Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

[bornagainathiest]

1 hour ago, duderonomy said:

BAA, I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this:  "(Or find some reasons not to?)"

I hope you aren't implying that I would attempt to weasel out of a good discussion/argument/debate. If it comes to that, I'd be glad to show you the holes in your arguments so far, and how (since you accused me of Ironhorseism in another thread) you are the one that refuses to answer a simple question about science with a yes or no by dancing all around it by bringing in human nature, and truth with a capital "T".                                                                                                      

Also, there's this, which I don't think is quoted out of context:   ..."Because the decisions we make don't have to be 100% right or perfect or absolutely correct.  They just have to work well enough to get us the results we want.   They just need to be practical - not perfect."   Wow!  The results we want!  The results we want! You'd better hope that the "Climate Change" issue doesn't come up now that you've said that!

There's another thing... I respect the fact that you want to discuss this with me one on one, and I also respect the others that have posted here for backing off at your request, but I'd prefer that they also jump in with their thoughts.

 

For the record Dude, I am not refusing to answer your simple question about science with a conclusive yes or a no.  

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to give you the conclusive Y/N answer you want.  

That is the current impasse between us and I will not be dishonest towards you.  

 

Please consider this.

Suppose a Christian asks you if you are saved or damned.

Do you give them the conclusive Y/N answer they want?

Or do you point out that their question depends on their Christian beliefs being true?

That you are saved or damned only if Christianity is true?

So, are you really refusing to answer their simple question?

Or are you trying to be honest with them?

 

[duderonomy]

23 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Please consider this.

Suppose a Christian asks you if you are saved or damned.

Do you give them the conclusive Y/N answer they want?

Or do you point out that their question depends on their Christian beliefs being true?

That you are saved or damned only if Christianity is true?

So, are you really refusing to answer their simple question?

Or are you trying to be honest with them?

 

My answer to the Christian would be "no", and "no", until such time that they prove there is a God that controls salvation and damnation.

As to my question concerning relative motion however, we know there are stars and planets that move because we can see them with our naked eyes. 

Your example is apples and oranges.  I think you know the answer to my question and are just not willing to say it;  Science cannot show that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

 

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

My answer to the Christian would be "no", and "no", until such time that they prove there is a God that controls salvation and damnation.

As to my question concerning relative motion however, we know there are stars and planets that move because we can see them with our naked eyes. 

Your example is apples and oranges.  I think you know the answer to my question and are just not willing to say it;  Science cannot show that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

That wasn't what you asked, Dude.

You asked if it could be shown conclusively.   My bad for not asking you to define what you meant by 'conclusively'.  If you meant with 100% certainty, then your question remains unanswerable.  Human nature prevents us from knowing anything with 100% certainty.  But if by conclusively, you meant something else, then please explain what you mean by conclusively.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

p.s.

The stars and planets you see with your naked eyes existed hours and years in the past.  The speed of light ensures that you do not see them as they are right now.   How certain or conclusive do you want to be?  Just going with common sense and what you see with your eyes doesn't always give you the clear cut answers you want.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

21 hours ago, duderonomy said:

My answer to the Christian would be "no", and "no", until such time that they prove there is a God that controls salvation and damnation.

As to my question concerning relative motion however, we know there are stars and planets that move because we can see them with our naked eyes. 

Your example is apples and oranges.  I think you know the answer to my question and are just not willing to say it;  Science cannot show that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

 

 

Dude,

 

Science cannot conclusively show (with 100% confidence) that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07178.pdf

 

However, the above paper strongly supports the Copernican principle (the assumption that the Earth is not in the center of the universe) and equally strongly presents evidence against the idea that the universe is rotating or spinning in way - either around us or relative to us.   Where science sharply diverges from religion is how many of it's basic assumptions need not be taken on faith, but can be stringently tested and checked.  This paper is just such an example.   

 

A fundamental assumption in the standard model of cosmology is that the Universe is isotropic on large scales. Breaking this assumption leads to a set of solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as Bianchi cosmologies, only a subset of which have ever been tested against data. For the first time, we consider all degrees of freedom in these solutions to conduct a general test of isotropy using cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization data from Planck. For the vector mode (associated with vorticity), we obtain a limit on the anisotropic expansion of (σV /H)0 < 4.7 × 10−11 (95% CI), which is an order of magnitude tighter than previous Planck results that used CMB temperature only. We also place upper limits on other modes of anisotropic expansion, with the weakest limit arising from the regular tensor mode, (σT,reg/H)0 < 1.0 × 10−6 (95% CI). Including all degrees of freedom simultaneously for the first time, anisotropic expansion of the Universe is strongly disfavoured, with odds of 121,000:1 against. 

 

In plain English this is what the above means.  

