Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[attofishpi]

There are infinite factors that go into every Belief-system. That you and all the other Secularists overlook these "facts", demonstrates to me that very few, or none of you, are really serious about your 'Sciences'.

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

There's just one rather large fail you've got there Mike, and that is that GOD simply asked for us to have faith - for those "stories" to be proven plausible (in my case that's the truth of it).

It was a binary position, and you chose not to believe in it.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are infinite factors that go into every Belief-system. That you and all the other Secularists overlook these "facts", demonstrates to me that very few, or none of you, are really serious about your 'Sciences'.

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

I think you may not have understood the phrase "If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do". Your own thing relies on what he is calling stories, and what you got pissy about me referring to as beliefs.

[BigMike]

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it. Faith doesn’t trump evidence, and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument. Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted. If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.
There's just one rather large fail you've got there Mike, and that is that GOD simply asked for us to have faith - for those "stories" to be proven plausible (in my case that's the truth of it).

It was a binary position, and you chose not to believe in it.

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it. Faith doesn’t trump evidence, and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument. Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted. If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.

[BigMike]

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

I think you may not have understood the phrase "If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do". Your own thing relies on what he is calling stories, and what you got pissy about me referring to as beliefs.

FlashDangerpants, you’re reaching, and it’s not a good look. Will's point about "stories" was clearly a jab at the unscientific narratives people use to ascribe meaning beyond the observable and testable. What I responded to—and what you seem to miss—is the pragmatic, predictive value of science, which stands apart from belief-driven stories.

If you want to argue that science itself is just another "story," you’re either misunderstanding what evidence-based reasoning is or deliberately conflating terms to score rhetorical points. Either way, it’s not impressive. Call it beliefs if it helps you sleep at night, but science doesn’t rely on faith—it relies on results. And if that stings, well, maybe it’s time to rethink your own narrative.

[FlashDangerpants]

FlashDangerpants, you’re reaching, and it’s not a good look. Will's point about "stories" was clearly a jab at the unscientific narratives people use to ascribe meaning beyond the observable and testable.

I've been on this forum for years. He's been on this forum years. Do you never have a little voice that suggests you might be making unwise assumptions, or that other people might have an inkling of what's going on?

[Wizard22]

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it. Faith doesn’t trump evidence, and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument. Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted. If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.

There's no "Evidence" that humans can high jump above 9 feet.

Are you saying that athletes should stop having faith, that they could jump 9 feet someday?

Isn't this a case of "Faith" trumping "Evidence"?

[Wizard22]

We're going on a week...BigMike you need to face up to my Elementary level argument, eventually.

[Wizard22]

Come to think of it...I've never heard an NFL Championship team or quarterback thank "Science" or "Nature" for their biggest Victories.

They thank God, why?

[promethean75]

Because professional athletes are morons?

[Wizard22]

Because professional athletes are morons?

Very well paid, praised, and lauded morons, it seems...

[attofishpi]

Well said, Will! Your focus on the pragmatic foundation of science is spot on, especially when paired with its remarkable predictive power. The formulas derived from observable patterns, like those describing falling stones, don’t just explain—they predict future behavior with precision. That’s the strength of science: it gives us tools to understand and navigate the world, grounded in evidence rather than stories.

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it. Faith doesn’t trump evidence, and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument. Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted. If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.
There's just one rather large fail you've got there Mike, and that is that GOD simply asked for us to have faith - for those "stories" to be proven plausible (in my case that's the truth of it).

It was a binary position, and you chose not to believe in it.

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it.

In other words, IF God exists, I am not interested in IT providing empirical evidence to me -(BigMike).

Faith doesn’t trump evidence,

Another atheist not too sharp where logic is concerned. The point I am making is that U will receive NO evidence if you choose to have NO faith - IF God does in fact exist.

..and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument.

..argument? I've just proved the very LARGE fail in your BINARY decision in perhaps the greatest question in philosophy, does God exist, how does one gain the EVIDENCE? (faith u arrogant muppet)

Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted.

Yes, done all that since interacting with God since 1997. I now have ascertained key attributes to this God entity, indeed, I know more about the true nature of reality than you, because I had that binary faith requirement the correct way around.

If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.

Fuck faith, I don't need faith anymore, I have gained the knowledge. However, am looking forward to learning more about this entity that tends to be termed "GOD".

[Will Bouwman]

I can't speak for all the other secularists, but many of us take science to be fundamentally a pragmatic endeavour. It is, for example, an observable, verifiable fact that stones fall to Earth if you drop them. The science comes in when you measure things like the mass of the stone, the distance it falls and the time it takes. Repeat the experiment with different objects and heights, see if there is a pattern in the data; if so devise a formula that accounts for the pattern you have discerned. Use that formula for any purpose to which it applies, and to any purpose to which it doesn't apply, use another formula. If it pleases you to do so, make up a story about why stones fall as they do; it won't make any difference to the behaviour of stones.

Is that what you think the difference is between the Secular "Sciences" and the Religious "Faiths", behavior of stones versus behavior of humans?

I wouldn't apply 'secular' to science. It could be that a god created the universe, in which case science becomes the study of that god's creation. That aside 'sciences' such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and economics study human behaviour; they are not for that reason religious faiths.

