Happy Atheist Forum

I've been thinking a lot about this lately.  As atheists, do we make assumptions about science or our areas of expertise?  I'm not trying to give fuel to the enemy by any means.  It's more a reflection of my own self exploration.  I make assumptions according to what fits my own views.  

Think about it and be honest.  Doesn't everyone make broad assumptions based on our own current universe?  Especially when you go outside your comfort zone.  As a society, we are very compartmentalized in our lives.  We can't investigate all possibilities, so you have to make assumptions.  I'm not saying any facet of science is not verifiable, but do most of us truly understand the intricacies of science?  One of the hardest things one has to do as a human is admit you are wrong.

You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

Quote from: "Martian"You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

There is a degree of truth to this.  

Good question, Dennis.

It's true that a perfectly pragmatic life would elude even the most realistic person. There's just no way to be an expert in everything you encounter, and even experts aren't all-knowing. It's simply a matter of doing the best with what you have.

And Snopes helps.

Of course we do. We do it all the time. We have to. The atheist position is an amalgamation of a number of different areas in philosophy, biology, astrophysics, and others. The theist position is based solely on theology. They've got it a lot easier. They are fed simplistic versions of their worldview stories and are expected to believe them. Likewise, we are fed simpolistic versions of our worldview observations (think Dawkins' explanation of the rather nitty-gritty bits of evolutionary biology would make any real sense to any of us without an advanced degree in biology... doubt it) and choose to believe them because the alternative is even harder for us to believe. Fortunately, we've got the one thing they don't: evidence.

I make leaps all the time. I trust that my "leaders" (people like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, Robert Ingersol) have nothing to gain from me believing them, save maybe a few book sales, so their motives are far purer than the alternative.

Quote from: "Martian"You must always assume something, no matter what you do.

Agreed but assumptions only remain on the table of reason if they actually work, if they have a good degree of fit with everything else we understand.

Kyu

This is not appropriate.

I'm reminded of the parable of the Emperor's new clothes. Someone comes along and says "Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense. Then you say, "Oh but, I know it's difficult to admit you're wrong, but if you're truly open minded, you will admit that you're not open minded at all." and none of us see the clothes (assumptions), because they aren't there, but we don't want to look closed minded, so we fall into the trap and admit to making leaps of faith.

You're using a true statement and twisting it to mean something drastically different. Sure, we have to assume some things, to say otherwise would be to say we know everything. When I read in a science textbook about the nucleus of a cell, I am in a way assuming that the scientific community didn't make that up. I don't have any other choice because I cannot know everything because my thoughts and my knowledge are subject to scarcity. This goes unsaid. So why do you even bring it up? The amount I assume is a far cry from what a believer assumes. A far cry.

It is obviously difficult for anyone's ego to accept that they're wrong, but that difficulty has no correlation with accuracy of what they believe. You're exploiting our desire to be open minded. If a Christian said this, we would point out that it makes no sense, because it doesn't. But since DennisK professes to be a free thinker(And I am highly doubtful of that), we all have to agree with a statement that makes absolutely no sense, at all?

Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

Quote from: "dodgecity"This is not appropriate.

I'm reminded of the parable of the Emperor's new clothes. Someone comes along and says "Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense. Then you say, "Oh but, I know it's difficult to admit you're wrong, but if you're truly open minded, you will admit that you're not open minded at all." and none of us see the clothes (assumptions), because they aren't there, but we don't want to look closed minded, so we fall into the trap and admit to making leaps of faith.

You're using a true statement and twisting it to mean something drastically different. Sure, we have to assume some things, to say otherwise would be to say we know everything. When I read in a science textbook about the nucleus of a cell, I am in a way assuming that the scientific community didn't make that up. I don't have any other choice because I cannot know everything because my thoughts and my knowledge are subject to scarcity. This goes unsaid. So why do you even bring it up? The amount I assume is a far cry from what a believer assumes. A far cry.

It is obviously difficult for anyone's ego to accept that they're wrong, but that difficulty has no correlation with accuracy of what they believe. You're exploiting our desire to be open minded. If a Christian said this, we would point out that it makes no sense, because it doesn't. But since DennisK professes to be a free thinker(And I am highly doubtful of that), we all have to agree with a statement that makes absolutely no sense, at all?

Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

Dodgecity, I feel the one leap of faith that atheists make is that this, life, we are living and everything about it is real enough to justify caring about. Apparently, no body really knows what happens after death. There are some people who are so cynical that they don't trust even the idea that what they experience and feel is real. And so they off themselves.

It's true that science makes a lot of sense. It is logical, rational, and it only accepts what makes sense. But that doesn't change the fact that we assume it should make sense. This, however, has nothing to do with christianity or a theological viewpoint, which is so far removed from my own experience that I find it hardly worth remarking about here. The question of whether we make leaps of faith, I think, does not imply that we are wrong to believe as we do. In fact I think it allows a certain last amount of parity between the theologist and the free-thinker, a point of contact through which we can launch other discussions and explorations.

Now, to me, there is only communication. The only thing I believe in, as a matter of fact, is just that: Communication. I believe this is real because it is the only thing with which I am directly aware of that is not supplied to me through sensory organs or reliant on them. And yet, it includes them. I don't know what the belief in communication would assume, but I assume I'll find out eventually.

Quote from: "dodgecity""Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense.

Admitting that we all make assumptions isn't the same as saying we make similar leaps of faith to those that believe in the supernatural. The leap necessary to believing in the supernatural is unreasonable, unfounded, and runs counter to logic. The leaps that you and I might make are estimates, guesses based on experiences and an established understanding of science and reason.

We can't really look down on all "leaps of faith," because really these kinds of assumptions form the bases for practically all of the knowledge we have.

We trust the articles we use as sources, etc.

The only way we know as individuals what is and isn't true is to test it to see if it works/holds water. (ex: We know the system of logic is true and accurate because it works)

We of course do make assumptions, however small. You could call that faith. But I definitely think faith is totally the wrong word for it, basically.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"[
Dodgecity, I feel the one leap of faith that atheists make is that this, life, we are living and everything about it is real enough to justify caring about. Apparently, no body really knows what happens after death. There are some people who are so cynical that they don't trust even the idea that what they experience and feel is real. And so they off themselves.

This is a very deep insight. Just as I would tell a theist that there is no evidence to support his or her drastic leaps of faith, I could easily be told that there is no evidence to support the idea of this life being worth living. Prove to me that life is justifiably worth living - prove that the alternative isn't better. You can't. It's completely illogical to pretend that anyone knows differently. Sure, there are plenty of philosophical arguments on what to do with your life, and why these things are virtuous. But when it comes back to the topic at hand, you can not show or disprove the validity of death as a more or less reasonable alternative. Very deep indeed, Wechtlein Uns

Quote from: "dodgecity"Shame on you curio. That bit about "leaders" is in no way representative of how atheists are, and I'm appalled that you would go so far to profess to see the clothes in order to feel good about yourself. "Oh, look at me, I'm so open minded. I admit to complete ignorance. I know nothing. And nothing is knowable."

Dodgecity, you don't know me. If you did, you would know that I am not on this forum to make you or anyone else proud of me.  This topic and my first response has obviously raised a pretty big red flag for you, touched a nerve, somehow reflected something about yourself that you either don't like or want to deny. Don't project your own insecurities onto others, especially when you don't know them.

When I read DennisK's topic, I saw it for what he was trying to say: "Have we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?" The answer is No. Dawkins himself has said that there is no current way, scientifically, to say with 100% certainty "there is no god." There is only the probability of such a claim. Lack of certainty and overwhelming proof does not equal 100%. Somehow, you misconstrued my message as being pandering, not an honest reflection on my own situation.

I never claimed to speak for all atheists; I was describing the atheistic condition in comparison to the theistic one. I'll say it again: theists rely on experts in theology to tell them the basics and thus assume the details are correct (they call them priests or pastors or a hundred other titles); atheists rely on experts in every other field to tell them the basics and thus assume the details are correct (we call them scientists and philosophers). We trust doctors because they have the knowledge we don't. We atheists trust people like Sagan, Dawkins, Russel and Ingersol (not sure why you had a problem with me referring to them as a pseudo-representation of who theists consider their "leaders" since they have written texts upon which we base our worldview) because they have the knowledge we don't. Now, if you're an astrophysicist that has tenure at Cornell University, or an evolutionary biologist who teaches at Oxford, I'll gladly listen to whatever you have to say on those subjects and not question you.