The scientists examined every possible way the universe could be moving, spinning or revolving, either around us or relative to us.  All degrees of freedom = every which way.   The key to understanding how the CMB can give us this information is found in this sentence, lower down in the paper.

 

The anisotropic expansion in these models imprints a signal in the CMB since photons redshift at different rates depending on their direction of travel [3, 4], an effect known as shear.

 

In a nutshell, if the universe were in any kind of rotary motion, that effect would be imprinted (and therefore visible) as sideways shear in the CMB data.  But the many tests run by these scientists have found that the odds are 121,000 to 1 against there being any such motion.  While this is not 100% conclusive evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, it is still very strong evidence that it doesn't do so.   This paper is a powerful and highly-relevant example of science severely testing it's own basic assumptions - and finding them confirmed to very high levels of confidence.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

18 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

That wasn't what you asked, Dude.

You asked if it could be shown conclusively.   My bad for not asking you to define what you meant by 'conclusively'.  If you meant with 100% certainty, then your question remains unanswerable.  Human nature prevents us from knowing anything with 100% certainty.  But if by conclusively, you meant something else, then please explain what you mean by conclusively.

Thanks,

BAA.

 

p.s.

The stars and planets you see with your naked eyes existed hours and years in the past.  The speed of light ensures that you do not see them as they are right now.   How certain or conclusive do you want to be?  Just going with common sense and what you see with your eyes doesn't always give you the clear cut answers you want.

 

 

 

I understand that the stars I see when I look at the sky are appearing as they did hours, months, or years ago. That is true for both sides of the argument, however, so it has no effect my point or yours. 

 

BAA, not to put too fine a point on this, but by saying that science can't show 100% that the Earth isn't standing still in the center of the universe, you have answered my question. Science can't show conclusively that it isn't. Why then should I put my faith (trust) in science regarding this?

 

Here's a question for you...if NASA assumed that Earth was fixed in space and unmoving, would the calculations that take those wonderful probes to Mars and send spaceships out of the solar system be any different?

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Dude,

 

Science cannot conclusively show (with 100% confidence) that the Earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07178.pdf

 

However, the above paper strongly supports the Copernican principle (the assumption that the Earth is not in the center of the universe) and equally strongly presents evidence against the idea that the universe is rotating or spinning in way - either around us or relative to us.   Where science sharply diverges from religion is how many of it's basic assumptions need not be taken on faith, but can be stringently tested and checked.  This paper is just such an example.   

 

A fundamental assumption in the standard model of cosmology is that the Universe is isotropic on large scales. Breaking this assumption leads to a set of solutions to Einstein’s field equations, known as Bianchi cosmologies, only a subset of which have ever been tested against data. For the first time, we consider all degrees of freedom in these solutions to conduct a general test of isotropy using cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization data from Planck. For the vector mode (associated with vorticity), we obtain a limit on the anisotropic expansion of (σV /H)0 < 4.7 × 10−11 (95% CI), which is an order of magnitude tighter than previous Planck results that used CMB temperature only. We also place upper limits on other modes of anisotropic expansion, with the weakest limit arising from the regular tensor mode, (σT,reg/H)0 < 1.0 × 10−6 (95% CI). Including all degrees of freedom simultaneously for the first time, anisotropic expansion of the Universe is strongly disfavoured, with odds of 121,000:1 against. 

 

In plain English this is what the above means.  

The scientists examined every possible way the universe could be moving, spinning or revolving, either around us or relative to us.  All degrees of freedom = every which way.   The key to understanding how the CMB can give us this information is found in this sentence, lower down in the paper.

 

The anisotropic expansion in these models imprints a signal in the CMB since photons redshift at different rates depending on their direction of travel [3, 4], an effect known as shear.

 

In a nutshell, if the universe were in any kind of rotary motion, that effect would be imprinted (and therefore visible) as sideways shear in the CMB data.  But the many tests run by these scientists have found that the odds are 121,000 to 1 against there being any such motion.  While this is not 100% conclusive evidence that the universe doesn't rotate, it is still very strong evidence that it doesn't do so.   This paper is a powerful and highly-relevant example of science severely testing it's own basic assumptions - and finding them confirmed to very high levels of confidence.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

I'll have to take some time to look this post over and follow the link. I don't think it will alter my argument.

 

In the meantime, you wanted me to define the word 'conclusively'. You seem to say it means 'with 100% confidence', and I'm good with that. 

 

It appears that in lieu of 100% confidence, we have to go with what we believe to be true, or as you might say it, what we believe to be the Truth.   

[bornagainathiest]

22 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

I understand that the stars I see when I look at the sky are appearing as they did hours, months, or years ago. That is true for both sides of the argument, however, so it has no effect my point or yours. 

