Vaccines—Who Needs 'Em?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will distil the point of the VM one last time: I noticed that you were approaching Sasaki in a manner similar to how others, in the past, had approached you in 'those' threads. Why is that upsetting to you? To elaborate when rebuffed, I described what I felt was going on in those threads, for comparison. Why was that offensive to you? If you felt I mischaracterized something, you needed only to correct me...

Should I have asked permission to VM you? Are you nobility, by any chance?

You're welcome to think so.

Rubbish.

I regret, though, that it had to color this discussion to such an extent. I hope it won't in the future.

I don't like Sasaki, that's well known, and the reasons are not difficult to detect.

Regardless, I only oppose him when he posts, I don't go looking for him.

You went to my wall make a completely unnecessary post, which elicited a short sharp response on why I thought you were wrong to compare us. You responded by being rude and basically saying certain of my views were not welcome in the Backroom. If you'd like I'll post the exchange and the other members can judge.

You have offended me, you can apolagise and I will accept you spoke out of turn, or you can persist in making excuses and I will assume you meant what you said, in which case I will remain offended.


I've extracted more or less what I was looking for. The context in which I posted a few days ago was whether or not science is compatible with religion. I argued that it isn't - contemporary science - due to the abrogation principle. You corrected one of my category errors, namely that I implied the soul and the aether are abrogated for similar (i.e. theoretical) reasons, and I reformulated it as, 'contemporary science abrogates such a thing through materialist principles by default, and so a supernatural God would be abrogated as well'. You seem to accept this. Are we cool?

No, I don't accept this because "contemporary Science" is not competent to abrogate the soul, if there is an incompatibility then it is because the "Scientists" want it that way. I know theistic physicists and biologists, they don't have a problem being Christians during the week and scientists on Sundays.


I thought you had contradicted an earlier post in this or some other thread. Perhaps it was another member...

that is highly unlikely, it is however possible you misread me as I do not speak in a modern atheistic dialect. That is not a swipe at you, that is a statement of fact - we use different frames of reference.

[Kralizec]

Spinozan Pantheism, Einstein's preferred theology. Yes, I know. It is not, as Richard Dawkins wishes to charactarise it, "atheism lite."

He was widely denounced at the time for allegedly being an atheist by both jews and the various churches in the Neths. I've not read his work so I can't judge for myself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was widely denounced at the time for allegedly being an atheist by both jews and the various churches in the Neths. I've not read his work so I can't judge for myself.

True, but he was not an atheist as the term is understood today.

[Strike For The South]

Yes, but it really presupposes a Deistic or Pantehistic view - tempting as it is to upgrade that to theism.

Becuase it supposes an ordered universe that can be measured?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Becuase it supposes an ordered universe that can be measured?

Essentially, yes. An ordered universe is a rational one, the attributribution of rationality is a very human attempt to make sense of existence. We always try to rationalise, be it random accidents or our own decisions - the belief in a theistic, interventionist, God is an attempt to rationalise the universe we live in. To suggest that the universe is rationally ordered simply because "it is" is not really very rational.

It is just as likely that we interpret random chance as rational order because if we didn't we would go insane. It is at least as likely that this rational order was imposed by a rational being, but that does not necessarily make it so.

Even if one does not believe in an interventionist God one still has the problem that an ordered universe implies a will or purpose - hence my repeated argument that you can't buy into morality without God because to claim that morality is imbedded in the universe implies the universe has an opinion about what actors inside it do - that's akin to suggesting you have an opinion on what your red blood cells do.

[Kralizec]

Essentially, yes. An ordered universe is a rational one, the attributribution of rationality is a very human attempt to make sense of existence. We always try to rationalise, be it random accidents or our own decisions - the belief in a theistic, interventionist, God is an attempt to rationalise the universe we live in. To suggest that the universe is rationally ordered simply because "it is" is not really very rational.

Our concept of "rationality" derives from our observation that the universe is ordered. I think your logic is upside-down.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Our concept of "rationality" derives from our observation that the universe is ordered. I think your logic is upside-down.

