Are skepticism and Belief in God mutually exclusive?

williamgrogan

It cannot just be professional full time scientists who can make up their mind on whether or not there is a god and whether or not we should believe in one.

As far as I can see the professional scientists have turned their collective backs on the wholesale fraud being perpetrated on the man in the street, as have the medical profession, the chemists who now sell homeopathy remedies, the politicians and the civil servants.

I again state that philosophy, theology, and much of the soft sciences are next to useless in understanding reality and if that offends people then there is nothing I can do about that.

The nit picking arguments between scientists and the medical profession has resulted in a large drop in immunisation by the MMR vaccination.

I have just watched a program on Channel 5 (OK laugh) by Richard Dawkins when he tried to answer the question, “why are we here”, and he basically says what I have been saying, that philosophers were wrong and scientists were right because of the way they went about their studies. I think philosophers have been so wrong for so long that they are discredited. If someone spent 4 years in College studying philosophy I would expect that sentence would annoy them.

I said that trying to understand say human love or why are we here or why we are religious as philosophers did was useless because none of these matters can be understood without knowing about evolution which was discovered & subsequently proved to a very high degree of probability using scientific methods.

We don't know how or why we developed the ability to tell stories, paint, write sonnets, sing rock songs or build skyscrapers.

I don’t know but I strongly suspect that we did for the same reasons that birds sing songs & build nests. I certainly don’t think we sing songs because of a god given talent.

Yesterday I read a statement that I have heard before; Economists have predicted 6 of the last 3 recessions. I don’t say Economics is totally useless just very suspect and most of what they say must be taken with a grain of salt. The Euro goes up against the dollar and the economy is knackered, the Euro goes down against the dollar and guess what, the economy is knackered.

I do not have a “rock-solid” belief in the big bang. I do not have a rock solid belief in anything. I accept it as the most likely way that the universe began but if it is overthrown by a new theory I won’t bat an eyelid.

The possibility of a god that kicked off the big bang is as absurd as the god that has cured 66 people at Lourdes and yet allowed 30,000 Iranians to die in an Earthquake. Semantics won’t change that.

As for Art, that evolved too as did everything that we are.

I think the problem with Sykes position is exemplified by his argument that quartz can absorb radiation and in some way that excuses or might be a defence for the con artists that sell these things to people.

Even Chris de Burg has become a faith healer.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do not have a “rock-solid” belief in the big bang. I do not have a rock solid belief in anything. I accept it as the most likely way that the universe began but if it is overthrown by a new theory I won’t bat an eyelid.

Would you say that you admit the possibility that there's an intelligence that created the universe? I mean, you're not rock-solid in your belief that that's an impossibility?

As for Art, that evolved too as did everything that we are.

Explain.

It cannot just be professional full time scientists who can make up their mind on whether or not there is a god and whether or not we should believe in one.

I don't believe that anybody has claimed otherwise on this thread.

williamgrogan

Would you say that you admit the possibility that there's an intelligence that created the universe? I mean, you're not rock-solid in your belief that that's an impossibility?

Of course I believe its a possibility as I do that we were all created last Tuesday or that the Matrix series of movies is describing reality, its just not very likely. (I fact I do think the Matrix movie might be on to something but then again I am a programmer.)

Here is a crunch point. Many people who regard themselves as intelligent and well informed scoff at the notion of a personal god who cures disease and makes it rain but think that a god that kicked off the big bang is a possibility. So they describe themselves as Agnostic but the likelihood of a big bang god is as unlikely as we were created just after the 10:00 news tonight. No one describes themselves as "After the 10:00 o'clock news'tics".

I think people who say they are Agnostic aren't Agnostic because they have a logical argument that supports this view, they just haven't figured the out the problem yet.

Wouldn't it be some coincidence that the personal god invented by our ignorant ancestors and ridiculed by many intellectuals really did exist as the big bang god?

Art?

When the Vatican commissioned artists to paint their chapels they did so to venerate God. They certainly believed that this talent was god given. How does that explain the 32,000 year old cave paintings recently discovered in France or the artistic carvings on pre-historic tools? Humans evolved traits and abilities that allowed them and gave them the drive to create art.

What do you need for art? Dexterity, good eyesight, colour vision, intelligence, fun/game playing, spare time, curiosity, imagination, etc. all traits that evolved for more mundane survival reasons.

I don't deny that there is something else now at work in the brain that extends art and that may be partly related to consciousness but we don't yet know. (Apparently the Philosophers of ancient Greece didn't believe that their slaves were conscious.)