 

BAA, not to put too fine a point on this, but by saying that science can't show 100% that the Earth isn't standing still in the center of the universe, you have answered my question. Science can't show conclusively that it isn't. Why then should I put my faith (trust) in science regarding this?

 

Here's a question for you...if NASA assumed that Earth was fixed in space and unmoving, would the calculations that take those wonderful probes to Mars and send spaceships out of the solar system be any different?

 

Two excellent questions, Dude.

 

# 1.  It's agreed between us that science can't show with 100% confidence that the Earth isn't standing still at the center of the universe.  It's also agreed between us that NO method of understanding reality (science, religion, clairvoyance, guesswork, etc.) can show ANYTHING with 100% confidence.  What still remains to be agreed between us is why this is.  I contend that the reason why has to do with human nature.   I contend that we humans cannot know anything with 100% certainty.  If you agree with me on this, then we are agreed that the problem doesn't lie with the various methods we can use to understand reality.  Instead, the problem lies within us.

 

Therefore, rather than blame any or all of these methods and refuse to have confidence in any of them, we should find the most trustworthy and reliable one and use it.   Now Dude, please take careful note of what I just said!   I'm not saying that any method is 100% reliable and 100% trustworthy.  I'm not saying that any method is without it's problems.  I'm not saying that any method won't be wrong and won't make mistakes.  Of course they aren't perfect.  But if we acknowledge that perfection (100% certainty) is forever beyond us, then why shouldn't we go with the best one we've got?

 

Can you think which one that might be?

 

# 2.  

I really don't know enough to answer that one with any certainty.  But if you asked me to guess, I'd say, Yes.  The entire universe might well revolve around it's one fixed and unmoving point - the Earth.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

15 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

I'll have to take some time to look this post over and follow the link. I don't think it will alter my argument.

 

In the meantime, you wanted me to define the word 'conclusively'. You seem to say it means 'with 100% confidence', and I'm good with that. 

 

It appears that in lieu of 100% confidence, we have to go with what we believe to be true, or as you might say it, what we believe to be the Truth.   

 

This link might help you Dude.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0916/220916-directionless-universe/

It's a plain English article by UCL that summarizes what that science paper goes into detail about. 

.

.

.

100% confidence?   Hmmm... do you think that human beings can ever be 100% confident about anything?

I ask, because if you don't, why not go with the body of evidence with the highest possible level of confidence?

Why not go with the method that can test and check itself and (sometimes) deliver very high levels of confidence?

.

.

.

Lastly, please consider this, Dude.

Recently you wrote...  "Everything we observe in the universe is based only on what we see from our severely limited perspective, based on what may be considered cutting edge technology that may in a short time be shown to be only as cutting edge as a Model T is to a 2017 Mustang GT."  Your point was that science and technology are constantly improving, right?   That science can deliver better and better levels of confidence in it's findings.  

 

But why should scientists bother improving things if you'll only go with a 100% level of confidence?  

That's an impossible target - one that science can never deliver on.  If you acknowledge that 100% is unattainable, why make the point that science is improving from a Model T to a 2017 Mustang GT?  No matter how much science improves itself, as long as you hold out for 100% you'll always find it wanting.  So why wait on an unrealistic ideal that'll never arrive  - when you can go with real-world levels of confidence today?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

What you guys are outlining right now is what Joseph Campbell considered to be the first function of a traditional mythology. The mystical function. And it's addressed the mystery factor underlying existence. This problem of human nature and falling somewhere short of 100% absolute knowledge is the state of mind intended. Where you're experiencing the deep mystery of the universe, our world and indeed our individual consciousness and existence. You guys have paved a path right to the first function, whether understanding that or not. 

 

This is why religion and science, per Campbell's discourse, need not conflict. 

 

It's the job of science to provide us with an image of the universe contemporary to our time. And this image of the universe will change and evolve with time. This is all fine and well and religionist's greatly over step their bounds by trying to conflict with science. The conflict is not between religion and science, the conflict is between the cosmology of 2000 BCE verses the cosmology of 2000 CE. The whole conflict is a red herring. 

 

Campbell pointed out that the religious or mystical function is simply to put a human being in touch with the mystery underlying their own existence. And that religion should not conflict with science but instead accept the science of the day, as it evolves from decade to decade, and then simply penetrate that science to the underlying mystery which is always present. In this way religion will remain fluid and it will serve the purpose that it was meant to serve but has been lost sight of. Because the experience of deep mystery is what spirituality stripped down bare consists of. It doesn't even have to involve supernaturalism, because supernaturalism can only serve as a metaphor for the real mystery beneath the conceptualizing - the conceptualizing of other worldly realms, super powers, etc. These are all concepts of the human mind and therefore only point to the mystery, they don't solve the mystery of existence. 

 

It's not about knowing, finally, it's about not knowing and being good with that...

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Josh,

 

I believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.  Why can't I fly if I believe I can?  