Or, we subjectively observe the universe as ordered because we are "rational" beings.

Are you sure your logic isn't upside down?

[Kralizec]

Or, we subjectively observe the universe as ordered because we are "rational" beings.

In that case, our observation is flawed, and the universe's nature has no bearing on the subject at all.

Or alternatively:


Are you sure your logic isn't upside down?

Pretty sure.

Saying the universe is "rational" is an antromorphization, attributing a quality that is only relevant to sentient beings. We observe certain things, deduce patterns and draw conclusions from it. Anything that conforms to this is considered rational. Then you come along and profess that it's a great marvel that the universe fits our notions of rationality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In that case, our observation is flawed, and the universe's nature has no bearing on the subject at all.

Or alternatively:

Pretty sure.

Saying the universe is "rational" is an antromorphization, attributing a quality that is only relevant to sentient beings. We observe certain things, deduce patterns and draw conclusions from it. Anything that conforms to this is considered rational. Then you come along and profess that it's a great marvel that the universe fits our notions of rationality.

OK, now answer this:

Why is it more likely that you are right than I am?

Or, more pointedly, why did rational beings arise in this universe?

[Kralizec]

OK, now answer this:

Why is it more likely that you are right than I am?

Precedent ~D


Or, more pointedly, why did rational beings arise in this universe?

Again, "rational" is a concept we thought of. So is "sentience".

If time is infinte, the probability of our species emerging is one. If it's finite, but very long, it's still a decent chance. Sometimes people argue that the conditions of our planet, or the part of our galaxy at large, is by some amazing coincidence perfectly suitable for life to develop. But the argument is self-selective.

If we never emerged, we wouldn't be around to question it.

[Montmorency]

You went to my wall make a completely unnecessary post, which elicited a short sharp response on why I thought you were wrong to compare us. You responded by being rude and basically saying certain of my views were not welcome in the Backroom. If you'd like I'll post the exchange and the other members can judge.

Forget "opposition". I didn't post it to antagonise you, and it's so strange to me that make a series of such bizarre interpretations. Anyone can easily view the private conversation - and there is little one can do to solicit a private conversation the Org - as I don't have the energy to sustain this silly...

How about this: I apologize for implying that you piss people off sometimes. Anything else wouldn't be genuine. Clearly, now, our different "frames of reference" make it prohibitive to relate to each other outside the Backroom's more formal structure.



, I don't accept this because "contemporary Science" is not competent to abrogate the soul, if there is an incompatibility then it is because the "Scientists" want it that way. I know theistic physicists and biologists, they don't have a problem being Christians during the week and scientists on Sundays.


It isn't a matter of competence or 'right-ness', but whether it today does so as a matter of fact. If scientists want it that way right now, then science right now does it, no? Ultimate validity is really not in the scope of my post, and so can safely be excluded for the claim in its particular context and extent.


It is just as likely that we interpret random chance as rational order because if we didn't we would go insane.

Go insane as a consequence? :wink:


It is at least as likely that this rational order was imposed by a rational being, but that does not necessarily make it so.

Here is a fallacy I'll charge you with: one should never speak in probabilistic terms when one has no inkling of the probabilities involved any which way.


If time is infinte, the probability of our species emerging is one. If it's finite, but very long, it's still a decent chance.

To be fair, I'll say that the probability is anything at all as far as we know, though really one if you look at it from a certain perspective.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precedent ~D

....is probably equally split between our arguments.

The point is - there's no way to know.


Again, "rational" is a concept we thought of. So is "sentience".

If time is infinte, the probability of our species emerging is one. If it's finite, but very long, it's still a decent chance. Sometimes people argue that the conditions of our planet, or the part of our galaxy at large, is by some amazing coincidence perfectly suitable for life to develop. But the argument is self-selective.

If we never emerged, we wouldn't be around to question it.

I've never really bought into the anthropomorphic argument - the point I was getting at was that we are a product of the universe we inhabit. If we are rational than that implies that "rationality" reflects the "orderedness" of the universe. Taking the argument a step further, the purposefulness of the human mind may reflect the purposefulness of the universe.