On homosexuality, I think that there are a set of genes that when all together produce a homosexual man which should be selected out but that individually these same genes confer an advantage. Hence homosexuality survives. Are homosexuals better at lateral thinking?

I love the anti religious fundamental slogan, "God made me gay".

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Of course I believe its a possibility as I do that we were all created last Tuesday or that the Matrix series of movies is describing reality, its just not very likely. (I fact I do think the Matrix movie might be on to something but then again I am a programmer.)

Ok, but earlier you were saying "God does not exist.", which makes it seem that you were more certain of yourself than was justified considering what you are now saying.

Incidentally, it is interesting that you think that the matrix movie might be onto something, because that was another question that the philosophers were consulted upon, or at least New Scientist quoted a philosophical concensus some months back that such an idea was a possibility, and I think that such a programmed reality would require an act of creation.

So they describe themselves as Agnostic but the likelihood of a big bang god is as unlikely as we were created just after the 10:00 news tonight. No one describes themselves as "After the 10:00 o'clock news'tics".

Well, I was around earlier before the 10 o'clock news and I reckon you were too and so were the rest of the readers of this thread (not including those who have yet to be born and may come and read it in the future, of course ). So, that idea doesn't fit my observations and falls down instantly as a scientific idea because it doesn't fit the observed data. If the big-bang theory is correct, then I don't think we have enough data that we can use to accept or reject the 'big bang god' idea on scientific grounds. Even if we ever do, I would bet that it will merely raise another question for which god becomes an untestable question (and I think that you would agree, and even use the point to try to argue your own viewpoint) and we could have exactly the same debate except the phrase 'big bang' would be replaced by something else. That sounds like the linguistic issue that DadaKopf raised earlier, and I'd be very interested to hear his view of this detail.

I understand that this assumes that I wasn't just created with implanted memories and a state of being that simulates the effect of me having existed previous to that, but all science makes the assumption to a certain extent that what we see with our own eyes reflects that state of reality, no? (other assumptions too of course). To reason about the effect or usefulness of basing science on a different assumption seems like a philosophical pursuit to me.

I think people who say they are Agnostic aren't Agnostic because they have a logical argument that supports this view, they just haven't figured the out the problem yet.

Do you think that the arguments are illogical or do you think that someone has figured out the problem? If I'm understanding you correctly then figuring out the problem might actually make the existence of god a scientifically testable proposition, but that hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

Wouldn't it be some coincidence that the personal god invented by our ignorant ancestors and ridiculed by many intellectuals really did exist as the big bang god?

Well maybe, but in the same way that humanity once thought that the sun revolved around the earth, it may turn out to be a primitive idea/theory that attempts to describe a real phenomenon.

On homosexuality, I think that there are a set of genes that when all together produce a homosexual man which should be selected out but that individually these same genes confer an advantage. Hence homosexuality survives. Are homosexuals better at lateral thinking?

I don't follow your reasoning. If this is some idea of genetic fitness then you're saying that the disinclination to have reproductive sex is an advantage? Or you think that the 'homosexual gene' is related to another advantageous gene? I assume that you are assuming that homosexuals do have heterosexual sex occasionally and therefore the genes survive.

However, the model of love as based around the support of a successful reproduction earlier was what raised the question of homosexuality, i.e, how does your theory of love explain homosexual love?

Hobart

Originally posted by ecksor
Well, I was around earlier before the 10 o'clock news and I reckon you were too and so were the rest of the readers of this thread (not including those who have yet to be born and may come and read it in the future, of course ). So, that idea doesn't fit my observations and falls down instantly as a scientific idea because it doesn't fit the observed data.

I understand that this assumes that I wasn't just created with implanted memories and a state of being that simulates the effect of me having existed previous to that,

My emphasis on the assumes

but all science makes the assumption to a certain extent that what we see with our own eyes reflects that state of reality, no?

Maybe that idea was implanted at 22:01 into all of us.

I don't follow your reasoning. If this is some idea of genetic fitness then you're saying that the disinclination to have reproductive sex is an advantage? Or you think that the 'homosexual gene' is related to another advantageous gene?

I think that what he is trying to say is that Homosexuality is probably related, or a by-product off, another genetic mutation. The advantages or dis-advantages of which are probably unknown at the moment.

I assume that you are assuming that homosexuals do have heterosexual sex occasionally and therefore the genes survive

Why would you assume that? If that were the case would genetic infertility not be erradicated?

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It cannot just be professional full time scientists who can make up their mind on whether or not there is a god and whether or not we should believe in one.

