOICE. You have made the choice to believe that all religious beliefs are false.
[quote]
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis. [/quote]
It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You can basically toss that in a heap with the other studies done that did show some effect…like those pointed out here; Harris Prayer Study
However, at the heart of all of these is the effect of positive thinking and hope, which anyone with any amount of exposure to a medical/clinical environment would have to claim with absolute certainty DO have some positive effect.
While you are focusing on religion (as if proving this wrong will somehow help your cause), the bigger issue is that we have not tapped into or even barely understood the power of the human mind. With some scientists claiming we only use about “10%” of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
Religion relates these happenings directly to prayer and divinity. It does not erase that at the heart of it is positive thinking and hope…along with praying in a group which may be the equivalent of increasing mind over matter simply because of group focus on one circumstance.
In short, things like this are why I believe people who laugh at these concepts miss the point entirely and may not be as “logical and reasonable” as they think they are…let alone intellectual.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Greek mythology was disproven long before science got a hold of it.
How was it disproven?[/quote]
Stoic and Epicurean schools of philosophy pretty much killed it off.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof.
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis. [/quote]
Prayer hypothesis? LOL! The idea of trying something like that is stupid. It’s like trying to weigh a thought.
You cannot apply empiricism to something that is purely metaphysical as “power of prayer”. The very concept is flawed because it is not subjective to anything. There is no way to measure it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The entire game of life is about CHOICE. You have made the choice to believe that all religious beliefs are false.[/quote]
More accurately, I’ve made the choice NOT to believe in something for which there is no compelling objective evidence. It is impossible to prove a negative, so it would be dishonest to claim that you know something doesn’t exist. I don’t make that claim.
There is a word we have for CHOOSING to believe in something for which there is no evidence. On must subjects, that word is fantasy. But somehow when it comes to religion, the word is changed to faith.
The point is that you CAN objectively study claims like those addressed in the references we both cited. If evidence supports the hypothesis, and if alternate explanations are ruled out by good experimental design, you are justified in having greater confidence in it.
Which is why in the better controlled scientific studies on the effects of prayer, the patient is blind to whether or not he is being prayed over. You have to control for any variance accounted for by the person’s “positive thinking and hope” before you can draw accurate conclusions about supernatural intervention, or the lack thereof.
Because God knows (pun intended) that I couldn’t sincerely believe what I’m saying, without having an ulterior motive for it. Only those that believe in religion could possibly be sincere.
There is decent evidence that positive thinking can lead to beneficial health outcomes, but that in no way implies divine intervention. Positive thinking atheists see the same salubrious effects.
[quote]pat wrote:
Stoic and Epicurean schools of philosophy pretty much killed it off. [/quote]
Through logic alone?
[quote]pat wrote:
You cannot apply empiricism to something that is purely metaphysical as “power of prayer”. The very concept is flawed because it is not subjective to anything. There is no way to measure it.
[/quote]
If a person makes a claim that prayer leads to a greater rate of healing, then that claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
And if something is not subject to scientific scrutiny, it is impossible to prove or disprove, so why in the world would you choose to believe in it, as opposed to the thousands of other beliefs that are similarly not subject to scrutiny?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
[/quote]
There’s a couple of issues that I see here. Firstly, Occam’s razor needs to be scraped across your first point. The fact that we do not know how matter began to arrange itself into self replicating creatures means exactly that - we don’t know. It does not lend credence to a creator. In the words of Occam, that needlessly multiplies things. So really, any example of the current limits of knowledge signifies nothing other than exactly that - the limit of knowledge, and is consequently not relevant to the existence of supernatural entities. This leads into the next issue - the boxing of science into one realm of human knowledge. Science is not confined to laboratories and classrooms - it is the process through which we gain knowledge about what exists around us. The limits of science are the limits of knowledge - once one passes beyond the realm of evidence everything becomes nothing more than pure speculation.