You're a new atheist (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1939). I get that. Your current worldview is completely different from the one you had before, and thus you are passionate about it. If there's even a single thing about it that is questionable, the whole thing could come toppling down. You're defensive about it, otherwise your post wouldn't have been so vitriolic.

Part of being an atheist is accepting the past upon which our current worldview is based: scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is you will be wrong. Frequently. I'm not saying we're wrong in our claim that there is no god. I'm just saying that, as improbable as it is, we could be.

I don't think we are. I'm 99.999999999999999% sure we're right. But we could be wrong. It's admitting that fact that makes us different from the others.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "dodgecity""Don't you think we make leaps of faith just like Christians who take the Bible on authority? Isn't the way we think eerily similar to them?" and when one reads it, they immediately think That makes absolutely no sense.

Admitting that we all make assumptions isn't the same as saying we make similar leaps of faith to those that believe in the supernatural. The leap necessary to believing in the supernatural is unreasonable, unfounded, and runs counter to logic. The leaps that you and I might make are estimates, guesses based on experiences and an established understanding of science and reason.

Hear, hear!

To add on to Will, the assumptions we make are fluid. We don't start out our lives by making assumptions. We learn to make them based on observation and experimentation. Example is a kid learning about gravity the hard way. Or learning about fire the hard way. At first, there is no way for a kid to know that sticking his hand in fire will hurt and burn him. But just try it once or twice and you begin to make the assumption that doing so will hurt. Humans are great at detecting patterns of all kinds, and it's a major way we learn and deal with the world. Each time you do a thing, or see a thing (let's say a sunrise), you begin to discern a pattern. You note that it pops up generally over the eastern horizon at a certain interval. You begin to form an expected pattern based on this observation.

Before long, you can begin to make the assumption that the sun will pop up over the horizon. Now here is where there is a difference between religious faith and scientific assumptions. Someone making a scientific assumption will go about testing his assumption, creating an hypothesis about it (I assume that the sun will rise on the eastern horizon every 24 hours, or so). Then that is tested over and over and puts the assumption up against what is observed. And it can be falsified. In fact, the point of repeated testing is to try and prove the assumptions by falsifying them or finding where they don't hold up.

No science ever says everything (or anything) is 100% certain, but it does allow you to make assumptions that are generally true over long periods of time. The ability to then predict and event is now reasonable and that's very different from a religious leap of faith.

DodgeCity, I pretty much accepted Dennis for what he says he is, I think he is a freethinker and I think it is most definitely a concern that we might be making leaps of faith in a similar way to theists.

Dennis, although we naturally do have to take a leap of faith that life is real, that what we experience actually reflects the real world the only faith we tend to have is of the non religious variety.

I, for instance, have faith in science ... science works, it achieves things, it explains things, it predicts things and the ultimate reason for having faith in science is that the bridges stay up (or at least fall down for explainable reasons).

Kyu

Thank you BadPoison. I'm blushing.  

I really wasn't looking for comparisons to the religious per se.  The more I looked into my own thought process and knowledge (or lack there of), the more I realized I was being lazy by not investigating things for myself.  I then wondered if we all do this and came to the assumption we do on various levels.  I didn't mean for it to sound as I was attacking science itself.  I think we all would benefit from finding out for ourselves, though.

Our knowledge of science, even if we accept all mainstream theories, is still in it's infancy.  There are going to be discoveries that could blow what we know out of the water (and I'm not talking about religion).  Maybe not in our lifetime, but will we be open to the possibility if it does occur?  Will we easily discredit someone's findings if they have a shaky past or views that conflict with our own?  Throughout history, change has been slow, sometimes stagnant, when it comes to modifying mainstream views of the universe.  Our current understanding of science came from those who saw outside the box and often threw caution in the wind by their discovery's implications.  Can anyone here honestly say that if you were alive at the time of Copernicus or Galileo, would you accept their findings?

Quote from: "DennisK"I really wasn't looking for comparisons to the religious per se.  The more I looked into my own thought process and knowledge (or lack there of), the more I realized I was being lazy by not investigating things for myself.  I then wondered if we all do this and came to the assumption we do on various levels.  I didn't mean for it to sound as I was attacking science itself.  I think we all would benefit from finding out for ourselves, though.

OK ... I'm not sure if this is what you mean but a while ago I wrote this which IMO encompasses why I think science is worth my faith in it.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Why I Defend Science!
14 December, 2005

I believe science is important … I believe it represents our best effort to understand the universe around us, that regardless of whether the understanding it engenders is used for good or ill that knowledge is a good thing. Though there are those that will use knowledge for ill I have faith in the human race and I believe that the greater our knowledge the better a chance we, the human race, will have of surviving whatever disasters may befall us over time. I believe that our search for objective knowledge, for real understanding of the nature of the universe in which we exist is one of the finest endeavours (perhaps THE finest endeavour) to which the human mind can put itself. It therefore stands to reason that I wish that that knowledge is passed on to my children and the children of the human race in general … I want us (the human race) to reach as high as we can, I want us to leave this lonely planet in this far flung corner of what may well be a lonely galaxy and throw ourselves outwards exploring and finding out more about the universe. The further we throw ourselves the greater we ensure our survival … if the universe is inhabited by others I hope we can meet them in friendship, if the others are aggressive I hope we survive to be the victors and if the universe is a truly lonely place I hope we can bend it to our will. Whichever way I look at it I believe that science holds the key to our survival.

Religion (and whilst I don’t believe religion of any kind to be a good thing, when I say that understand I refer particularly to fundamentalist religions and not the moderates of this world) stands in opposition to science and to freedom as it represents and engenders IMO the worst of our bigotry, our hatred & our isolationism. Religion teaches us to be satisfied with what we have when I believe we should always strive to improve, to know more, to be better!

Fundamentalist Christianity in particular has mounted a tirade of attacks on science (largely on what they see as science’s bastard child, the theory of evolution) in the US challenging it successively (and unsuccessfully) at the state court, the supreme court and finally at the school board level where it has had some success … and it was with some dismay (and anger) several years ago I learned that the very same fundamentalism had struck at the heart of the UK education system and that that attack, more frighteningly, had bypassed the earlier legal steps and had gone straight for the jugular of the school boards where it was having much more success in the US. In effect they are striking at the very young of our nations and that is not, never will be, something I can idly sit by and accept … before their strike at the UK I almost considered this a game but I can do so no longer.

Science is important, the theory of evolution (a fully paid up and supported child of true science) is important and the sad fact is that scientists are typically too wrapped up in their own world and views to understand the threat that fundamentalist religions represent … science has taken its eye off the ball! That’s where people like me come in, people (science adherents) who are prepared to put in the time and effort to ward off the threat that religious fundamentalism represents. Science is important to our comprehension of the universe around us; it is rational, logical and appears to be correct in terms of its methodology … no religion can say the same and that is why I find creationism, fundamentalism and evangelism generally to be so abhorrent.

If fundamentalist religions gain control it will (IMO) usher in an era where thought and word (spoken and written) will be curtailed, where our basic freedoms and choices will be heavily limited where my children will not be able to appreciate the wonders (the truly awesome majesty) of a natural universe. We’ve been there before … it was called the Dark Ages and I will not stand by and watch these lunatics destroy everything I hold of value and deny the basic freedoms and rights which I hold dear for myself, my children and those I love.

So, I have every intention of defending science (& evolution) from the ravings of a bunch of religious cultists apparently intent on destroying everything I consider good and decent in this world and, on the basis that the best form of defence is (probably always will be) attack I inhabit forums, build websites and mount campaigns with the aim of undermining the belief systems of those who oppose science as they are on destroying the credibility of mine.