Obviously Physics becomes very, very complex when you consider Biology, Autonomy, Agency. A rock is one thing; a human is another.

Animals and Organisms have willpower, hence, Beliefs.

What upsets the religious is not that science denies the existence of any god, it is that science demonstrates that some beliefs the religious consider important to their religion are not true. Science is not secular, it just isn't tied to any particular religion.

[BigMike]

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it. Faith doesn’t trump evidence, and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument. Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted. If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.
There's just one rather large fail you've got there Mike, and that is that GOD simply asked for us to have faith - for those "stories" to be proven plausible (in my case that's the truth of it).

It was a binary position, and you chose not to believe in it.

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it.

In other words, IF God exists, I am not interested in IT providing empirical evidence to me -(BigMike).

Faith doesn’t trump evidence,

Another atheist not too sharp where logic is concerned. The point I am making is that U will receive NO evidence if you choose to have NO faith - IF God does in fact exist.

..and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument.

..argument? I've just proved the very LARGE fail in your BINARY decision in perhaps the greatest question in philosophy, does God exist, how does one gain the EVIDENCE? (faith u arrogant muppet)

Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted.

Yes, done all that since interacting with God since 1997. I now have ascertained key attributes to this God entity, indeed, I know more about the true nature of reality than you, because I had that binary faith requirement the correct way around.

If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.

Fuck faith, I don't need faith anymore, I have gained the knowledge. However, am looking forward to learning more about this entity that tends to be termed "GOD".

Attofishpi, your entire argument rests on circular reasoning so blatant it’s almost painful to watch. You claim that faith is the prerequisite for evidence of God’s existence, which is just a convenient way of saying you’ll only see what you’ve already decided to believe. That’s not philosophy—it’s intellectual laziness dressed up as insight.

You boast about “gaining knowledge” since 1997, but all you’ve demonstrated is a willingness to substitute your subjective experiences for objective reality. Claiming to “know more about the true nature of reality” because of this alleged faith journey doesn’t make you enlightened; it makes you insufferably self-satisfied.

If you want to take your personal revelations as gospel, go right ahead—but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take your unverifiable claims seriously. And please, spare us the arrogance of pretending you've proven anything beyond your own ability to self-delude.

[Will Bouwman]

Will's point about "stories" was clearly a jab at the unscientific narratives people use to ascribe meaning beyond the observable and testable.

It's not a jab at anyone. If you ask a bunch of physicists who the greatest ever of their number was, many of them will say Isaac Newton. Here's something I wrote for Philosophy Now:

Having dismissed Descartes’ explanation of how gravitational attraction works, Newton included a passage known by a phrase that occurs in it: hypotheses non fingo – ‘I make no hypotheses’. He writes: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” To Newton, an explanation of how something works isn’t essential to science; as long as the mathematical model gives us the power to map, predict, and manipulate our environment, the job of physics is done. As the passage concludes: “And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.” The explanation of why it works isn’t that important to science. As Osiander had said, what matters is, can you use the theory?

You can read the whole thing here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Long story short: the explanation, hypothesis, story, call it what you will, that you attach to scientific theory can be useful in that it is much easier to manipulate a concept like warped spacetime, than it is to jiggle the numbers. However, it makes no difference to the utility of Einstein's field equation whether gravity is actually caused by warped spacetime.

[attofishpi]

Attofishpi, take your "binary position" and shove it.

In other words, IF God exists, I am not interested in IT providing empirical evidence to me -(BigMike).

Faith doesn’t trump evidence,

Another atheist not too sharp where logic is concerned. The point I am making is that U will receive NO evidence if you choose to have NO faith - IF God does in fact exist.

..and your insistence on equating "stories" with truth only highlights the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument.

..argument? I've just proved the very LARGE fail in your BINARY decision in perhaps the greatest question in philosophy, does God exist, how does one gain the EVIDENCE? (faith u arrogant muppet)

Science doesn’t deal in make-believe—it deals in what can be observed, tested, and predicted.

Yes, done all that since interacting with God since 1997. I now have ascertained key attributes to this God entity, indeed, I know more about the true nature of reality than you, because I had that binary faith requirement the correct way around.

If you want to cling to faith, fine, but don’t expect anyone grounded in reason to take it as a substitute for reality.

Fuck faith, I don't need faith anymore, I have gained the knowledge. However, am looking forward to learning more about this entity that tends to be termed "GOD".

Attofishpi, your entire argument rests on circular reasoning so blatant it’s almost painful to watch. You claim that faith is the prerequisite for evidence of God’s existence, which is just a convenient way of saying you’ll only see what you’ve already decided to believe. That’s not philosophy—it’s intellectual laziness dressed up as insight.

You arrogant muppet of failed LOGIC, indeed, a failed approach to PHILOSOPHY, easily explained here:

Now here is Wisdom.

Two men, on par with intelligence and knowledge:
Man A = atheist
Man B = theist

Indeed the ONLY difference between the two with regard to their reasoning and pursuit of knowledge is that Man B understands that it is wise to believe that there is a God and live his life accordingly, knowing that there may be consequences beyond man's 'justice', indeed, there may be the POSSIBILITY of greater insight.

Which of the two men has the POTENTIAL for greater knowledge?

WHICH ONE IS THE WISER OF THE TWO?