Anyone can make up there mind on whether they think there is a good or not, but anyone who then goes about inflicting their beliefs on others in the name of science is an idiot.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
As far as I can see the professional scientists have turned their collective backs on the wholesale fraud being perpetrated on the man in the street, as have the medical profession, the chemists who now sell homeopathy remedies, the politicians and the civil servants.

Its not a scientists job to go about debunking people. Do estate agents go about hunting time share con artists? Do Nigerian Royalty go hunting chain mail fraudsters? They may express an opinion on the matter, when asked, but unless someone pays them, they have more important things to worry about.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I again state that philosophy, theology, and much of the soft sciences are next to useless in understanding reality and if that offends people then there is nothing I can do about that..

Do you "state" this as a fact that everyone has to accept, or is this just your belief?I think its a very naive view based on your very limited knowledge of science. But thats just my opinion.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The nit picking arguments between scientists and the medical profession has resulted in a large drop in immunisation by the MMR vaccination...

Ok, I'm not even going to go here. Once again you make rash broad statements based on the Sunday Times medical/science section. I've been at a good deal of meeting on this and that isn't whats going on at all.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have just watched a program on Channel 5 (OK laugh) by Richard Dawkins when he tried to answer the question, “why are we here”, and he basically says what I have been saying, that philosophers were wrong and scientists were right because of the way they went about their studies. I think philosophers have been so wrong for so long that they are discredited. If someone spent 4 years in College studying philosophy I would expect that sentence would annoy them.

Right but at least as either a philosopher or a scientist they would know enough about one of the fields to make a valuable arguement that they could defend. Its amusing when someone with no background in either (programming is it?) comes in armed with tabloid science and "states" the way things are :rolleyes: So what about memetics, that was one of Dawkins babies, do you think that holds up scientifically?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I said that trying to understand say human love or why are we here or why we are religious as philosophers did was useless because none of these matters can be understood without knowing about evolution which was discovered & subsequently proved to a very high degree of probability using scientific methods.

How can they be proved? They can't. You can't prove anything of the sort and no one has even come close. You say you need to know about evolution, but you implied at the tiem it was the most important aspect (well initially you implied genetcis, but you seem to have backtracked). You really are grasping at straws. If you actually want to learn something, go to the library and read some peer reviewed articles.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don’t know but I strongly suspect that we did for the same reasons that birds sing songs & build nests. I certainly don’t think we sing songs because of a god given talent..

I don't think birds sang songs or built nests to centralise a trading centre for networking, but hey, I could be wrong. The reductionism you are trying to use just doesn't work well for humans. There are many inherent simplicities in how the biology and evolution of humans came about, but the overall complexity is paradocial in that it is both uphill and downhill from these simplicities.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do not have a “rock-solid” belief in the big bang. I do not have a rock solid belief in anything. I accept it as the most likely way that the universe began but if it is overthrown by a new theory I won’t bat an eyelid.

So you question everything, but thats the basis of buddhist philosophy. Strange that isn't it?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The possibility of a god that kicked off the big bang is as absurd as the god that has cured 66 people at Lourdes and yet allowed 30,000 Iranians to die in an Earthquake. Semantics won’t change that...

Which god is this? Personally I think plate tectonics did the second one. Dunno about Lourdes.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I think the problem with Sykes position is exemplified by his argument that quartz can absorb radiation and in some way that excuses or might be a defence for the con artists that sell these things to people.

I didn't defend it. I just pointed out another area of particularly wooly thinking on your part

davros

Originally posted by syke
Its not a scientists job to go about debunking people.

Only if you are talking about the normal daily routine of scientific work. But professional associations of scientists do make representations on matters of public interest. And that does include contradicting false information and countering dubious arguments. If only for the sake of narrow self-interest, scientists have an interest in debunking simply to prevent their precious funding being diverted to establish a chair in parapsychology.

Ditto for estate agents. Anyone who tarnishes the image of legitimate sellers of property will be a target for professional bodies representing estate agents.

Right but at least as either a philosopher or a scientist they would know enough about one of the fields to make a valuable argument that they could defend.

Without commenting on the merits of arguments made on this thread, what we are talking about are issues which are important to most people - is there a God, is this doctor going to cure me... The issues have to be, at some point, framed in terms that are accessible to those who are neither scientists nor philosophers. Some other famed Buddhist traits - tolerance and patience - might help the discussion along.

I didn't defend it. I just pointed out another area of particularly wooly thinking on your part

That's a bit unfair. This thread is not for the discussion of the particular properties of quartz. I understood what wg was referring to when he mentioned, in passing, the unscientific claims attached to radiation protection devices. Your point that quartz is not necessarily transparent to EM radiation is well-taken. But these devices claim to reduce EM radiation that is not even incident on the crystal itself. That's the background to wg's reference but was it really necessary to fully qualify that?