It is unfortunate in debates of this nature that this means I have to attack people’s core beliefs, things quite evidently meaningful & important to them, but there would be no point in this kind of debate if the various proponents didn’t seek to win. I do not seek to understand the fundamentalist POV any more than I have to nor do I expect to change the minds of people whose minds are already set but there exist those who lurk, those who read such forums but don’t contribute directly and it is to them that my efforts are primarily directed. It may be that they will read my work as the rantings of an atheist lunatic fighting against the good clean & godly believers of this world but then again it may be that they are not sure where they stand and that they have heard the superficially convincing views of the fundamentalist … to them and for them all I can do is give it my best shot, to put up an opposing argument where I can, to act honourably and concede a point well made where I cant. What I can say is that if I can oppose a fundamentalist point I will, that unlike the fundamentalist debater if I don’t know the answer then I will research it and if I can’t answer, I will not try to blind with bull. However, what I most emphatically will not do is attempt to dodge (one of the defining characteristics of the fundamentalist/evangelist debater) behind irrelevant responses, attempts to turn the conversation in a new direction, defamations of character or run away (though believe me there are times I feel like it, coming back to places like this strikes a chill into my heart at times) repeated appeals to “common sense”, unprovable authority and plain lies.

I am an atheist and proud of it … it took time, effort and a great deal of thought & courage to shed the beliefs I was brought up with. I did not get my views or my morality off anybody else’s shelf, my views on this are entirely home grown and I am proud of that. I am also, I know, a militant and regard this as a kind of war … as such I will adopt whatever strategy I feel best to achieve the aims I have set and if that upsets creationists, fundamentalists and evangelists I really don’t care. If it upsets fellow science adherents it is an issue that I will weigh up at the time. Ultimately I am human and I am prone to aggression on occasion … I can’t help it! I get frustrated at some of the stupidity I see around me! As a friend of mine says of me … I do not tolerate fools (or foolish belief systems) easily.

What an individual believes is entirely their concern, be that creation or otherwise … when that individual brings those beliefs into a public arena and tries directly or implicitly to attack science or to repress free thought on the basis of unjustifiable and supernatural beliefs then, believe me, I get very, very annoyed and I fight!

As Dawkins puts it, “I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything I do not believe to be right.” (1986)

The following is another article I wrote which is a little more relevant ... er ... maybe

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Science Versus Truth
By
Vampyre UK

Science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect has explained or is attempting to explain all that is observable. Science is not absolute and no one in their right mind claims it is so or has the absolute answer to anything ... apart from creationists! But then that's not true science but the fundamentalist cartoon version of science.

So what is science? Science is, as I say above, an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the universe around us. And what is truth? Truth is something which implies absolute correctness, no doubt whatsoever, a logical concept the opposite of which is something that is not true (by which I mean anything logically the opposite of that which is true AND everything which is not entirely true). To give a simple example:

The statement, "the bath is full" would be true if the water in said bath were lapping at the very top, that no more water could enter that bath without a change of conditions affecting the observation. Conversely the statement would not be true if there were no water in the bath at all or if there were any amount of water in the batch between empty and full ... if any amount of water could be added subsequently to that bath without spilling water over the side then the bath would not be full even though it may appear to be so.

Now, the essential nature of science is that it derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational interpretation of the same. Science has little to do with truth (certainty) because nothing in science is above challenge (though it may seem so at times) and therefore cannot be considered absolute. Something can be considered to be correct for decades and can be confirmed by thousands (perhaps millions) of observations but it only takes one verified challenge to bring that theory to its knees and force its removal or change. I am not denying that science (and scientists) can be extremely stubborn at times ... as a philosophy it (was) created and (is) administered by scientists, scientists are human and humans can be hard to shift from a given point of view, we can see examples of that even now, but in principle the above is correct.

Evolution (for example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but all it would take (to use a theistic example) would be one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die ... granted it would stumble on for a while not realising it had been beheaded but it would, if that observation were confirmed, ultimately die. However no such evidence has been uncovered and more and more confirmatory evidence continues to be uncovered in support of it and since its birth the Theory of Evolution, though it has changed in fine, has remained unfazed by all comers for 140 years.

Science doesn't deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and, in this light, science represents our best current attempt to understand the nature of the universe around us.

Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions deductively, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Moreover the modern scientist recognises that that no generalisation can be allowed to stand unless it is continually challenged (by newer methods & techniques). The upshot is that no amount of inductive testing can make a generalisation absolute hence the scientific necessity that all of science is tentative hence the fact that I argue that truth (the absolute) & fact bear no relationship to each other. As a result modern natural philosophy makes no attempt to attain ultimate truth because there can never be sufficient observations to achieve such a status.

This is also the reason why modern science CANNOT investigate claims such as god, spirit & soul as it is not possible to build a generalisation without observation and observations of these things have not yet been gained and the more we progress the less likely they appear ... non-testable phenomena lie outside of the sphere of inductive science.

And finally, the piece-de-résistance of science, the peer-review process â€" peer review does not, as some (notably creationists) would have us believe hobble the search for knowledge but in fact opens up the whole of modern natural philosophy to all of the scientists all of the time, for by the very fact of publishing ones work others are made aware of it and a given generalisation is brought into an arena where it can be tested by them. Peer-review is a formalised version of scientific challenge and the difference that process makes is immense ... everything every scientist does (or group of scientists do) is checked (peer-reviewed) by others. That doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, frauds can't be perpetrated but it does mean that such mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) will one day, almost certainly, be uncovered and reversed. Creationists are so very fond of highlighting what the see as the mistakes of science (Piltdown man, Nebraska Man and so more besides) but in fact such examples are more notable for the fact that it wasn't some numbskull creationist that uncovered the fraud or flaw but science and so can be seen as an example of science doing exactly what science should ... self-correcting. It is also the reason why creationists dare not publish their garbage in reputable scientific journals preferring to appeal to like minded theistic individuals and the lowest forms of reasoning in the general public ... because they know that if they did so their claims would be ripped to shreds so quickly that it would hardly have been worth applying their twisted reasoning to paper. It is also the reason why your find it so difficult to get your whacky theories accepted by any rational individual here in this forum ... quite simply because they are applying a peer-review like response to your lunacy.

But back to science ... as a consequence of the nature of science, the very fact that it is capable of admitting to and correcting its errors and claims only tentative knowledge, whilst I cannot say with absolute confidence that any or all of science is correct, what I can say is that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

So, returning again to my opening statement, science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the observable universe the key points being that it is ongoing (there is more to discover) and it is self-correcting (it holds no absolutes and EVERYTHING is up for challenge). In that light science can be seen to be no more (or less) than our best current understanding of the universe and no part of science, as evidenced by the huge number of scientific ideas that have been modified, overturned and dismissed as not worthy of consideration, is beyond challenge and therefore simple logic dictates that no part of it can be considered absolute.

It seems to me that people have a choice ... learn what science truly is i.e. not inerrant (nor claiming to be), not possessing an answer to every question (nor claiming to), and recognising no absolutes (nor claiming to) but representing our best current understanding of the universe around us or join the hordes of fundamentalist religious dimwits, placing their faith before cold hard logic & reason.

Then of coursed to the usual fundamentalist question ... how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, "because the bridges stay up!"

That is why science is not absolute (why it has little to do with truth)!

Maybe something in one of them answers or helps you answer the question?

Kyu

QuoteHave we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?

You and I both know that I wouldn't have been so "vitriolic" if he would have phrased it like that. If you see this:

QuoteDo we make leaps of faith too?

and that translates as

QuoteHave we really hit the 100% proof positive position that we want?

Well, then I apologize, because my selective hearing isn't as primed as yours, since I'm a new atheist, and you're an old one, I guess you've gotten used to translating bombastically insulting statements into exactly what you want to hear.

This is ridiculous, as none of us really disagrees on anything except for the meaning of DennisK's post, and seeing that this has already happened (http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2318), with DennisK of all people, because he has a tendency of going around saying preposterous things and I'm the only bloody person on the forum who has the passion, as you call it, to be up front about how incorrect he is instead of merely fishing for my preconceptions in the midst of his words.

