Atheism or God? - our perception of reality.

[ReliStuPhD]

Rel, you are, of course, referring to scientology.

No, of course, I'm not. Science absolutely operates as religion for many people.

EDIT: I'll let Wikipedia lay some of the foundation and then we can erase it out. If you miss this edit, I'll just repost it as a response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Ned]

Rel, you are, of course, referring to scientology.

No, of course, I'm not. Science absolutely operates as religion for many people.

Yes, for sure.

We believe that the almighty and divine goddess of science created the universe, sacrificed her son, is handing out punishments (for christians, for sure) created a heaven (universities) and hell (churches) and is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time, and does not want us to ask her how she can accomplish logically impossible acts.

I sacrifice a tomato on her altar every Tuesday!

[Skip]

- on the one planet where we can observe consciousness at work, only one species out of many thousands appears to have any kind of concept of the supernatural, and that's the most imaginative one

The argument that follows is pretty interesting, but I wonder if you've not made a mistake with your very first premise. We're also the only species that has any concept of logic, mathematics, science, etc. That is to say, we seem to be the only species on our planet capable of asking "wWhy?"

What makes you think that? Even if rats, crows, dogs and elephants lack the concept of logic, they nevertheless use logic.

And while I agree that we're the most imaginative one, we're also the most rational one (one definition of "human" is "rational animal").

That's an anthropocentric definition. I wouldn't claim a monopoly. Certainly, the activities of other species don't appear irrational, and I can see a clear line of development from those activities to our own.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily undermine your whole argument, but I think it does call into question whether religion is really the result of our being an imaginative people, or being a rational one (though it certainly doesn't show it's the result of rationality).

Did that question just trip over itself? In nature, we can see other animals use reason to solve practical problems (We can't tell whether they have impractical problems.) Bird example: There is a grub in a deep hole. I want it. I can't reach it. What is there in the vicinity that would help? There is a stick. Is it narrow enough to fit in the hole? Yes. Is it long enough to reach the grub? Yes. Holding the stick in my beak increases my reach. Now I can get the grub.
If gods are the result of rational enquiry, what was the problem? What were the questions? Where were answers found? And why did people come up with so many improbable solutions? .... which, as you say, don't appear to have worked.

On the flip side, maybe science is the result of our imaginations too, and we just have two competing imaginary paradigms.

Of course it's the product of the same inquisitive imagination. And they don't even need to be in competition: they both come out of "Why?" and "What if?" The answers have different applications, and they are both effective.

We can certainly see how science operates as a religion for many people.

Can we? If we confuse coveting with worshipping, maybe. Or if we broaden the definition of religion to include ideology and faddism of every kind, in which case capital, rap and baseball are also religions.
But the question was God, not craziness in human culture.

[ReliStuPhD]

Yes, for sure.

We believe that the almighty and divine goddess of science created the universe, sacrificed her son, is handing out punishments (for christians, for sure) created a heaven (universities) and hell (churches) and is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time, and does not want us to ask her how she can accomplish logically impossible acts.

I sacrifice a tomato on her altar every Tuesday!

Dang it. You replied to quick and missed my edit (my fault, not yours). Here. Have a read and tell me what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[Ned]

Rel, the essence of religion is: belief without evidence.

The essence of science is the EXACT OPPOSITE: refusal to believe WITHOUT evidence.

Nut-cases who disregard this essence are not worth discussing.

[Skip]

According to the article, some philosophers are jealous of their sphere of influence and think people put "too high a value" on the scientific method. They call this "scientism". Note that the people accused of it do not call it any such thing - in contrast to Christians, Buddhists and capitalists. Too high a value - as compared to..... let me guess: the philosophers' own speciality? Well, that's probably true. But doesn't qualify as a religion on the traditional criteria of sacred objects, places, persons and rituals.

So, anyway, that still doesn't place god.

[Ned]

Under nut-cases I meant anyone who wants to turn science into religion.

As far as the article is concerned, it is irrelevant to any discussion about religion.

We still have to choose between the ONLY TWO METHODS AVAILABLE in understanding the world:

1./ Use our senses and our mind's ability to use logic
2./ Use thousands of years old unsubstantiated documents, myths and fables

or, put it another way:

1./ Use our senses and our mind's ability to use logic
2./ Use anything else.

[uwot]

...Here. Have a read and tell me what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I read the article, not carefully, to be honest. It's not clear that anyone but slightly miffed theists use the term, claiming that science and religion are temperamentally equivalent.

[uwot]

The essence of science is the EXACT OPPOSITE: refusal to believe WITHOUT evidence.

I'd go further, science is the refusal to believe anything but the evidence.

[ReliStuPhD]

Skip, I apologize for a point-by-point response. I'm trying to avoid those but don't always succeed. The way i see it, there are two main questions here if you just want to skip further point-by-point responses and ru with those:
1. Is it reason or instinct that animals follow?
2. Does science operate as a religion for some/many?

What makes you think that? Even if rats, crows, dogs and elephants lack the concept of logic, they nevertheless use logic.