Calibos

But these devices claim to reduce EM radiation that is not even incident on the crystal itself. That's the background to wg's reference but was it really necessary to fully qualify that?

This was kind of what I was trying to say albeit poorly probably. ie that people aren't necessarily disagreeing completely with WG but are having a go because he doesn't qualify every statement he makes.

We aren't all experts in every field. We don't all understand the mechanics of everything but I don't think its wrong to believe what eminent scientists have theorised about the biological, evolutionary etc reasons for love or morality for example. Even though I may not understand completely their theory I am more inclined to believe it and put my trust in those scientist who will actually use scientific methodology and experiments to prove or disprove their theory...rather than a philosopher or religious persons take on the subject of the origins of love morality etc which brings us back to the methodology arguement and the philosophers arguement.

Both scientists and philosophers will formulate a theory about something (Love). The differance is a scientist will set out to prove his theory. A philosopher when he has formulated his theory will then move on to his next subject.

ecksor

Originally posted by Hobart
My emphasis on the assumes
[..]
Maybe that idea was implanted at 22:01 into all of us.

Yes, but I have assumed that it wasn't. I've stated explicitly (one of) my assumptions, so I don't see why you're pointing it out to me, unless you think that we can follow a scientific line of inquiry that doesn't need to make that assumption (which is the point). Remember, we're very specifically arguing about the value of the scientific vs the value of the non-scientific and what each can profitably talk about.

I think that what he is trying to say is that Homosexuality is probably related, or a by-product off, another genetic mutation. The advantages or dis-advantages of which are probably unknown at the moment.

Perhaps, but how is this consistent with the statements that he has made about evolution wrt love or homosexuality? I'm not expecting you to clarify this, I'm expecting him to clarify this.

Why would you assume that? If that were the case would genetic infertility not be erradicated?

I didn't know there was such a thing. However, for a gene to be passed on by humans, there has to be heterosexual sex, no? Hence the assumption. I know very very little about genetics or DNA or evolution and the question of how homosexuality occurs isn't very important to this thread on reflection.

ecksor

Originally posted by Calibos
This was kind of what I was trying to say albeit poorly probably. ie that people aren't necessarily disagreeing completely with WG but are having a go because he doesn't qualify every statement he makes.

Ah c'mon now, there's a massive difference between someone failing to make an explicit qualification and someone saying things like "God doesn't exist", "philosophy is bull****", "Religious people are incapable of constructing a decent argument" and claiming that science will eventually answer all questions.

williamgrogan

re Homosexuality.

Obviously homosexuals have sex but presumably statistically they have less heterosexual sex & therefore fewer children than heterosexuals.

The individual genes get passed on by those that are heterosexual and not by those that are homosexual. The genes themselves do not get selected out because individually they confer an advantage. But together they do occasionally "create" a homosexual and "confer" a disadvantage on the individual but the over all advantage the individual genes confer means they survive, in fact flourish. The percentage of homosexuals may just be linked to a statistical shuffling of the relevant genes.

Homosexual love exists because we evolved the trait that we call love or more accurately the sum of several traits is love. The homosexual inherited genes for love too, its just he's not interested in women because another set or sub set of the same genes (I don't know which ones) causes him to love men instead.

Also there seems to be evidence that the percentage of male homosexuals is remaining constant through millennia.

The newly formed Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics would like to point out that they want parity of esteem with the Agnos’tics and the Big Bang God’tics.

They all share a similar world view, i.e. they have absolutely no proof of their position, there is no need for their belief as it doesn’t answer anything or solve anything and the Philosophers cannot proof them wrong.

The Scientists in the meantime are far too busy earning a living to denounce them.

ecksor

Oh nice one, as soon as we start moving towards the difference between scientifically testable and non-scientifically testable, you come out with a stupid piss-take and completely ignore the issue. Again.

williamgrogan

Which bit was the piss-take?

Are you saying that the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics are in any way less valid than the Agnostics? Following rigidly the argument put forward by others, who inisist on rigidity & accurate semantics, you must acknowledge that they are a valid group with as much right to express their opinion as the Agnostics.

When the Philosophers were approached by the makers of The Matrix, they didn't say piss-off but told them their view of reality was a possibility.

You see I think (better not say believe...) that the position that the big bang god believers take IS as silly as the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics takes.

ecksor

And the question I raised about the observations we have to test the belief that we came into existence at 10pm?

williamgrogan

And the question I raised about the observations we have to test the belief that we came into existence at 9pm?

The Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics believe that God or "a Superior Intelligence" or maybe a "Force for Good" created the universe at 9:00 last night, they are not sure that's why they stick "tics" at the end of their name.

Another poster already pointed out that you cannot 100% prove that the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics are wrong. My point, which I am obviously having difficulty getting over, is that the same applies to Agnosticism.

In summary, I do not think (careful….) that the position that there might be a god is a reasonable one for a Skeptic to hold as it is no more sensible than the position of the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Another poster already pointed out that you cannot 100% prove that the Association of After the 10:00 o'clock news ?tics are wrong.

I never claimed that we could, but I am claiming that science can subject it to the normal scientific line of reasoning and therefore have a conclusive opinion on the matter.

My point, which I am obviously having difficulty getting over, is that the same applies to Agnosticism.

You started off by talking about the 10 o'clock theory vs the 'big bang god', not agnosticism. Not exactly sure why or how you'd disprove agnosticism.

In summary, I do not think (careful?.) that the position that there might be a god is a reasonable one for a Skeptic to hold as it is no more sensible than the position of the Association of After the 10:00 o'clock news ?tics.

And what I am saying is that a sceptic can examine what they observed before 10pm yesterday and discount the 10 O'Clock theory. You haven't shown how they can discount the idea that there might be a god in the same way.

DadaKopf

Is this how scientistic fundamentalism will begin?

williamgrogan

And what I am saying is that a sceptic can examine what they observed before 9pm yesterday and discount the 9 O'Clock theory.

Most people here seem not to believe that there is a god but say that because we cannot prove that one didn’t start the big bang that there might be a god. In fact one poster said that the correct position for a skeptic was to be an Agnostic.

It is possible that if you go about examining whether or not the assertions of the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics are valid or not that all your enquiries will be based on unprovable assumptions. The point has been made that what you regard as your thoughts before the 9:00 o’clock news (known by us 9’tics, for short, as being in communion with the deity) are actually false. I could add data to a program that was artificially intelligent and fool it into thinking it picked up the data via its senses. Surely a god could do something similar to us, especially if we define the god as all powerful?

This is not a daft as it sounds, the young-earthers believe that the Earth was created complete with fossils and that if you look at Andromeda that you are not seeing back 2,000,000 years but god made the light appear that way.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is possible that if you go about examining whether or not the assertions of the Association of After the 10:00 o'clock news ?tics are valid or not that all your enquiries will be based on unprovable assumptions.

Yes, but what enquiry isn't?

The point has been made that what you regard as your thoughts before the 10:00 o?clock news (known by us 10?tics, for short, as being in communion with the deity) are actually false. I could add data to a program that was artificially intelligent and fool it into thinking it picked up the data via its senses. Surely a god could do something similar to us, especially if we define the god as all powerful?

Yes, but I originally made it clear that I'm making an assumption that that has not happened and that therefore I can use my observations to test the hypothesis. Is there an area of science that attempts to answer questions about the real world that doesn't make that assumption?

williamgrogan

Yes, but I originally made it clear that I'm making an assumption that that has not happened and that therefore I can use my observations to test the hypothesis.”

If you make an assumption that “that has not happened” and then do observations that you feel prove that that has not happened and the assumption is wrong then you have not proved anything. In fact IF god made the universe after the 9:00 news he WOULD HAVE HAD to put all your memories in place and that is why you falsely believe as you do.

I claim that the only reason we are having this discussion is not that the Agnostics have a reasonable position but that we are swamped by religion and religious people, many of us were brought up in religions, we are and have been bombarded by the notion that religion is good, god is good, priests are good, and that a left over bit of brainwashing in some people, Agnostics, leaves them believing that the notion of a big bang god is reasonable. It is not reasonable, it is not any more reasonable than the 9’tics position.

Of course saying this annoys Agnostics and those that feel you shouldn’t annoy Agnostics but that is a problem caused by their position. No one has any right to be annoyed by the truth.

No one has answered my question, is the Association of After the 9:00 o'clock news ‘tics position as valid as the Agnostics?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If you make an assumption that ?that has not happened? and then do observations that you feel prove that that has not happened and the assumption is wrong then you have not proved anything.

Don't we assume that every time we test a scientific theory?

I claim that the only reason we are having this discussion is not that the Agnostics have a reasonable position but that we are swamped by religion and religious people, many of us were brought up in religions, we are and have been bombarded by the notion that religion is good, god is good, priests are good, and that a left over bit of brainwashing in some people, Agnostics, leaves them believing that the notion of a big bang god is reasonable.

I don't see how science can adequately discount the reasonableness of the 'big bang god' ...

