Phyreblade (1414) 118 SFW Posts | 4,858 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed I just ain't right... Registered 2007-10-19 10:18:23 Comment Karma: 45 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from Phyreblade

Comment on lilly pads (2010-06-12 21:21:40)
Miracles.
Comment on automatic dog washing machine (2010-06-12 21:18:01)
Along with his dignity...
Comment on large hot dog eater (2010-06-12 21:15:19)
She's good like that...
Comment on expensive smokes (2010-06-12 21:10:57)
^This^
Comment on Please press button to hear a brief message from the POTUS (2010-06-12 21:09:20)
I still don't get it...
Comment on glory hole center (2010-06-12 20:54:10)
^this^
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-11 13:51:15)
I see what you are saying, and you are essentially correct about my basic position, though I do not think the distinction between proof, and evidence is relevant in this particular context. But at the risk of getting bogged down in the semantic differences between the usage of "Proof" vs "Evidence", I'll define my use of the term evidence, as I understand it. "Evidence" can be used to "prove", but both ways, IE to both confirm or deny. eg "Fred's failure to go to school was evidence of his lack of motivation to succeed.". Whereas in contrast, in the absence of any "evidence", IE not knowing whether or not Fred went to school, we cannot "prove" anything (Fred's motivation to succeed) one way or another. The absence of this evidence cannot be used to *prove* Fred is a failure. Put in context, this means that saying "God probably does not exist because the available evidence can be used to provide a scientific description of things, without God." is scientifically honest, and I would have no problem accepting this statement from anyone. IE God may or may not exist, but it is irrelevant because I can describe things scientifically either way. However to make the statement "God does not exist because I have no evidence that he does." is flawed, because you don't really have evidence that he does not exist, what you really have is evidence of an alternative way of explaining how things came to be, and no evidence that absolutely rules out any other possibilities. Now I also agree that for any given set of hypothesis, the one that most concisely describes it's subject is most likely to be true. This is another form of Ockham's razor. However Ockhams razor is, at best, a guide. It cannot guarantee accuracy. In fact, in many cases, the simplest, or most likely solution is not the correct one. We all know a large majority of scientific research cannot be carried out empirically. We simply do not have the ability to do so for a wide range of things. So we are forced to support hypotheses with tertiary empirical observations, and come to the probabilistically best conclusion, given the results. Presuming, of course, that our interpretation of those results are indeed accurate. And for the most part, it is quite an effective approach. But I do not believe these generate truly scientific *proofs* either. They are simply very, very good best guesses, supported by lost of corroborating "evidence". And by definition, absolutely *not* empirical proofs, and therefore, cannot be considered absolute. These hypotheses remain just that. Hypotheses and theories. Well supported hypotheses, yes, but still not *proven facts*. I wish people would be more honest about that aspect of science. Too many folks act like science is irrefutable, and wholly supported by proof based on hard, empirical evidence, but it oftentimes isn't. In many cases we are really just spitballing. And with respect to giving sloppy/non-science a pass, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but if you are talking about the scientific acceptance of a religious explanation for existence, then no, that is absolutely not what I espouse. That would make no sense; religion was never, ever meant to be scientific. I believe the two can coexist, but only with the understanding that religious beliefs operate on principles that are diametrically opposed to scientific beliefs, and that any attempt to coalesce the two would be a mutually destructive exercise.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-11 11:34:31)
And he might have a point, though I much prefer the school of thought that says that, until actually confirmed, said object would exist indeterminably in both states, IE existing and non-existing. Interestingly, this position presents challenges eerily similar to that of Schrodinger's cat. Or maybe it is, in fact the same challenge. Or we are simply in an episode of "Lost", and need to wake up.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-11 11:17:19)
OK, I'll grant you I'm not using the word "empirical" entirely correctly. However the point is that science requires either empirical evidence of something, or a high degree of corroboration from non empirical data to support it. However in both cases, we cannot always conclude that, in the absence of empirical data or corroborating evidence, that something does not exist. We can say that there is a great likelihood that it does not exist, but we cannot say with any certainty that it absolutely does not exist. The same is also true of things that are studied via non-empirical means. We can argue that there is a large body of evidence that strongly suggests that a given hypothesis is true. However we cannot say, with absolute certainty, that it is. My argument is not that something that cannot be tested is in fact true, simply because someone thinks it might be, but rather that, from a scietific standpoint, it is more honest to say that we cannot know for sure. I.E. Without empirical data, the question of whether or not there is, in fact a teapot, is a question that is actually a matter of degree of certainty, and not absolutely provable one way or another, like so many folks seem to like to argue.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-10 19:50:14)
Interesting quote, however it is somewhat over simplified. It presumes that if you cannot prove something exists, then it does not exist. It sounds logical in theory, but is flawed in practice, since our ability to prove something exists is limited by our knowledge (or lack thereof) of said thing, and whether or not it is something we are physically capable of empirically testing for. IE: the concluding paragraph of the quote suggests that nothing exists that cannot be empirically tested for and/or proved. So here is the million dollar question: Is the above statement a scientifically accurate one?
Comment on john adams - the united states government is not in any way founded on the christian religion (2010-06-10 19:33:41)
Enough with the bad analogies already... :P
Comment on john adams - the united states government is not in any way founded on the christian religion (2010-06-10 19:33:08)
Actually that is an even worse analogy. How about we come up with a better analogy? Or don't actually, because your position is valid on it's own, without all of these silly analogies.
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-10 19:17:10)
I take it that is a no?
Comment on Ricky Gervais on being an atheist (2010-06-10 19:16:31)
This is not entirely true. I always learn something from these discussions, and even though it may not change my fundamental beliefs, my "World View", as it were, is always altered, just a little bit, each time I hear the argument from both sides. Ultimately I hope one day that everyone will adopt the attitude you have described, of live and let live. I see absolutely no reason why we cannot, except for those artificially created by the eccentricities of man.
Comment on john adams - the united states government is not in any way founded on the christian religion (2010-06-10 17:09:34)
Well I see your point with everything else, except for most "hard atheists" falling into an "agnostic atheist" stance. That has not been by experience. Many of the ones I run into are the "I *Know* there is no God because of SCIENCE(tm)! And anyone who believes differently is mentally impaired!" type. I do agree with you that a great many disservices have been done to the human race in the name of religion. However it is also true that many great acts of good have also been performed for the same reason. Being unable to tally these in any objective fashion, since the bad would be vastly more public knowledge than the good, I do not think I can accurately ascertain the net result religion has actually had on humanity. But I would argue that the negative application of religion has been only one of many symptoms of human irrationality in general. I've observed that, regardless of theistic or religions position, humans are afraid of what they do not understand, greedy, selfish, irrational and oftentimes emotionally unstable. I think Religion is often used as an easily justifiable outlet for the negative expression of these traits. In fact I would go so far as to say that even if we had no religion, humans would still come up with any number of other trifling reasons to behave irrationally, emotionally and violently. So I honestly don't think trivializing religion will have the desired effect.