[LogicalFallacy]

Josh, they don't 'need' to. However, when science undermines the basic foundation of your religion you are forced into a corner. Do you accept science and alter your understanding of religion? (Most Christians do this) Or do you hold to your religion and discard science that contradicts the religion? (Creationists/Literalists/Fundamentalists fall into this category)

 

In the later case there is a conflict, a very real one. You have Ken Ham believing that the earth was created by an omnipotent being 6000 ago and wants to teach this as science. (Said omnipotent being seems to fail at growing back amputated body parts)

 

BAA I feel like you are at getting something deeper than the initial answer which is physiology. You can't because you are not evolved for it.

[bornagainathiest]

20 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Josh, they don't 'need' to. However, when science undermines the basic foundation of your religion you are forced into a corner. Do you accept science and alter your understanding of religion? (Most Christians do this) Or do you hold to your religion and discard science that contradicts the religion? (Creationists/Literalists/Fundamentalists fall into this category)

 

In the later case there is a conflict, a very real one. You have Ken Ham believing that the earth was created by an omnipotent being 6000 ago and wants to teach this as science. (Said omnipotent being seems to fail at growing back amputated body parts)

 

BAA I feel like you are at getting something deeper than the initial answer which is physiology. You can't because you are not evolved for it.

 

Let's wait and see what Josh says, LF.

[Joshpantera]

On 2/28/2017 at 8:19 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Josh,

 

I believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.  Why can't I fly if I believe I can?  

 

Does this question have something to do with my previous post? I don't see the context. Maybe you can expand...

 

[Joshpantera]

On 2/28/2017 at 9:15 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Josh, they don't 'need' to. However, when science undermines the basic foundation of your religion you are forced into a corner. Do you accept science and alter your understanding of religion? (Most Christians do this) Or do you hold to your religion and discard science that contradicts the religion? (Creationists/Literalists/Fundamentalists fall into this category)

 

In the later case there is a conflict, a very real one. You have Ken Ham believing that the earth was created by an omnipotent being 6000 ago and wants to teach this as science. (Said omnipotent being seems to fail at growing back amputated body parts)

 

BAA I feel like you are at getting something deeper than the initial answer which is physiology. You can't because you are not evolved for it.

 

And what Campbell's discourse suggests is that science hasn't undermined their foundation, they just think that it has. 

[LogicalFallacy]

16 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

And what Campbell's discourse suggests is that science hasn't undermined their foundation, they just think that it has. 

 

So if we take Ken Ham, how hasn't science undermined his foundation? He has very specifically declared that he believes the bible is the literal word of god, that either its all true or its not true at all. As part of this he declares that he believes in 6 day creation, Adam, Eve and Steve (Steve was the serpent, God revealed this to me just now), Noah's flood, the Exodus and so on.

 

Science chucks 6 day creation away, evolution does away with Adam, Eve and Steve, no geological evidence for flood, no evidence for Exodus.

 

The only way I can see that this doesn't undermine their foundation, is that they don't believe it, they hold to their holy book and thus you could argue that science hasn't undermined their foundation. However if this is true then there would be no need for them to think science has undermined their foundation.

 

We may be at cross purposes here - what do you mean by "undermine" and "foundation"?

 

Edit: I might be misunderstanding Campbell's position and how it relates to science undermining foundations of belief/religion

[Joshpantera]

Clever Zoolander reference. lol

 

The thing that science has proven wrong is the old fashioned cosmology used in the creation myths. It's an outdated cosmology being compared to a modern cosmology. He's suggesting that if religionist's were smart they'd recognize this and adapt to the new cosmology instead of bucking against it. In bucking against it, they continually loose ground. Ken Ham, for instance, continually looses ground going up against modern science when he never should be trying to do it in the first place. He does so by misunderstanding the creation myths found in the bible. That's a mythology professor's take on it.

[LogicalFallacy]

38 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

Clever Zoolander reference. lol

 

The thing that science has proven wrong is the old fashioned cosmology used in the creation myths. It's an outdated cosmology being compared to a modern cosmology. He's suggesting that if religionist's were smart they'd recognize this and adapt to the new cosmology instead of bucking against it. In bucking against it, they continually loose ground. Ken Ham, for instance, continually looses ground going up against modern science when he never should be trying to do it in the first place. 

 

Considering I have never watched Zoolander it more coincidence than clever  It just popped in my mind cause Eve/Steve rhymes... no wait, God revealed it.. yes. Believe me cause I say so.

 

This is all very true Josh, but Ken Ham doesn't think of the bible as old myths, or a metaphorical book to get him closer to god, he believes it is literal. So why I agree with you I still hold my position that in Ham's case science has undermined his religion. 

