Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

RE: Faith has much to do with it...

Agree

I am not sure of Regmac's point here. Faith is certainly no counter to science nor does Hume's point defend believing in nonsense (which is all religious faith).

Religious faith ultimately becomes the giant teapot in the sky. You may believe int he giant teapot or spaghetti monster and you may get 1 million other people to ALSO believe in the spaghetti monster/teapot and you may wear nice robes and worship the teapot on Sunday and you may read books on teapots and spaghetti monsters and science may not be able to disprove that there is a teapot or spaghetti monster but we can say measure the mass of one object and another and "gravity" and be assured that a ball with a given internal quantity of air at a given velocity will strike another given piece of mass and be able to repeat the "bounce height" associated with that velocity and weight and predict within a small margin of error that that ball will always bounce with that height always.

Observational science in Regmac's example of doves is poor because it is not based on "numbers" the same way physics is.

Some scientific fields are "better or stronger" than other scientific fields. Physics is a cut above everything else - Chemistry and bology are there. Science that relies on statistics like "I saw 5000 white doves and everyone in the village I live in has only seen white does means that there are only white doves in the entire world is a MAJOR step down because it relies on the observation of few people in one area of the world. To me that is NOT science - that is observation.

Observational based science is a different animal. You could say the same with the bouncing ball - I always see a ball bounce therefore a ball will always bounce. That holds true for the whole village of people. One day they see a guy throw a ball in the lake - and it doesn't bound. They go back to the drawing board. But that is not what physicists do. They measure it mathematically and Know why it bounces one way on cement another way on water, in a vacuum, on the moon, etc. The math is absolute anywhere in the universe all the time no matter what.

Hume is playing an old philosopher's game. You park a car in the parking lot to go to your office. You have done so for 10 strait years. When you leave your work the car is always there.

Someone asks you where is you car? You say - it's in parking sport B where I left it this morning. You have no reason to think otherwise for that is where you left it the 3000 other times in a row. But on that particular day your car was stolen. oops.

This in no way invalidates science in any way shape or form. There is a "reasonable" expectation that the car would be there based on all information available. Real scientists and philosophers however are OPEN to the possibility that the car would not be there - they would say "that based on all previous information there is a very high likely hood that your car would be in the lot BUT there is a chance that your car could be stolen based on the number of car thefts in the city and the type of car you own that there is say a 1/148,873 chance that your car could be stolen when you leave your office. They may also be able to calculate the chance of your car not starting, being hit by lightning etc.

With God - science is even open to the possibility that there is what we could describe as a God. Atheists, and I can speaker for most of us, are open to the possibility of their being a God/Alien even if we believe in Evolution. The mathematical odds are staggeringly low but I suppose it's possible through evolution in the furthest reaches of the universe that a creature evolved at a rate of speed millions of times faster than us.

If that creature evolved faster and longer then they could be far far higher up the evolutionary tree than we are. That entity could be so advanced that it could create a life form in a Petri dish and shipped it out to planet earth and poof here we are. There this satisfies evolution and satisfies there being a possible God. But that's all it is - a nice concoction by me as a mental exercise to support God (ahem Ridley Scott did it in Prometheus and Star Trek TNG had a two-parter explaining life in the universe.

Good science is what you basket you should put your eggs into - some of the observational stat based "ahem" science is far weaker and and I'd keep a few eggs back just in case.

No eggs should be place in religion. Largely because religion won't accept ONE egg as a "better put one in just in case" - no you have to put ALL your eggs into it or you go to eternal damnation - you are not allowed to even THINK of the POSSIBILITY that there is not God. If you think it for just ONE second the holy ghost will know and it is 100% unforgivable offense. Jeez.

This is why even Richard Dakwins says he is a 6.9 out of 7 on the Atheist scale. He believes there is a "chance" - and he believes that because he can't prove otherwise.

Personally speaking - any God that could be so sophisticated to create "everything" would have to be a lot more sophisticated than the CARTOON that is the God of religious textbooks. Something that sophisticated could not be the utter nasty mean genocidal cruel bafoon depicted in religious books.



Edits: 07/11/12

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Amplified Parts  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.