It is not reasonable, it is not any more reasonable than the 10?tics position.

... and I am saying that science can discount the reasonableness of this. So far you've kept pointing out the potential flaw in my assumptions, but you haven't answered the crucial question which is does science not have to make that assumption to deal with such questions?

williamgrogan

does science not have to make that assumption to deal with such questions

It is because Science has to make some very basic assumptions that the 9’tics position is possible. Once there is a single question that cannot be answered with 100% certainty, such as we do not know what caused the big bang, then the possibility exists that the proposition is true. This applies to Agnosticism and the 9’tics position equally.

Most of the posters here think that the Irish Skeptics should welcome religious people, in fact its in the “constitution”, but my point is that a real Skeptic could not accept the possibility that there is a god other than as being as likely as the 9’tics religion. There is a big difference in saying, “I do not know if there is a god so I am not an Atheist I am an Agnostic” and saying that the likelihood of there being a god is ridiculously remote and only as likely as any other suggestion no matter how ridiculous.

To put it another way the proposition that god may have started the big bang is at least as daft as the 9’tics position.

(There is a strong analogy here with the smoking debate. Quite rational people argue that they should be allowed smoke in pubs and other places that non-smokers go. Yet if smoking was invented say on the 1.1.2004 and tonight a bunch of smokers walked into a pub and started blowing smoke in peoples faces the publicans would bar them. The reasons people come up with for fighting the new laws are nothing to do with logic, evidence or reasonableness but all to do with the fact that we grew up accepting smoking, as utterly ridiculous as it is, as normal.)

In fact accordingly to our friends the philosophers we cannot know with certainty that we exist, that we are not a computer program and that god may have made the universe. Some fundamental religious people argue that god made the universe at 9:00 pm last night, others 6,000 years ago and others 13.7 billion years ago. I don’t see any difference between the 3 positions other then the date & time.

I am not an Agnostic; I am an Atheist because I am a Skeptic.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is because Science has to make some very basic assumptions that the 10’tics position is possible.

Ok, since you have finally answered this question (and I'm interpreting that as a 'yes') I will answer your question.

I believe that my observations bear at least a close resemblance to the reality in which I exist. I am prepared to make that assumption and from that basis start to reason about the world around me. From that point of view, I do not think that the 10'tics you describe would have as valid a position as someone who believes that there is an almighty creator of some description which I can't test (the big bang god being one particular example), and certainly do not think that the position is as valid as agnosticism which basically says "I don't know".

If one starts from different assumptions, then the reasonableness of the proposition changes entirely, and it is up to others to determine what assumptions they are willing to make.

That assumption I made isn't something I can prove and I don't know how to convince others that it is true. It is a personal belief that is slightly based upon the pragmatic viewpoint that it's a useful assumption to make, but even if I hadn't thought about it pragmatically I'd probably believe it anyway.

As for having being brought up in a religious environment, I reject that on personal experience, since I considered myself atheist until I realised that I couldn't justify my belief any more than a theist could justify theres and only came around to the more agnostic point of view upon some critical reflection since I felt that to hold a atheist viewpoint was at least as irrational as a theist viewpoint given how little we know about the universe.

Once there is a single question that cannot be answered with 100% certainty, such as we do not know what caused the big bang, then the possibility exists that the proposition is true.

Agreed. Again, this is not as rigid as your earlier statements that "God does not exist." Assuming that the big bang was an actual event that did occur of course.

Most of the posters here think that the Irish Skeptics should welcome religious people, in fact its in the “constitution”, but my point is that a real Skeptic could not accept the possibility that there is a god other than as being as likely as the 10’tics religion.

I'm not sure about this. Is the assumption I'm making above not a valid one for a sceptic to hold? Does the assumption mean that I'm not truly a sceptic? I'm willing to question that assumption, but to question all assumptions that I must make would seem to lead into the same sort of recursive questioning that makes it seem impossible to discount the existence of a god. At some point it seems that everyone must start from some assumptions. Basically, if I am justified in calling myself a sceptic and also starting with the aforementioned assumption, then I feel justified in saying that the 10'tics religion is not plausible and still admit the possibility of a god.

There is a big difference in saying, “I do not know if there is a god so I am not an Atheist I am an Agnostic” and saying that the likelihood of there being a god is ridiculously remote and only as likely as any other suggestion no matter how ridiculous.

Well, sure, but in the case where we don't seem to have a very strong alternative candidate to explain something (in this case, the origin of the universe), or a body of evidence that even makes it unlikely, let alone disproves it, then I personally find 'ridiculously remote' to be too strong a position to sustain.