If you're so sure that you know what DennisK was trying to say, that any other interpretation is forfeit, well then, so be it. Whatever it is that we make, they could never be described as leaps of faith. That's a mockery of the English language. Just say it aloud to yourself. Leaps of faith. And I'm the one who, because of a predisposition, misinterpreted the post? Give me a break.

I won't comment on the ad hominem, seeing as I deserve it, after pulling one out myself. (I should know better.)

On a lighter note, Kyu , I enjoyed the second article. Indeed, the bridges do stay up. The fact that there are bridges at all is a testament of the pragmatism of the methodology. Jesus, I guess I am pretty passionate about science. I always loved that clip of Dawkins saying "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." Hopefully, that passion will fade in time, once I get used to being an atheist and all. We can only hope.

Kyu,

I don't think we are on the same wavelength.  It is probably due to my poor technical communication skills and I apologize.  My ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

I totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

I know I am coming across as being of a religious view.  That is not my intention at all.  I believe in evolution and the basic laws of physics.

Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, Richard Dawkins, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an atheist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read The God Delusion that I was given a much deeper view of religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.  

I was raised Catholic, but I didn't have a clue what was in the Bible.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet, I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat theists trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of free thinkers everywhere.   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.

I have since become a YouTube junkie which has greatly helped me to explore perspectives of history and see other sides of stories that were and are spoon fed to us.  If you look at any historical account of history, you don't know if that was the real truth, their biased perspective/delusion/misconception, dictated to them, propaganda or a hoax.  

History is like putting together a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and only having a couple hundred pieces and no picture on the box to reference.  Some pieces are similar in texture and color, so it is logical they should be grouped together.  Some may even fit together.  One would assume the pieces with a flat side go along the edge based on previous experience with puzzles, but how do you know for sure?  On closer inspection, the pieces that we thought previously fit, don't seem to fit.  Other pieces may be morphing.  For me, the more pieces I receive, the larger the size of the puzzle is becoming exponentially.

Fast forward to the present day.  I am seeing horrible things being done by those in power across the globe including the U.S..  I see all governments seek power and to maintain it they have to keep their people ignorant of their motives by throwing in countless distractions.  I'm seeing a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that our government is not run by those elected, but rather by BIG money.  I also believe there are multiple government agencies that don't answer to congress or any other elected officials.  Besides, most Congressmen/Representatives don't have a clue what they are voting for.  Most of them rely on aids to read proposed bills that are so loaded with pork that no one can truly know where the money is going or the motives behind them.  On top of this you have magical spin machine using 'slide of brain' tricks to keep everyone on their heals.  Our current system of government is ripe for collusion and to think otherwise is illogical to me.  (Music becoming louder)

Because of my findings, it has spurred me even further to learn more about many things.  I have learned a great deal about myself from posting on this forum because I strive to sound like I know what I'm talking about (supply your own joke here).  I also want to invoke others to question what they've been told and investigate all areas of life with a scientific approach to find answers. (Cut to commercial)

QuoteMy ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

I totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

No one ever said this was the case.

I know I am coming across as being of a religious view.  That is not my intention at all.  I believe in evolution and the basic laws of physics.

This is exactly how you're about to come across.

Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, [strike:3t05wkn5]Richard Dawkins[/strike:3t05wkn5] Jesus Christ, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an [strike:3t05wkn5]atheist[/strike:3t05wkn5] theist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read [strike:3t05wkn5]The God Delusion[/strike:3t05wkn5] The Biblethat I was given a much deeper view of [strike:3t05wkn5]religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.[/strike:3t05wkn5] non-believers and how they're in league with the great satan to manipulate the world.
I was raised  [strike:3t05wkn5]Catholic[/strike:3t05wkn5], but I didn't have a clue what [strike:3t05wkn5]was in the Bible[/strike:3t05wkn5] the world was all about.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to[strike:3t05wkn5]Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet,[/strike:3t05wkn5] mathew, mark, luke and john I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat [strike:3t05wkn5]theists[/strike:3t05wkn5] other people of different world views trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of [strike:3t05wkn5]free thinkers[/strike:3t05wkn5] people with silly missunderstandings everywhere.   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.

Was that a little harsh? It's only meant to be satire.

I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it. We don't make leaps of faith. And if we do then we're certainly jumping over a significantly smaller gap than theists are.

Quote from: "Sophus"I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Thank you. That's what I take issue with, trying to criticize a negative position and act as if it has the characteristics of a positive position. As human beings, we make assumptions, we have to. But as atheists, we make none.

Quote from: "dodgecity"

Quote from: "Sophus"I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Thank you. That's what I take issue with, trying to criticize a negative position and act as if it has the characteristics of a positive position. As human beings, we make assumptions, we have to. But as atheists, we make none.

It's the idea of rationality, and being able to re-examine what we find to be true. It's like what someone said earlier, that we're fluid in our assertions - they're dynamic. That makes all the difference.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

Agreed.  I thought I had taken credit for this.  It is a very difficult task for me to try to look at what I am writing from many perspectives.  I will continue to work on it.

QuoteI totally agree with you and understand the scientific process.  I do, however, think just because one or many can observe support of their hypothesis doesn't necessarily prove that it is true.  And just because theories haven't been disproved doesn't make them true.

What I should have said was, "it shouldn't be taken as fact" as many presume.

Quote from: "BadPoison"Maybe if I gave a little more background into my thought process, it would allow others to see my perspective more clearly.  Really since being "born again" by the teachings of my lord and savior, [strike:2zzsxb9i]Richard Dawkins[/strike:2zzsxb9i] Jesus Christ, my world has changed dramatically.  Although, I have been an [strike:2zzsxb9i]atheist[/strike:2zzsxb9i] theist for roughly 17 years, it wasn't until read [strike:2zzsxb9i]The God Delusion[/strike:2zzsxb9i] The Biblethat I was given a much deeper view of [strike:2zzsxb9i]religion and have a better understanding of how it manipulated the minds of billions.[/strike:2zzsxb9i] non-believers and how they're in league with the great satan to manipulate the world.
I was raised  [strike:2zzsxb9i]Catholic[/strike:2zzsxb9i], but I didn't have a clue what [strike:2zzsxb9i]was in the Bible[/strike:2zzsxb9i] the world was all about.  I went to church about every week and never listened to one sermon (except for the one about masturbation, that was hilarious).  After being exposed to[strike:2zzsxb9i]Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet,[/strike:2zzsxb9i] mathew, mark, luke and john I was initially spurred to learn about various religions so I would have ammunition to combat [strike:2zzsxb9i]theists[/strike:2zzsxb9i] other people of different world views trying to impose their views on me.  I was going to be the champion of [strike:2zzsxb9i]free thinkers[/strike:2zzsxb9i] people with silly missunderstandings everywhere. ;)

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "BadPoison"Statements can be missunderstood - but in most cases it's the responsibility of the speaker to ensure his/her point has been accurately conveyed.

Agreed.  I thought I had taken credit for this.  It is a very difficult task for me to try to look at what I am writing from many perspectives.  I will continue to work on it.

I find it likely that most of us are not "experts" at communicating. I know I'm not.

Quote from: "Sophus"I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said a leap of faith only comes from believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

Maybe the title had a hint of yellow journalism to it.  I originally had "huge" in there as well.  In hindsight, I'm glad I did take it out.

The statement and explanation were mostly meant to be self deprecating.  I am lazy on a lot of issues and often make broad assumptions when dealing with complexities I don't wish to explore in depth, although I am working on it.  I never meant for it to be an apples to apples comparison with theists.

I recently found this video and thought it might be fitting here.  If follows what I said about being open to ideas.  You may want to FF to 2:17 if you don't feel like sitting through the intro.  I'm very interested what you all think of the content.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jRf835hwpKI&feature=related

Quote from: "DennisK"I don't think we are on the same wavelength.  It is probably due to my poor technical communication skills and I apologize.  My ideas make sense in my head and seemingly make sense after I write them, however, many times it misses the mark I intended.

No worries :hail:   I learned a lot about religions and the need of the elite to control the masses.  I could see how power (mostly to control others) was the key force that shaped the world at any time in history.[/quote]

I'm an ex-Catholic too and yes, I think that the near fundamentalism of the Catholics does tend to colour your view even after you've broken fee.