The suggestion that "the probability is one, or close to it" still implies that rationality is possible outcome, which implies it is already present in the universe independent of human beings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Forget "opposition". I didn't post it to antagonise you, and it's so strange to me that make a series of such bizarre interpretations. Anyone can easily view the private conversation - and there is little one can do to solicit a private conversation the Org - as I don't have the energy to sustain this silly...

How about this: I apologize for implying that you piss people off sometimes. Anything else wouldn't be genuine. Clearly, now, our different "frames of reference" make it prohibitive to relate to each other outside the Backroom's more formal structure.

I suppose I'll take that, but you didn't imply anything you out-and-out said it, and you could just have apolagised for unintentionally offending me, which is what I was looking for.

Still, never mind. As we're not friends it doesn't matter all that much.


It isn't a matter of competence or 'right-ness', but whether it today does so as a matter of fact. If scientists want it that way right now, then science right now does it, no? Ultimate validity is really not in the scope of my post, and so can safely be excluded for the claim in its particular context and extent.

"Competence" as in "qualified". Modern Scientists are not qualified to pronounce the soul abrogated, in doing so they are picking a fight with anyone who is not an atheist - needlessly so.

I also feel it's important to note that "Scientists" are not allowed to "want" if they claim to practise "Science", they are only allowed to analyse dat and draw conclusions. As Scientists have absolutely no dat relating to the soul they have nothing to analyse and therefore can't practise "Science" with relation to the question. It logically follows that an opinion offered by a "Scientist" in relation to the soul is "Unscientific".

Ergo, science cannot, indeed must not, pronouce on the issue.


Go insane as a consequence?

Insanity is generally considered to be a disordered mind.


Here is a fallacy I'll charge you with: one should never speak in probabilistic terms when one has no inkling of the probabilities involved any which way.

Ah, but I do - I can say that both scenarios are roughly equally easy to imagine because I can entertain both. I can't make an authoratitive statement, true, but I can still say something.

[Montmorency]

I also feel it's important to note that "Scientists" are not allowed to "want" if they claim to practise "Science", they are only allowed to analyse dat and draw conclusions. As Scientists have absolutely no dat relating to the soul they have nothing to analyse and therefore can't practise "Science" with relation to the question. It logically follows that an opinion offered by a "Scientist" in relation to the soul is "Unscientific".

Well, even a theistic scientist would have to engage the idea, and bend the materialism in some manner.


Insanity is generally considered to be a disordered mind.


Don't equivocate. Disorder as in dysfunction. Put another way, insanity is merely a difference in frames of reference so large as to prohibit most social connection.

...

:uhoh:

Um...You might complain sometimes that some Orgahs treat or perceive you as insane, right? There you go.

:worried:


and you could just have apolagised for unintentionally offending me, which is what I was looking for.

I've been taught that this is inherently a shallow and dishonest sort of apology. :sweatdrop: I think I'll just try to be more careful in my approach to PVC.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, even a theistic scientist would have to engage the idea, and bend the materialism in some manner.

No, because materialism has nothing to do with the soul.

It's a mystery.


Don't equivocate. Disorder as in dysfunction. Put another way, insanity is merely a difference in frames of reference so large as to prohibit most social connection.

...

:uhoh:

Um...You might complain sometimes that some Orgahs treat or perceive you as insane, right? There you go.

:worried:

I'm not equivocating in the slightest, you said it yourself "dysfunction", loss of function. The term "disordered mind" refers to an, admittedly simplistic, view of the human mind as a mental machine "disorder" signified that the machine was broke, that cogs and gears no longer turned and stepped as they should.

Order is sanity and disorder is insanity - whilst an unfashionable idea in out modern freewheeling society it has some merit. A sane man will add two and two and get four, an insane man will get lemonade.


I've been taught that this is inherently a shallow and dishonest sort of apology. :sweatdrop: I think I'll just try to be more careful in my approach to PVC.