That's a strong statement. I'd like to read some scientific studies showing animals use logic rather than responding to training and/or instinct. But even so, it's the concept that would ultimately matter for my point.

That's an anthropocentric definition. I wouldn't claim a monopoly. Certainly, the activities of other species don't appear irrational, and I can see a clear line of development from those activities to our own.

Anthropocentrism doesn't necessarily equate to "incorrect." It doesn't mean we're not right to consider ourselves to be the only (Earth) animals "endowed with the capacity to reason." So again, I think we're stuck instinct verses reason, with the latter, in my experience, meaning that one can choose not to act on instinct.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily undermine your whole argument, but I think it does call into question whether religion is really the result of our being an imaginative people, or being a rational one (though it certainly doesn't show it's the result of rationality).

Did that question just trip over itself? In nature, we can see other animals use reason to solve practical problems...

I don't think so, but I'm definitely interested in chasing this one down as far as we can on an internet forum.

Bird example: There is a grub in a deep hole. I want it. I can't reach it. What is there in the vicinity that would help? There is a stick. Is it narrow enough to fit in the hole? Yes. Is it long enough to reach the grub? Yes. Holding the stick in my beak increases my reach. Now I can get the grub.

That's certainly how a human would think through it. But the bird? Wouldn't it be more like "I use this stick to get the grub. I don't why, though. I just know I'm compelled to get a stick. But I also get the grub, so woohoo!" And what if the getting at the grub didn't require a stick but string? Would the bird think through the problem and go get that piece of string?

If gods are the result of rational enquiry, what was the problem? What were the questions? Where were answers found? And why did people come up with so many improbable solutions? .... which, as you say, don't appear to have worked.

Well, I think the problem/question was simply "why?" That is to say, the very questions that drive us to understand why a feather and a ball fall at the same speed in a vacuum drive us to ask "why something rather than nothing?" And since can't answer that latter question with science, religion works. As for why we've come up with so many different answers (I think "improbable" is the wrong word here), I think we can ask the same of science. It could just be that finding out the answers to "why" aren't as easy as we think. The path trod by science is similarly littered with all sorts of errors, so I see no reason why religion shouldn't be afforded the same access to trial and error. (Though, of course, religion claims "God said so," so there's a higher egg-on-face ratio there than with science. )

Of course it's the product of the same inquisitive imagination. And they don't even need to be in competition: they both come out of "Why?" and "What if?" The answers have different applications, and they are both effective.

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly.

Can we? If we confuse coveting with worshipping, maybe.

No, not quite this. More a misunderstanding of what science can and can't tell us, taking it as the ultimate authority in any problem, acting on its "dictates" (bad word, I know) as if there were supreme law, etc, etc, etc. I linked it above, but "scientism" is what we could call science operating as religion. (nb I'm not saying science is religion, jut that it operates as such for some/many).

[ReliStuPhD]

The essence of science is the EXACT OPPOSITE: refusal to believe WITHOUT evidence.

I'd go further, science is the refusal to believe anything but the evidence.

But then we're to evidentialism, which is self-refuting. Science is predicated on quite a few philosophical truths for which there is no evidence (just good argumentation).

[uwot]

But then we're to evidentialism, which is self-refuting. Science is predicated on quite a few philosophical truths for which there is no evidence (just good argumentation).

Scientism, evidentialism...what's with the isms? So tell me: what is evidentialism, and why is it self-refuting?

[ReliStuPhD]

...Here. Have a read and tell me what you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I read the article, not carefully, to be honest. It's not clear that anyone but slightly miffed theists use the term, claiming that science and religion are temperamentally equivalent.

You think all the names listed there are theists? Look into their bibliographies and I think you'll be surprised. This is definitely something theists thought up (even if we do see the truth to it). Seriously, read it carefully. It's worth thinking about. It's definitely coming down the academic pipeline.

[uwot]

You think all the names listed there are theists? Look into their bibliographies and I think you'll be surprised.

Maybe, but I can engage Wikipedia at my leisure. What do you think?

It's definitely coming down the academic pipeline.

Not this one.

[ReliStuPhD]

So tell me: what is evidentialism, and why is it self-refuting?

Evidentialism can be summed up by W.K. Clifford's statement that "It is wrong, always, everywhere, for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence" (nb this isn't a moral wrong, just an error). Yhe problem is that there is insufficient evidence to believe this statement is true (and it's certainly not self-evident). So if it's always wrong to believe what Clifford has said, it is therefore wrong to believe that what Clifford has said is true. Basically, evidentialism holds that the only things we can know are discovered through evidence, but the truth of philosophical position can be shown by an appeal to evidence (rather, we work through them logically).

Of course, you were speaking of science, so I should confess to a small degree of flippancy in my response, but I think the point still stands. There are things that science "believes" to be true for which we don't have evidence. One very clear one is the belief that the Creationist is wrong when they say that God has tricked scientists by making the geological record appear to span hundreds of millions of years. There is certainly no evidence to back the scientist's claim that the Creationist is a complete idiot (after all, the Creationist isn't wrong on logical grounds), and yet they proceed as if they were (and rightly so, I might add).