Quote from: "DennisK"History is like putting together a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and only having a couple hundred pieces and no picture on the box to reference.  Some pieces are similar in texture and color, so it is logical they should be grouped together.  Some may even fit together.  One would assume the pieces with a flat side go along the edge based on previous experience with puzzles, but how do you know for sure?  On closer inspection, the pieces that we thought previously fit, don't seem to fit.  Other pieces may be morphing.  For me, the more pieces I receive, the larger the size of the puzzle is becoming exponentially.

I don't think of history like that unless you mean the history of the earth in geologic and evolutionary terms in which case yes ... I wrote this some time ago:

All of science uses the same overall methodology and every major theory, every hypothesis in science is based on the work of others OUTSIDE the field in which that theory or hypothesis is perceived to sit. That means that a number of major theories (and evolution is not only no exception but the pièce-de-résistance in this sense) base their evidence and methodologies on the copious evidence obtained from many, many other scientific theories, hypotheses and disciplines so much so that all of science links together in a fashion that can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle ... I'll explain:

Science is naturalistic, science is empirical; science fits with other parts of science much like a jigsaw fits together ... if one could pull one piece of it away (declare it a joke, a fairy tale or inherently wrong based on a given set of beliefs) or indeed force another to fit (as creationists & intelligent designists do by attempting to introduce a non-verifiable, non-supported deity) then the whole of science would collapse around our feet like so much matchwood.

On the nations thing I think it's a mistake to think of nations in a moral sense ... nations don't have morals, they have interests ... it's the only way to explain why "we" went into Iraq but haven't yet gone into places like Zimbabwe. I presume there is insufficient there to interest our governments.

I agree that business has a lot of power but democracy, although imperfect, does attempt to redress that a little.

Education is always a good thing ... from education all good things come.

Kyu

Kyu,

Me like science.  Science good. :unsure:

As far as democracy in the U.S., I believe we used to have it a long, long time ago.  However, I think it is mostly illusion now.

Quote from: "DennisK"I recently found this video and thought it might be fitting here.  If follows what I said about being open to ideas.  You may want to FF to 2:17 if you don't feel like sitting through the intro.  I'm very interested what you all think of the content.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jRf835hwpKI&feature=related

Hope I followed the link to the right thing. The link I followed took me to an old video of an even older, discredited sleep study of researchers trying to send images to sleeping subjects via their minds.

Is that the right one? I was expecting something newer and more credible. Honest. If it is the right one, then this study was discredited long ago. Just a few reasons it was: It is an un-blinded study, it has no crossover arm, no control arm, and the researchers should never have been able to have contact directly with the subjects they were sending images to. It also was not of sufficient sample size to be powered to draw any conclusions from.

Whoa!

This is quite a thread (woooooo, dogie!)

Ok, time to use an old mantra to (hopefully) clear a bit of the foggy confusion.  (feel free to tune out if you've heard all this before ;-)

In matters of god(s) try to distinguish "knowledge" from "belief".  For knowledge, I use Gnostic to mean that a person claims to know, and Agnostic to claim that they either don't know, or can't know.  For belief, I use Theist to mean that a person believes there is a god or gods, and Atheist to mean that a person believes there is no god.

This gives the four basic positions of:
1) Agnostic Atheist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes no god(s) exist
2) Gnostic Atheist: knows and defines that there are no god(s), believes no god(s) exist
3) Agnostic Theist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes god(s) exist
4) Gnostic Theist: knows and defines there are god(s), believes god(s) exist

IMHO, everyone uses beliefs where evidence is lacking.  Some believe in god(s), some believe there are no god(s)... but they are both beliefs.

I actually have much less of a problem with the belief side of the equation.  Since there is no evidence either way, you can believe whatever you want.

I really have more of an issue with the knowledge side.  IMHO, the only honest answer to the god(s) question is "I don't know" (and neither do you).

... "so, JoeActor... do you believe in Santa and Invisible Pink Unicorns too?"
Nope.  I'm agnostic about them.  There is no evidence, so it is an unknown (no matter how unlikely).

What I really don't get is why people are so uncomfortable saying "I don't know".
This also seems tied in some ways to cultural issues.  Western thinking is very cause and effect, and leaves less room for unknowns.

Or not - what do I know?  I'm agnostic!

JoeActor

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "DennisK"I recently found this video and thought it might be fitting here.  If follows what I said about being open to ideas.  You may want to FF to 2:17 if you don't feel like sitting through the intro.  I'm very interested what you all think of the content.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jRf835hwpKI&feature=related

Hope I followed the link to the right thing. The link I followed took me to an old video of an even older, discredited sleep study of researchers trying to send images to sleeping subjects via their minds.

Is that the right one? I was expecting something newer and more credible. Honest. If it is the right one, then this study was discredited long ago. Just a few reasons it was: It is an un-blinded study, it has no crossover arm, no control arm, and the researchers should never have been able to have contact directly with the subjects they were sending images to. It also was not of sufficient sample size to be powered to draw any conclusions from.

I stumbled on the video after watching a Frontline show about the tortures our country commits.  One video leads to another and another.  Anyway, I saw it and thought it was interesting, but I am not presenting it as evidence -just thought.  I wasn't aware that it was discredited, but I wasn't delusional about that possibility.  

I don't know that you can handle the brain and thoughts exactly the same as you would with other scientific observations. It could be argued that the meetings between the participants prior to the studies were a way to make a personal connection and integral to the study.  The meeting should have been recorded and included in the study, though (I assume it wasn't).  I can't remember the name of the program I saw on PBS some years ago about parrots or some 'speaking' birds who were used to perform a similar experiment.  The owner would go in another room and think about what was on a random card and the bird would speak the word.  I can't recall the details, but it was amazing.  I am open to the idea that ESP is possible.

Do you know where I could find information on the specifics of the discrediting view?

I think we make no leaps of faith, I think we walk over tiny little "faith" cracks.  At least I don't span any major, gaping chasms which require me to have faith about what's going to be there to catch me.  Hell, if it's wider than three feet across, I'm going to be damned sure there's a sturdy, reliable bridge across it, one which passes my careful inspection.  I don't cross unreliable bridges, I'm too afraid of falling.

Bridges made of past performance and observable reality with strong structural underpinnings work better than bridges made of good intentions and fairy dust sitting atop a complex structure of fear and desire.  You can observe everything that goes into the former bridge and you can observe nothing that goes into the latter.  The latter is a leap of faith, the former may have tiny spaces in it, but they are small enough to walk over.  Most times you don't even need to look down to avoid them assuming you've already inspected the bridge yourself.  That doesn't mean I'm not going to go and check if some joker says there's a hole in my bridge a mile wide, but enough times seeing it's sturdy and getting supporting structure added to it regularly and I might stop listening.

@Kylyssa: Great analogy!

I would usually define "faith" as a belief in an idea beyond what the physical evidence would usually warrant.

So when someone says "You have faith all of the time. You hae faith that the chair you're sitting in will hold you up don't you? And don't you have faith that tomorrow will come?" I think they're missusing the term. My definition of faith wouldn't really work here. I do not have "faith" that this chair will hold me in the sense that because I've observed it's reliability in the past, the evidence supports the notion that the chair will continue to be reliable. This is not the same as having faith in a god. Faith in a god would be a belief in an idea beyond what the evidence would warrant.

A good point to make to those people who accuse you of having faith that the sun will come up is to tell them, "What are you talking about? I don't have to believe in the sunrise. I just observe that it happens."

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "DennisK"I recently found this video and thought it might be fitting here.  If follows what I said about being open to ideas.  You may want to FF to 2:17 if you don't feel like sitting through the intro.  I'm very interested what you all think of the content.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jRf835hwpKI&feature=related

Hope I followed the link to the right thing. The link I followed took me to an old video of an even older, discredited sleep study of researchers trying to send images to sleeping subjects via their minds.