 

And... Even if you are a liberal Christian, if you want to hold Jesus as the bible portrays him, then he thought Adam, Eve and Steve were very real. So this might undermine... hmmm

 

thinking here... no for me, this is evidence that the bible isn't true, for someone else they might just say well Jesus was real but the words might not be accurate - alter their understanding as you say.

 

Hmm. Ken Ham doesn't alter though.

 

Side note: You know they don't think of themselves as losing? They make up amazing shit to get around what science discovers. There is a 'theory' *chough* that the undermining of God started with Copernicus - they take it back that far and declare Copernicus wrong and the bible right and that we are centre stage.

 

[duderonomy]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:15 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Two excellent questions, Dude.

 

# 1.  It's agreed between us that science can't show with 100% confidence that the Earth isn't standing still at the center of the universe.  It's also agreed between us that NO method of understanding reality (science, religion, clairvoyance, guesswork, etc.) can show ANYTHING with 100% confidence.  What still remains to be agreed between us is why this is.  I contend that the reason why has to do with human nature.   I contend that we humans cannot know anything with 100% certainty.  If you agree with me on this, then we are agreed that the problem doesn't lie with the various methods we can use to understand reality.  Instead, the problem lies within us.

 

Therefore, rather than blame any or all of these methods and refuse to have confidence in any of them, we should find the most trustworthy and reliable one and use it.   Now Dude, please take careful note of what I just said!   I'm not saying that any method is 100% reliable and 100% trustworthy.  I'm not saying that any method is without it's problems.  I'm not saying that any method won't be wrong and won't make mistakes.  Of course they aren't perfect.  But if we acknowledge that perfection (100% certainty) is forever beyond us, then why shouldn't we go with the best one we've got?

 

Can you think which one that might be?

 

# 2.  

I really don't know enough to answer that one with any certainty.  But if you asked me to guess, I'd say, Yes.  The entire universe might well revolve around it's one fixed and unmoving point - the Earth.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

No offense, and you know I mean that, but that sounds like an argument I might have used as a Christian;  We don't know for sure...we might not understand everything and might make mistakes...imperfect human nature...we should go with what we believe to be true...and the Bible might be right that the universe revolves around the earth...etc.

 

If science can't even show that Earth isn't the very center of the universe and isn't moving, why should we believe scientific ideas about the age of the earth, or why its climate is changing now as opposed to why it has always changed, or how life came to be?  

We don't have any bedrock "Truth" when it comes to science or religion. It might be possible that we don't have full understanding of (a generic) God any more than we have full understanding of science. 

 

So then, isn't it true that we have to take everything we know and believe to be true on (non-supernatural) faith?  I don't offhand know the specific names of the fallacies, but I see appeals to consensus, authority, and a good bit of circular reasoning (science is true because science is true) in your POV.

 

[duderonomy]

On 2/28/2017 at 8:19 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Josh,

 

I believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.  Why can't I fly if I believe I can?  

 

Maybe you need to flap them faster, take off your boots, and lose the beer gut?     

 

(Sorry)

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, ExPCA said:

Sometimes, I almost come to the point of concluding that science should be understood apart from god/religion/spirituality/bible. Science is a human-made understanding of earth/god/universe-made stuff. Is pantheism or atheism really that satisfying?

 

I rarely come across someone that is an ex-christian and not obsessed with science and human reason. This is where the christians, of course, find their footing in the argument of the inerrant, infallible word of god. It is true because it is true and we can't know that it isn't true. And because mommy and daddy told me so. And the more biblical answers I can dish out, the better I am at the christian game.

 

I will also submit that those with strong senses of self and strong moral code seem to do better at life, whether that is cultivated in christianity or elsewhere.

 

"Sometimes, I almost come to the point of concluding that science should be understood apart from god/religion/spirituality/bible. Science is a human-made understanding of earth/god/universe-made stuff. Is pantheism or atheism really that satisfying?"

 

Sometimes?  Science has validity, religion has none at all. Religions are not much more than something to laugh at IMO. Science is totally valid, while some of the Sciences may be totally wrong in many of their conclusions granted.

 

"I rarely come across someone that is an ex-christian and not obsessed with science and human reason. This is where the Christians.........."

 

I believe this us true.  Christians are believers. When they drop religion they continue to be believers by nature. Many take up science with the same belief and fervor that they believed in religion. To study science is excellent IMO but many of its conclusions have been, and continue to be wrong IMO, so belief should not be part of science. Instead belief in science should be the belief in the process. Study, analysis, and skepticism should be the rule concerning its conclusions. 

 

"I will also submit that those with strong senses of self and strong moral code seem to do better at life, whether that is cultivated in Christianity or elsewhere."