I am not an Agnostic; I am an Atheist because I am a Skeptic.

I am agnostic because I cannot personally justify atheism to myself on either scientific or philosophical grounds. This may change in the future.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
If only for the sake of narrow self-interest, scientists have an interest in debunking simply to prevent their precious funding being diverted to establish a chair in parapsychology.

But thats not what WG implied, he was referring to con artists and streed peddlers. If asked I'm sure that many scientists will discuss why these and AM therapies (I have banned AM therapy recommendations from the Science forums) are a bad thing when asked or when in a suitable medium. But it isn't their jobs to go huntingthe guys down or to go looking for a soapbox.

Originally posted by davros
Without commenting on the merits of arguments made on this thread, what we are talking about are issues which are important to most people - is there a God, is this doctor going to cure me... The issues have to be, at some point, framed in terms that are accessible to those who are neither scientists nor philosophers. Some other famed Buddhist traits - tolerance and patience - might help the discussion along..

I think the reference to my religion is a little out of order. I agree that they should be. But closemindedness is possiblt the worst trait in science and it is one that is being displayed readily here.

Originally posted by davros
That's a bit unfair. This thread is not for the discussion of the particular properties of quartz. I understood what wg was referring to when he mentioned, in passing, the unscientific claims attached to radiation protection devices. Your point that quartz is not necessarily transparent to EM radiation is well-taken. But these devices claim to reduce EM radiation that is not even incident on the crystal itself. That's the background to wg's reference but was it really necessary to fully qualify that?

YEs, because teh discussion was on fraud and my point was that if the claim is only that that the devices interfere with or absorb EM then they could well get away with it. I'm not saying it works, I'm saying that technically, what they claimed may be true. What sometimes happenjs in these cases, is that someone comes along and blows the claims out or proportion and then the ruckess starts/.

Hobart

Originally posted by ecksor
Yes, but I have assumed that it wasn't. I've stated explicitly (one of) my assumptions, so I don't see why you're pointing it out to me, unless you think that we can follow a scientific line of inquiry that doesn't need to make that assumption (which is the point). Remember, we're very specifically arguing about the value of the scientific vs the value of the non-scientific and what each can profitably talk about.

I suppose that that was my point. It also follows that if you assume that assumption (can you do anything else with an assumption) that it totally debunks the 10 o'clock argument. It also makes the answer to the question

is does science not have to make that assumption to deal with such questions?

a resounding yes. But that is not to say that a scientific hypotesis can be made without that assumption whereby the result of it would be quite different. This is stated with all due regards to Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by ecksor
Perhaps, but how is this consistent with the statements that he has made about evolution wrt love or homosexuality? I'm not expecting you to clarify this, I'm expecting him to clarify this.

I understand that. I was trying to clarify the actual point not the argument

Originally posted by ecksor
I didn't know there was such a thing. However, for a gene to be passed on by humans, there has to be heterosexual sex, no? Hence the assumption. I know very very little about genetics or DNA or evolution and the question of how homosexuality occurs isn't very important to this thread on reflection.

Well there is. And yes in order for a gene to be passed on, there has to be heterosexual sex, or certainly fertilisation of some sort, however that is not what you were saying. You were putting forward the assertian that only Homosexuals can produce homosexuals, and while this is obviously a secondary point to the argument as a whole, it does need to be pointed out that this is not the case.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Calibos
This was kind of what I was trying to say albeit poorly probably. ie that people aren't necessarily disagreeing completely with WG but are having a go because he doesn't qualify every statement he makes.

One could argue that you cannot make unqualified statements in science. Its moot really, this is a discussion board and if someone makes a point the whole idea is to generate discussion. I for one don't go around blindly accepting anything thats sprouted out.

Originally posted by Calibos
We aren't all experts in every field. We don't all understand the mechanics of everything but I don't think its wrong to believe what eminent scientists have theorised about the biological, evolutionary etc reasons for love or morality for example. Even though I may not understand completely their theory I am more inclined to believe it and put my trust in those scientist who will actually use scientific methodology and experiments to prove or disprove their theory...rather than a philosopher or religious persons take on the subject of the origins of love morality etc which brings us back to the methodology arguement and the philosophers arguement..

Firstly, the attitude you describe is not unlike religion. You choose to believe something that you have no proof of and don't really understand, because the community you follow says so. Secondly, in doing so, you are taking one whole viewpoint of science research and ignoring all the ones that may discredit your own views. Not all science goes out to debunk and disprove philosophy, or rather some scientist try to debunk and disprove their own theories that are aimed at debunking philosophy.