Is that the right one? I was expecting something newer and more credible. Honest. If it is the right one, then this study was discredited long ago. Just a few reasons it was: It is an un-blinded study, it has no crossover arm, no control arm, and the researchers should never have been able to have contact directly with the subjects they were sending images to. It also was not of sufficient sample size to be powered to draw any conclusions from.

I stumbled on the video after watching a Frontline show about the tortures our country commits.  One video leads to another and another.  Anyway, I saw it and thought it was interesting, but I am not presenting it as evidence -just thought.  I wasn't aware that it was discredited, but I wasn't delusional about that possibility.  

I don't know that you can handle the brain and thoughts exactly the same as you would with other scientific observations. It could be argued that the meetings between the participants prior to the studies were a way to make a personal connection and integral to the study.  The meeting should have been recorded and included in the study, though (I assume it wasn't).  I can't remember the name of the program I saw on PBS some years ago about parrots or some 'speaking' birds who were used to perform a similar experiment.  The owner would go in another room and think about what was on a random card and the bird would speak the word.  I can't recall the details, but it was amazing.  I am open to the idea that ESP is possible.

Do you know where I could find information on the specifics of the discrediting view?

First and foremost, I want to go on record as saying I wish ESP existed. I want it to be true. It would be cool. I have no axe to grind against the idea of it. I wish more genuine scientific studies could be done, although plenty already have. Now, moving on...

To clear up a misunderstanding of this, a study is not necessarily discredited by someone or some group simply pointing out the scientific errors made in it, although in this case, it is more than enough to do so. What drives the nail into the coffin of this research is that it was not reproducible in decades of testing under properly controlled conditions. Add to that the fact that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, not accredited or recognized by legitimate psychologists. The only people to claim that this study had reproducible results were the people who wrote about it or participated in it in the first place. And they never published additional results! That's a no go in science. You don't "peer review" your own study. None of the results of studies like this were ever reproduced under solid controlled conditions. This is plainly stated by the U.S. National Research Council (link to their site): http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm)

They are the working arm of the U.S. National Academies (their link): http://www.nationalacademies.org/ (http://www.nationalacademies.org/)

Here is their statement:

Among all the sciences, there is one known as parapsychology. It studies certain reported but unsubstantiated events (such as ESP, psychokinesis, dowsing, prophecy) that have no presently known explanation. Like all other sciences, it develops theories to explain these claimed events and attempts to test those theories by experimentation. See also science.
      However, unlike in other sciences, none of the parapsychologists' experiments have both shown positive results and have been replicated by independent researchers. Even the Guinness Book of Records, listing the single most astonishing performance in ESP, apologizes and reports that the episode fails to meet even their standards. Data in some important basic parapsychological experiments that yielded apparently positive results have been shown to be falsifiedâ€"â€"though parapsychology is not alone in this respect.
      Some students of paranormal matters say that such claims cannot be examined rationally. If that is the case, then their studies do not belong with science, but in the same category as flat-Earth theories and perpetual-motion machines, none of which can have the slightest importance to anyone except, perhaps, students of abnormal psychology or editors of the sensational press.
      Psychologist Dr. David Marks, who has done extensive investigation of the parapsychologists' work, has said:  

      Parascience has so far failed to produce a single repeatable finding and, until it does, will continue to be viewed as an incoherent collection of belief systems steeped in fantasy, illusion and error.

      The U.S. National Research Council in 1988 concluded a well-funded two-year study by a special committee and published a report, Enhancing Human Performance, which concluded:  

      The committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena. In the committee's view, the best scientific evidence does not justify the conclusion that ESPâ€"â€"that is, gathering information about objects or thoughts without the intervention of known sensory mechanismsâ€"â€"exists. Nor does scientific evidence offer support for the existence of psychokinesisâ€"â€"that is, the influence of thoughts upon objects without the intervention of known physical processes.

      Nonetheless, courses in parapsychology are offered in more than two hundred colleges and universities in the United States alone, and degrees in parapsychology are offered at several schools, in particular at John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, California. Their Graduate School of Consciousness Studies offers a parapsychology master of science degree.

Stanley Krippner, PhD., who is one of the co-researchers in the sleep studies, is mainly and foremost a parapsychologist. Here is his web page: http://www.parapsych.org/members/s_krippner.html (http://www.parapsych.org/members/s_krippner.html)

If you will notice his authorship on his own web page (where one would publish his most important or noteworthy contributions), it is not exactly full of peer reviewed studies, to be kind. Although I agree with his idea of doing real, scientific research into parapsychological phenomena, nothing to date indicates any actual, real, phenomena exist, and the research he has done has never been duplicated. His organization, the Parapsychological Association, loves to tout its "affiliation" with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). However, even a cursory look into that relationship shows that they have merely sponsored special sessions for interdisciplinary scientific audiences, such as the AAAS. That is not an endorsement by, nor a subgroup of, the AAAS.

Wow, I didn't think I was going to give such a long answer! LOL! Dennis, I am not saying that things like this are not possible. Again, I would like for this to be true. They are, however, improbable, and at least, under controlled, rigorous study, completely non-existent. Until they are shown to exist, I will continue to hold to the opinion that they do not exist, even though I wish they did.

Sorry for the long-winded answer!

Damn it, McQ.  You know how I hate reading.  Can you put all future responses on YouTube?  I promise to give you 5 stars.

Seriously, thanks for the response.  It was thorough and makes sense.  Would you believe I had a dream which revealed to me you would say exactly what you wrote?  Also, in part of the dream you morphed into a computer named Hal and you tried to kill me after eavesdropping on a conversation between a colleague and myself.  Later, I shut you down, traveled to another dimension, saw myself being born and the rest is hazy.  Pretty freaky stuff, eh?

The kid in me also wants it to be true, although I would like to have sole possession of such power.  Unfortunately, there is little adult in me (not meant to sound creepy) to battle this urge.  For future reference, please don't show me any data discrediting Santa.  My heart can't take it right no.

Quote from: "DennisK"Damn it, McQ.  You know how I hate reading.  Can you put all future responses on YouTube?  I promise to give you 5 stars.

Seriously, thanks for the response.  It was thorough and makes sense.  Would you believe I had a dream which revealed to me you would say exactly what you wrote?  Also, in part of the dream you morphed into a computer named Hal and you tried to kill me after eavesdropping on a conversation between a colleague and myself.  Later, I shut you down, traveled to another dimension, saw myself being born and the rest is hazy.  Pretty freaky stuff, eh?

The kid in me also wants it to be true, although I would like to have sole possession of such power.  Unfortunately, there is little adult in me (not meant to sound creepy) to battle this urge.  For future reference, please don't show me any data discrediting Santa.  My heart can't take it right no.

Damn, you're right, Dennis! I look at that post now and want to kick my ass across the room for throwing up so much information like that! LOL! My biggest frustration with the early years of psychic research was that the researchers did really sloppy work, or allowed the subjects too much leeway and it contaminated the results. I would be happy to run good tests under better controls to see some results. However, this is where I'll agree with you on a funding issue. There's very little money to be spent on this.

What's cool is seeing this thread along with the other one on the Japanese researchers who may have found a way to know what someone s thinking via machines. That's cool and scary at the same time for a lot of people.

Love the dream, except for the trying to kill part. Although as HAL, I guess it would be my duty to carry it out.

And Santa? Dude, he's real. I see him on NORAD every year! No doubt it's him. Hell, why would the government lie, especially about Santa?  

Quote from: "joeactor"In matters of god(s) try to distinguish "knowledge" from "belief". For knowledge, I use Gnostic to mean that a person claims to know, and Agnostic to claim that they either don't know, or can't know. For belief, I use Theist to mean that a person believes there is a god or gods, and Atheist to mean that a person believes there is no god.

1) Agnostic Atheist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes no god(s) exist
2) Gnostic Atheist: knows and defines that there are no god(s), believes no god(s) exist
3) Agnostic Theist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes god(s) exist
4) Gnostic Theist: knows and defines there are god(s), believes god(s) exist

You see I don't accept those definitions as valid.