 

Without religion or valid principles of some kind, morality is a matter of opinion. As a very satisfied atheist, I have created my own morals, not very different from that of our society but consider that there is no ultimate truth in them. But I firmly follow them and make every effort not to trespass against them because of the golden rule which I follow.   Cheers

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/2/2017 at 11:14 PM, duderonomy said:

 

Maybe you need to flap them faster, take off your boots, and lose the beer gut?     

 

(Sorry)

The only thing I can imagine BAA means is to ask a question that leads to admitting that know some things, such as that we can't fly by flapping our arms. And we know because of science, to summarize. And what does that have to do with what we're discussing? From what I'm getting here the two of you are going around and around about the Fact, with a capital F, that the Truth, with a capital T, is found in admitting that Ultimately, with a capital U, we don't know!!!!!!

 

You're coming from a very strong agnostic position of ultimate knowledge being unknown and unknowable. That's just a matter of truth. It's not refutable without providing an example of ultimate knowledge. Which I'd be interested in seeing someone try and provide. 

 

BAA, on the other hand, has gone through a set of analogies that at the end of the day do not refute this strong agnostic premise stated above. There's a reason that intellectual atheists like Richard Dawkins are agnostic atheists. It's a powerful position. Offering examples of limited knowledge about universal laws doesn't address the fact that ultimately we're at a complete loss in terms of knowing the extent of existence, why it exists in the first place, how something can have no fixed origin, etc. The big questions are not addressed by science. And there's no reason to think that we as ex-christians must shield others from knowing that fact. It doesn't compliment theism and it doesn't mean loosing ground as atheists or agnostics of combinations thereof. Neither can religion offer answers to any of these ultimate questions!  Which is what you've already said and I've just expanded upon for better clarity in the discussion. Neither science nor religion offers us any conclusive answers to life's Ultimate questions. 

 

We have to become comfortable with these Facts. They are where Truth is Ultimately discovered. For those interested in seeking Truth. 

 

I'm toying around with you guys because I find the squabble interesting. I like the fact that BAA is so privy to science and uses his prowess to help ex-christians. I'm a big fan. I love reading his posts. But I'm also privy to the deeper discourse below the level of discussing the realm of the known and knowable, below the realm of science. The realm of the known and knowable, obviously, is not infinite and eternal. It's finite and confined to a limited range. Beyond that is potentially an infinitude of mystery. As human beings we can make friends with the great unknown. We don't need to hide from it. We don't need to pretend that it doesn't exist. And most importantly we don't need to pretend that it's a being, or a deity, or a god in our image. It's not an image, it's not a being, it's not literally anything religion has projected onto it. It's just the great unknown and unknowable. It doesn't think. It doesn't like and dislike. All of these things are projections onto the great unknown. That's what comes form a deep understanding of mythology. But it's hard to explain that to others who haven't thought about it on those terms.  

[bornagainathiest]

To Josh Pantera...

 

Ok Josh, I'm going to retract my questions about arm-flapping.  I had a serious re-think of the point I'd intended to make and I now realize that it was unworkable.

 

Re: your input in this thread, how about this?

I see a kind of correspondence between your ideas about the mystery of reality and the square/circle/triangle diagram I started this thread off with.  Three different viewpoints are shown, with each of them illuminating a partial, yet 'True' aspect of the entire, but fully unknowable 'Truth', which no single viewpoint is able to see 100% of.  We could say that science and religion are similar - they are two different, yet incomplete ways of viewing the whole, but hidden, Truth of existence.  

 

Now, I'll be the first to agree with you, that ultimately, we just don't know.  But I would qualify that by adding this.  Yes, we don't know many things and we probably can't know everything - but surely we must know some things?   And if we accept that today we know some things, then it's likely that in the past we must have known fewer things and in the future we may well know more things.  So I'd argue that it's neither a fixed nor permanent aspect of the human condition to say, 'we don't know'.   If change is a fundamental aspect of reality, the why shouldn't human nature change from what it was and what it is to a new and different condition?

 

What say you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

On 3/3/2017 at 4:04 AM, duderonomy said:

 

BAA,

 

No offense, and you know I mean that, but that sounds like an argument I might have used as a Christian;  We don't know for sure...we might not understand everything and might make mistakes...imperfect human nature...we should go with what we believe to be true...and the Bible might be right that the universe revolves around the earth...etc.

 

If science can't even show that Earth isn't the very center of the universe and isn't moving, why should we believe scientific ideas about the age of the earth, or why its climate is changing now as opposed to why it has always changed, or how life came to be?  

We don't have any bedrock "Truth" when it comes to science or religion. It might be possible that we don't have full understanding of (a generic) God any more than we have full understanding of science. 

 

So then, isn't it true that we have to take everything we know and believe to be true on (non-supernatural) faith?  I don't offhand know the specific names of the fallacies, but I see appeals to consensus, authority, and a good bit of circular reasoning (science is true because science is true) in your POV.