Originally posted by Calibos
Both scientists and philosophers will formulate a theory about something (Love). The differance is a scientist will set out to prove his theory. A philosopher when he has formulated his theory will then move on to his next subject.

Any scientist that sets out to prove his own theory is a poor one. A good scientist should set his thory to rigourouss testing in order to disprove it. Any scientist worth his salt will want to make sure that his work holds up to scrutiny. Philosophers aren't playing the same game at all. They are aiming to provide insight and provoke thought, and often they do that very well.

davros

Originally posted by syke
I think the reference to my religion is a little out of order.

I was just picking up on your own reference to Buddhism earlier. I was aiming to cool passions just a little - some of the comments have attacked the commenter rather than the argument. But it was meant generally, and was not directed at you. I apologise for any perceived disrespect. As I said earlier, I try to stay off the topic of religion for exactly that reason. I should listen to myself

my point was that if the claim is only that that the devices interfere with or absorb EM then they could well get away with it.

Fair enough. If the word "fraud" had not been mentioned earlier, I would have pointed to specific claims on particular products and you could have addressed those.

ecksor

Originally posted by Hobart
But that is not to say that a scientific hypotesis can be made without that assumption whereby the result of it would be quite different. This is stated with all due regards to Occam's Razor.

I don't know, I was under the impression that the scientific method was to resolve theories with our observations. Is there a scientific theory that attempts to model the real world that doesn't make that assumption?

Well there is. And yes in order for a gene to be passed on, there has to be heterosexual sex, or certainly fertilisation of some sort, however that is not what you were saying. You were putting forward the assertian that only Homosexuals can produce homosexuals, and while this is obviously a secondary point to the argument as a whole, it does need to be pointed out that this is not the case.

That was not the assertion that I was attempting to put forward. I'm asking these questions in the framework of the theories/ideas that williamgrogan is putting forward, and he is asserting that it survives because it comes with something more advantageous. Now, I accept that it could be latent or dormant (not sure of the correct terminology here) and passed on by heterosexuals, but he specifically asked something like "are homosexuals better at lateral thinking?" when putting this idea forward, as opposed to "Are carriers of this gene(s) more likely to be better at lateral thinking?", hence the question.

Hobart

Originally posted by ecksor
I don't know, I was under the impression that the scientific method was to resolve theories with our observations. Is there a scientific theory that attempts to model the real world that doesn't make that assumption?

And you are quite correct in that assertian. But who is to say that the approach cannot be changed? As I have stated previously, if you believe that you were born of parents, educated, blah blah blah, and all those events happened. Well then the theory that you were actually invented at 10 o'c and all the memories were implanted in your brain is debunked.

Basically the assumption that you were not "invented" at 10 o'c is key to your assertian, and yes the basis of scientific theories is to base our theories on what we observe. But what if what we have observed is not actually what we have observed? What if those observations are merely artificial memories implanted in our heads? My point is that your assumption fits into Occams' Theory. But maybe his razer was incorrect?

Originally posted by ecksor
That was not the assertion that I was attempting to put forward. I'm asking these questions in the framework of the theories/ideas that williamgrogan is putting forward, and he is asserting that it survives because it comes with something more advantageous. Now, I accept that it could be latent or dormant (not sure of the correct terminology here) and passed on by heterosexuals, but he specifically asked something like "are homosexuals better at lateral thinking?" when putting this idea forward, as opposed to "Are carriers of this gene(s) more likely to be better at lateral thinking?", hence the question.

On that question I fell that what WOG is putting forward (and may I preface this by saying I do not speak for him or Darwin) is that there must be a genetic plus(+) for Homosexuals. Now in saying this he is making the assumption that Homosexuality is a genetic trait. Something is our current scientific sphere that remains unproven. Darwins theory in relation to the survival of the fitest(sp) would tend to support his theory. The fact that he phrased his assertian is, probably, beside the point and yes in making that assertian he should have said that "Maybe carriers of this gene(s) are more likely to be better at lateral thinking. " and finished it with "I don't know?"

ecksor

Originally posted by Hobart
What if those observations are merely artificial memories implanted in our heads?

I thought I had addressed this already here .

To sum up, on the basis that the assumption you mention may be wrong, then we must start from different assumptions and the reasonableness of any idea, including the thing about the 10 O'Clock news, must be examined in light of those assumptions.

The most interesting thing about my assumption in this discussion is that if it forms an assumption that underlies the scientific point of view, then by williamgrogan's own stated standards the idea that we sprang into creation spontaneously the other evening becomes testable by science, while the other ideas he claims are equivilent are not testable by science. So far he has not acknowledged or addressed this inconsistency in his statements.