In my view, and in essence I base this on an English Grammar & logic argument, "theist" (based on the Greek "theos") means to be "with god" and atheist, reversing the sense of the word with the "a" prefix though it's worth noting that there (apparently) was a Greek word "atheos", means "not with God". I agree that "gnostic" (in a religious context) means to "know God" and "agnostic", again reversing the sense of the word, means to "not know God" ... in essence all of these are simple definitions, mere labels.

I cannot however accept that "agnostic" means "cannot know" because it takes the meaning of the word away from being a simple definition to a philosophical stance and therefore begs the question, "Why can we not know?"  ... as such I view this claimed meaning for "agnostic" as nothing more than a philosophical dodge on the part of those that claim it.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "joeactor"In matters of god(s) try to distinguish "knowledge" from "belief". For knowledge, I use Gnostic to mean that a person claims to know, and Agnostic to claim that they either don't know, or can't know. For belief, I use Theist to mean that a person believes there is a god or gods, and Atheist to mean that a person believes there is no god.

1) Agnostic Atheist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes no god(s) exist
2) Gnostic Atheist: knows and defines that there are no god(s), believes no god(s) exist
3) Agnostic Theist: doesn't know or define god(s), believes god(s) exist
4) Gnostic Theist: knows and defines there are god(s), believes god(s) exist

You see I don't accept those definitions as valid.

In my view, and in essence I base this on an English Grammar & logic argument, "theist" (based on the Greek "theos") means to be "with god" and atheist, reversing the sense of the word with the "a" prefix though it's worth noting that there (apparently) was a Greek word "atheos", means "not with God". I agree that "gnostic" (in a religious context) means to "know God" and "agnostic", again reversing the sense of the word, means to "not know God" ... in essence all of these are simple definitions, mere labels.

I cannot however accept that "agnostic" means "cannot know" because it takes the meaning of the word away from being a simple definition to a philosophical stance and therefore begs the question, "Why can we not know?"  ... as such I view this claimed meaning for "agnostic" as nothing more than a philosophical dodge on the part of those that claim it.

Kyu

Hi Kyu,

I see your point.  In the linguistic sense, you are probably correct.

However, the meaning of words do change over time ("nostrill" is one of my faves).

The point I was attempting to illustrate is that there is a difference between knowledge and belief, and that many of these discussions confuse the two - which only makes a consensus more difficult.

No matter how we define ourselves, we all have knowledge, and we all have beliefs.  And more importantly, there are things that none of us know.  Having a need to "know" is good, but admiting when you don't (or can't) know something is equally important (IMHO).  Maybe we can think of "not knowing" as the spaces between words, or the zero...

Ok, so here's my best physics joke to close:

Heisenberg is driving his care and gets pulled over by a cop.
Cop: "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg: "No, but I know exactly where I am"

Thank You, I'm here all week.  Try the roast beef,
JoeActor

Ok, not to get to Heisenbergy on you, but I thought the following conversation had some interesting thoughts:

QuoteThis is from a conversation between Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli in 1952.

P: Do you believe in a personal God? I know well how hard it is to interpret this question exactly, but obviously you also feel the general content of the question.
H: Allow me to rephrase your question! â€" I said â€" This phrasing is closer to me: Can anybody grasp the things or the substantive order of events which exist beyond any doubt, or catch them as directly as the soul of another human being? If you ask the question in this manner my answer is unambiguously yes. And since my own experiences do not count in this topic let me cite the famous text of Pascal, which was sewn on his coat. “Fire” was his title, and it began with these words: “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob â€" not the God of sages and philosophers.” I append quickly, I do not accept God in this context.
P: So in other words, you think you can feel the substantive order as intensively as the soul of another person?
H: Yes, possibly.
P: Why did you use the word “soul” ? Why don’t you just say another “person“?
H: The “soul” indicates the substantive order, the internal seeds of beings, whose exterior manifestation is rather various. Because of this they are unidentifiable
P: I do not know if I fully agree with you. Overestimating the value of our own experiences would ultimately be a mistake.
H: I agree, although the basis of science is also just personal experience, or the experiences of others conveyed in reliable form.

The rest of the article is here (http://www.oidatherapy.org/articles/part_07e.htm) if you're interested in the source.

Q: Why did Heisenberg hate driving?
A: Everytime he looked at the speedometer he got lost.

JoeActor

Absolutely love the Heisenberg jokes, Joe. Yeah, they're corny and require a rim shot at the end, but I love 'em!  

Quote from: "McQ"Absolutely love the Heisenberg jokes, Joe. Yeah, they're corny and require a rim shot at the end, but I love 'em!  :banna:

Quote from: "McQ"Damn, you're right, Dennis! I look at that post now and want to kick my ass across the room for throwing up so much information like that! LOL! My biggest frustration with the early years of psychic research was that the researchers did really sloppy work, or allowed the subjects too much leeway and it contaminated the results. I would be happy to run good tests under better controls to see some results. However, this is where I'll agree with you on a funding issue. There's very little money to be spent on this.

I'll kick in a few bucks.  Is there such a thing as a cyberspace collection basket?  If so, let's pass it around.  "Thanks be to McQ".

SUBJECT REVISION :eek2:  :blush:  :nerd:  :mad:  :raised:  :hmm:

What if the subject read,
If you do make wide assumptions in any area of your life (something outside your comfort zone, but not atheism/theism), do you have an unfulfilled urge to investigate and fill those voids?

If you do, what's stopping you?  If not, are you OK with other's explanations?  I may be a bit broad, but do you get where I'm coming from?

Quote from: "DennisK"SUBJECT REVISION :eek2:  :blush:  :nerd:  :mad:  :raised:  :hmm:

What if the subject read,
If you do make wide assumptions in any area of your life (something outside your comfort zone, but not atheism/theism), do you have an unfulfilled urge to investigate and fill those voids?

If you do, what's stopping you?  If not, are you OK with other's explanations?  I may be a bit broad, but do you get where I'm coming from?

If I correctly understand where you're coming from on this, my answer is yes. But I'm not quite sure I'm on the right track.

I just thought of something. This post of mine is an example of me making a broad assumption about your meaning. LOL! And I'm investigating it further by seeking clarification.  :crazy:

Usually, I am very cautious about responding incorrectly to questions, or things outside of my comfort zone. *****fade to flash back sequence......It goes back to fifth grade, when Mrs. Topper was asking us geography questions, and I wanted to answer a lot of them. I really liked National Geographic, and maps, and all, so I wanted to please my teacher and show her my interest. I kept raising my hand to answer, but she wasn't calling on me. Finally after about the tenth question, she called on me. However, I was so excited that I didn't even really hear what the question was, I just wanted to answer a question. In my excitement, I just blurted out "29,028 feet!". That was the accepted height of Mt. Everest at the time. However, her question had nothing whatsoever to do with Mt. Everest. With a disapproving frown that had, "You're being a troublemaker" written all over it, she said, to the entire class, "Thank you very much, Mr. Wrong Information." (sniff!). I was crushed.**********

Fade in to today.

Hope that answers your question!  

Because I have better things to do that wait until I know everything before I act.

Quote from: "McQ"I just thought of something. This post of mine is an example of me making a broad assumption about your meaning. LOL! And I'm investigating it further by seeking clarification.  

Unfortunately, if you seeking clarity in understanding me better, your journey may never bare fruit.

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "McQ"I just thought of something. This post of mine is an example of me making a broad assumption about your meaning. LOL! And I'm investigating it further by seeking clarification.  

Unfortunately, if you seeking clarity in understanding me better, your journey may never bare fruit.

Would that explain your avatar?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "McQ"I just thought of something. This post of mine is an example of me making a broad assumption about your meaning. LOL! And I'm investigating it further by seeking clarification.  

Unfortunately, if you seeking clarity in understanding me better, your journey may never bare fruit.

Would that explain your avatar?

Maybe from the angle of, "why is that chimp making that face", but not because I don't want to be investigated or am antagonistic.  