 

 

On 3/3/2017 at 4:04 AM, duderonomy said:

 

 

Ok Dude, the first paragraph first.

 

No, that's not the argument I'm making.  

A Christian would say that they will go with what they believe is true - but their beliefs are built on faith-in-the-absence-of-evidence.  They believe in Jesus' resurrection by faith, not by evidence.  When I say that I go with science, I do so on the basis of evidence.  I don't need to make a leap of faith to accept that science works and delivers the goods, better than religion.  It's simply a historical fact that it is so.  

 

Second paragraph:

Yes, we don't have any bedrock "Truth".  Period.  But I am not and have not been making the argument that science can give it to us.  When I say that we should go with science, I am not saying that it should be followed blindly, zealously and unquestioningly, like some kind of religion.  No.  Absolutely not.  Instead I am saying that of the available options open to us, we should make an informed choice and opt for the best one.  Below I will list why I think science is the best choice and why we should choose it over the others.  

 

Can you see how this is quite different from your position?  For you, because no method of understanding the truth of reality can give you the 100% certainty you want - ALL methods are suspect.  You level the playing field and treat all options the same.  So for you, science and religion are equal players and going with either one is just a matter of personal choice.  Yet, as I will show below, that is not a realistic understanding of the relationship between science and religion.  Even though neither can deliver 100% truth, they are not equal players.

 

Last paragraph:

Using the word faith in this context is difficult Dude.  I think we agree that it carries too much baggage.  Speaking only for myself, I prefer to use the word, 'confidence'.  I have confidence in science, but not faith in it.  I do not have faith, because there is no element of religious, spiritual or supernatural belief involved, anywhere along the line.  Mine is simply confidence (but not blind trust) in science.  

 

No, I do not appeal to consensus, which is an appeal to weight of numbers.  I appeal to weight of evidence.  (See below.)

No, I do not appeal to authority any more than any other member of Ex-C appeals to authority, when they cite scientific information in this forum.  Are you saying that anyone who does this is guilty of the fallacy of an appeal to authority?   And no, I do not commit the error of circular argumentation.  I do not say that science is true because it is true.  I say that science explains and describes aspects of reality better than other ways of doing so, like religion.  I say that science is our best shot at truth -  not that it is the truth.  

.

.

.

Ok, for the avoidance of future doubt and to clarify what I have been saying in this thread, here is the best explanation I can come up with of what my position is.

I appeal four things to make my case.  To the historical evidence, to the everyday evidence, to the evidence within Ex-C and to the evidence found within the remit of science itself.

 

# 1.

Historically, science has dethroned religion and has pushed it back on every front.  Science has done so on the basis of evidence, not belief.  Science has challenged the evidence-free beliefs of religion, found them wanting, tested them to destruction and refuted them.  Therefore, in choosing which method of understanding reality (science or religion) which one is the clear winner?

 

# 2.

In our everyday lives we put our lives in the hands of science, usually without even blinking or thinking about it.  Science delivers every type of goods and service for our global, technology-driven society and if we share and partake in these things (and we do!) then we can hardly claim to have little or no confidence in science.   The very fact that you are reading these words signifies that you have placed your confidence in what science can deliver.   Ditto if you travel by road, rail, air or sea.  Ditto if you use a bank or have a credit card.  Ditto if use a phone or watch tv.  In every hour of every day we all put our confidence in science.  Therefore, our daily lives are strong indicators of which choice we should make when it comes to understanding reality.  Should we go with religion or should we go with science?

 

# 3.

Here in Ex-C we have long used science to challenge and to demolish the irrational and superstitious claims of the religiously minded.  Why would we do that if we lacked confidence in science?  If we considered science and religion to be equal players, why is there such an asymmetrical imbalance in favor of science among the Ex-Christians in this forum?   Why do we have so little confidence in religion and so much confidence in science?   I contend that the reason why might be this.  Religion fails to offer testable explanations about reality and also fails to offer evidence for it's claims.  The religious are told to go with faith - not evidence.  Science however, delivers testable explanations and backs them up with evidence.   Therefore, science is not only radically different to religion -  it's also superior to it.  Another strong reason why we should choose science over religion.

 

# 4.

Science is a self-testing, self-correcting, self-improving way of understanding reality.  Ok, since it's performed by fallible humans, it will fall short of these standards.  People will make errors, people will cheat, personalities will clash, politics will get in the way, etc., etc.  I acknowledge science's shortcomings, problems and flaws.  Yet, for all of these things, science is still a clear winner over religion.  That's because religion has never been a self-testing, self-correcting and self-improving way of understanding reality.  Religion is set in stone and cannot evolve or adapt.  Therefore, this is another strong reason why we should choose science over religion.

 

Dude,  for these four reasons (and others) I go with science.

I hope that you can now see that my choice is an informed, rational and logical one.  That I am not treating science as some kind of 'faith' that must be believed.  That I do not appeal to consensus of opinion or to authority, but to the facts and to the evidence I've outlined in this post.  

 

I also hope that you can see that it's unrealistic to treat science and religion as equal players, when they clearly are not.  

Yes, they are equal when it comes to failing to deliver 100% truth with a capital T.   But, unless you can show otherwise, I contend that nothing can deliver 100% certainty.   So, if you had to choose between a range of options and science and religion were two of them, which would you go with?  And why?  (Serious questions, btw.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

To Josh Pantera...

 

Ok Josh, I'm going to retract my questions about arm-flapping.  I had a serious re-think of the point I'd intended to make and I now realize that it was unworkable.

 

Re: your input in this thread, how about this?

I see a kind of correspondence between your ideas about the mystery of reality and the square/circle/triangle diagram I started this thread off with.  Three different viewpoints are shown, with each of them illuminating a partial, yet 'True' aspect of the entire, but fully unknowable 'Truth', which no single viewpoint is able to see 100% of.  We could say that science and religion are similar - they are two different, yet incomplete ways of viewing the whole, but hidden, Truth of existence.  

 

Now, I'll be the first to agree with you, that ultimately, we just don't know.  But I would qualify that by adding this.  Yes, we don't know many things and we probably can't know everything - but surely we must know some things?   And if we accept that today we know some things, then it's likely that in the past we must have known fewer things and in the future we may well know more things.  So I'd argue that it's neither a fixed nor permanent aspect of the human condition to say, 'we don't know'.   If change is a fundamental aspect of reality, the why shouldn't human nature change from what it was and what it is to a new and different condition?

 

What say you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Once again, great post. I enjoy posts that make me think. You make a good point and it helps me understand better where this is going. I was confused there for a while. 

 

I agree with the above. The pattern seems the simplest explanation. With time and knowledge more knowledge is gained. But is it conceivable to gain knowledge to the point of acquiring ultimate knowledge, or is it infinitely out of reach due to the possible infinite and eternal range of existences?

 

This applies to ultimate origins as well. It seems more likely that we could forever gain in incomplete knowledge with ultimate knowledge eluding us like an endless carrot on a stick for ever and ever.

 

And this is to question ultimate knowledge, not just knowledge in general. 

 

[bornagainathiest]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Once again, great post. I enjoy posts that make me think. You make a good point and it helps me understand better where this is going. I was confused there for a while. 

 

I agree with the above. The pattern seems the simplest explanation. With time and knowledge more knowledge is gained. But is it conceivable to gain knowledge to the point of acquiring ultimate knowledge, or is it infinitely out of reach due to the possible infinite and eternal range of existences?

 

This applies to ultimate origins as well. It seems more likely that we could forever gain in incomplete knowledge with ultimate knowledge eluding us like an endless carrot on a stick for ever and ever.

 

And this is to question ultimate knowledge, not just knowledge in general. 

 

 

No and No, Josh.  (In my opinion, that is.)

Unless evolution significantly changes the nature of the human condition (or is assisted to do so by technology) I really can't see a time where we'll acquire the ultimate knowledge of reality itself.  And ditto for ultimate knowledge re the origin of everything.  But the trap I reckon we need to avoid falling into is to say that anything less than 100% certainty is untrustworthy.   That kind of either/or argument just doesn't wash and isn't borne out by how we live our lives.  Since I'm a big fan of worked examples, here's one to illustrate what I mean.

 

The deepest mine in the world goes down just shy of 2.5 miles.

Therefore, we can say nothing with 100% certainty about what is happening 20 miles under our feet.  (I've erred on the side of caution, because you could be reading this post on an aircraft in the stratosphere.)  Everything we know about the interior of the Earth...   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth  ...is based on inference and deduction, not direct observation and measurement.  By definition, all inference and deduction is less than 100% certain.   Yet, we are still able to know a great deal about the insides of this planet.  

 

If we took the line that anything less than 100% certainty is untrustworthy, then how could we possibly extract oil, gas, coal, iron ore, bauxite or any other mineral?

Mining industries would be paralyzed because they couldn't say with absolute certainty where to dig.  Ditto for the oil and gas industries, when it comes to saying where to drill.  How could the USGS possibly advise on when a volcano is likely to blow and how far away from the mountain the danger zone should be?   Where should whole communities be evacuated to?  If only total certainty is acceptable, then there is no safe place anywhere on the surface of the earth.   That would mean that rating the San Andreas fault zone as being just as safe as anywhere else.   That the earthquake risk is the same, everywhere.   Huh!!?

 

It just doesn't work and we don't live this way, do we Josh?   

 

What intrigues (and worries) me tho' is why some people hold to this 100%-certainty-or-nothing mode of thinking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.