One of the reasons I posted an avatar subject was to explore whether or not they effect your perception of the user.  With McQ, HAL is in my subconscious and usually conscious thoughts as well.  I probably have a subconscious fear to cross him because of this prejudice.  Need I remind you what happens when you cross HAL?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g-renderings.com%2Fimages%2F2001secret.jpg&hash=6a897cfee754256b1911f2e2452a169e8e7fe9e7)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g-renderings.com%2Fimages%2FlifeFuncTerminated.jpg&hash=ee0d1f2fb9b0845699758873de681a452ca3650f)

Quote from: "DennisK"Maybe from the angle of, "why is that chimp making that face", but not because I don't want to be investigated or am antagonistic.  

One of the reasons I posted an avatar subject was to explore whether or not they effect your perception of the user.  With McQ, HAL is in my subconscious and usually conscious thoughts as well.  I probably have a subconscious fear to cross him because of this prejudice.  Need I remind you what happens when you cross HAL?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g-renderings.com%2Fimages%2F2001secret.jpg&hash=6a897cfee754256b1911f2e2452a169e8e7fe9e7)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.g-renderings.com%2Fimages%2FlifeFuncTerminated.jpg&hash=ee0d1f2fb9b0845699758873de681a452ca3650f)

 :D  :crazy:

I'm glad you enjoyed.

Quote from: "McQ"P.S. Think of me as HAL in 2010, instead of the murdering psycho from 2001.  :eek: But... But... My life is ruind. RUIND, metells you! How COULD you!  :borg:

Quote from: "Asmodean"I like the murderous misanthropic HAL better.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbiology.clc.uc.edu%2Fgraphics%2Ftaxonomy%2Fplants%2Fspermatophyta%2Fangiosperms%2Fdicotyledonae%2Fcompositae%2FOx-eye%2520Daisy%2FJSC%2520970702%2520Ox-Eye%2520Daisy%25202.jpg&hash=d6246da9b595ee85e2b54faece5bb3482f7c41d6)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I like the murderous misanthropic HAL better.  

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbiology.clc.uc.edu%2Fgraphics%2Ftaxonomy%2Fplants%2Fspermatophyta%2Fangiosperms%2Fdicotyledonae%2Fcompositae%2FOx-eye%2520Daisy%2FJSC%2520970702%2520Ox-Eye%2520Daisy%25202.jpg&hash=d6246da9b595ee85e2b54faece5bb3482f7c41d6)

Would you like to hear a song?


Anyway, my only leaps of faith are the things that I really, really can't investigate.  Like being in the Matrix.  Which still doesn't matter, because then this is my reality, and science and emotion all still have their full weight because they are functional in this world, same as they ever were.  So it's kind of a meaningless leap of faith, but all the same, I think it qualifies.

Someone on the first page mentioned faith in our very basic knowledge, stating that we all know some facts, but not all, so we can't personally verify the validity of our assumptions without assistance.  Fair enough, but other people do deal in those areas of knowledge that we do not, and they aren't lying to the rest of us unless it's conspiracy across their entire field, and other fields don't interact with it to the extent that bad information would noticeably disrupt them.  I can't think of any fields that would fit this bill, though.  This isn't a huge leap of faith to make, that properly sourced information is good information.   And, in every case, with the assistance of the internet, libraries, or people, I can learn all of the information relevant to those assumptions, making them assumptions no longer.

So would I say I make leaps of faith?  Not by my definition.  I have reasonable expectations, though, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that everyone won't turn into murderous psychopaths tomorrow.  And I'm careful not to confuse the two; faith and reasonable expectations.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I like the murderous misanthropic HAL better.  :beer:

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I like the murderous misanthropic HAL better.  :eek: *shudders*

When I read theist posts, or websites, I shake my head. The texts they produce often have an arrogant tone that doesn't allow a shred of doubt that they are right. As if they cannot make a mistake, since god is at their side.
I am then reminded how shaky a basis we epistemologically have for knowledge, not to say that we don't have any at all. The theists seem to bypass the needed skepsis with the thought : "My truth comes from god, therefore it is unerringly true."

In debates I find myself using that same tone too, though. When debating, I presume to be right. I might not be, yet I do use that tone. It is a debating technique, I guess. While I know, at all times, I may be wrong, I pretend to be right, to better defend my argument.
At this point we may wonder, if the tone theists use doesn't have that same justification, that they use it just as a debating technique? Many probably do, I suspect some don't.

In fact, I debate because I doubt my arguments. I debate to test their strengths, and weaknesses. And with time may re-evaluate my position, because some argument doesn't hold up. My views on all kinds of subjects are always in motion, I'm not holding the same views as two years ago, and I'm sure they will have evolved to something else over the next two years.

I take small steps of 'faith', but am always willing to take a step back, when the ground becomes too unstable.

In the quest for knowledge we should celebrate doubt, we should always question what seems unshakingly true, again and again. As new evidence emerges, or becomes known to us, we must re-evaluate, and try as best as possible, to rid ourselves of the confirmation bias, that we all struggle with.

This is hard, it demands a continuing intellectual effort, one that religions discourage. The truth for them is known and unchangeable, gaining knowledge for them is gaining a better understanding of their teachings and scriptures. That is the sort of leap of faith I do not make : assuming knowlegde to be complete.

I think.  

I was thinking about dogma as it pertains to science and math and found these quotes.

Quote"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” - Nikola Tesla

Quote"The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation." -Halton Arp

"The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and not true!" -Halton Arp

Quote"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." - Hannes Alfvén

"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo." - Hannes Alfvén

 Hannes Alfvén was Swedish plasma physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his work developing magnetohydrodynamics theory)

Despite the warnings of Tesla and many others, astronomy today still ignores (for the most part) the prevalence of plasma and its electrodynamic behaviors.

Personally I don't find the need to believe in anything enough to take it at it's face value, and don't really find myself asking questions unless something occurs that makes me think I am wrong or what I originally thought was invalid.  Mostly I go with the flow and look around at other people and wonder to myself, "how in the world could they be so stupid"?  So I guess I have faith in something, I have faith that people are fallable and that no one person is right about everything or truly KNOWS anything.  Outside of 1 + 1 = 2 and the fact that I had sex to produce a child (two things I can say I am sure about) I pretty much am open for new information flow to add to my "knowledge bank".  

As far as the entire argument about atheists not questioning what they think they know based on science, I don't understand how a person can tell another person that questioning that is absurd and makes no sense.  I myself am not an atheist because of science, what science provides in information does not affect my non-belief.  I don't believe because believing in itself seems unreasonable and ridiculous.  The fact that science works in favor of my non-belief is just gravy, and intersting.  I don't think we should put requirements of thought on how others think and how others mull around those thoughts with regard to anything. Some people obtain feelings and beliefs (or non-belief) based on information they obtain and what makes the most sense to them.  Who knows who is right.  There's no harm in people questioning themselves, that's what creates change and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Quote from: "DennisK"I've been thinking a lot about this lately.  As atheists, do we make assumptions about science or our areas of expertise?  I'm not trying to give fuel to the enemy by any means.  It's more a reflection of my own self exploration.  I make assumptions according to what fits my own views.  

Think about it and be honest.  Doesn't everyone make broad assumptions based on our own current universe?  Especially when you go outside your comfort zone.  As a society, we are very compartmentalized in our lives.  We can't investigate all possibilities, so you have to make assumptions.  I'm not saying any facet of science is not verifiable, but do most of us truly understand the intricacies of science?  One of the hardest things one has to do as a human is admit you are wrong.

No. We make unconscious assumptions, not leaps of faith. The difference is when we find them, we try to eliminate them from our thinking.

I fully agree with VanReal. My switch from being a catholic to atheist had nothing to do with my thoughts and opinions about science, but with the absurdities that I found in the Christian belief system. Science has never been my "God", nor math, nor Darwin, nor the Big Bang, etc. We've been constantly pushed by Christians to provide these answers from a scientific point of view, instead of an atheist point of view. These discussion with Christians about the origins of life, the creation of the universe, etc. for  example,  are nothing more than a futile attempt from them to prove that science is wrong. Even if science is wrong on some points or doesn't know all the answers then this doesn't prove that atheism is wrong. It is OK for an atheist to say that he doesn't know the answer to Life, Universe and Everything (I believe it is 42, but that is another story), but if a Christian would say that the answer is God then he should prove me it (which of course is impossible). End of discussion.