We could devote a whole thread to this - but what you are saying is that you were taught my feelings don't matter. I would never expect you to be less than honest, but I would also never expect you to insult me or wound me intentionally. So, I think it's sad that someone taught you that. If they also taught you that saying "sorry" is a sign of weakness, I think that's sad too.

[Montmorency]

No, because materialism has nothing to do with the soul.

It's a mystery.

It seems to me to have everything to do with the soul.


Order is sanity and disorder is insanity - whilst an unfashionable idea in out modern freewheeling society it has some merit. A sane man will add two and two and get four, an insane man will get lemonade.

Frame of reference. Dysfunction relative to a 'common' or 'popular' frame of reference. Think of it as a doctrinal clash concerning all the philosoph-ologies, as well as social standards.

Separating meanings of "order", it's clear that an "insane" individual is just as ordered as a "sane" one - unless you introduce a special metaphysical standard for crazies (I suppose, believing in ensoulment and attendant details, you would...).


We could devote a whole thread to this - but what you are saying is that you were taught my feelings don't matter. I would never expect you to be less than honest, but I would also never expect you to insult me or wound me intentionally. So, I think it's sad that someone taught you that. If they also taught you that saying "sorry" is a sign of weakness, I think that's sad too.

Oh boy, it would behoove us to cut it off right here.

[Sigurd]

Keeping God and the Soul immaterial helps winning debates. Something the Church Fathers realized many centuries ago...

[naut]

The reason modern Natural Philosophers insist on being called "Scientists" is to try to distance themselves from the rest of the Academy and to avoid the epistomological problem in favour of an almost religious belief in the objective value of their experiments.
The idiocy of this statement is astounding.

Have you ever heard of the concepts of uncertainty and peer review?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems to me to have everything to do with the soul.

that depends on what you think the soul is, I suppose. I don't consider it a material thing - so materialism is much of muchness. Granted, if you insist on being a pure materialist then there is no place for the soul, there's also no place for anything else other than sex, eating, sleeping, and taking a dump.

I don't believe there are any pure materialists.


Frame of reference. Dysfunction relative to a 'common' or 'popular' frame of reference. Think of it as a doctrinal clash concerning all the philosoph-ologies, as well as social standards.

I don't buy it - madness as an unusual frame of reference doesn't wash. As you noted, people here have called me insane but most other have called them rude, because you can see that my rational ordered thought processes function - so my frame of reference is explicable.

Madness is inexplicable to rational thought processes.


Separating meanings of "order", it's clear that an "insane" individual is just as ordered as a "sane" one -

I disagree.


unless you introduce a special metaphysical standard for crazies (I suppose, believing in ensoulment and attendant details, you would...).

I said that madness was the result of a disordered mind, not a diseased soul - and I must once again ask you not to make assumptions.


Oh boy, it would behoove us to cut it off right here.

As you wish.

[naut]

Rather than quote every single fallacy I've used image board standards:

> Most people don't think of it in such black and white terms, I don't think. Certainly I don't.

Ad Populum. Not a valid argument, and certainly does not alleviate the burden of proof.

> Religion is the belief in an involved power that is beyond our comprehension.

That is not what religion is. That is meta-physics. Similar concepts yes, but slightly different. Religion is the use of supernatural claims, without evidence, to explain natural phenomenon in the universe. Religion makes claims to try to explain the universe without ever providing actual physical evidence. Science makes claims to try to explain the universe using what we have observed as a species, and we accept that some of our suppositions may be incorrect and are subject to a burden of proof and rigorous testing. Am I justified to belief that the two fish I caught today will mean I have 5 fish when I put them in my fridge that already contains three fish? Well I’ll put them out next to each other and count them. Two fish there and three fish there equal five fish. Therefore I am justified to believe I have five fish.

> There are those who claim that science presupposes a theistic world view.

As a statement I would agree. Science is based on two basic epistemological suppositions:

• I exist
• At least some of the time, some of my senses are accurate (they reflect reality)

From these two suppositions I am able to observe and interact with the world and draw conclusions from the world. If I do not do so, I am fundamentally unable to do anything.

> Epistomology contradicts this, because ultimately all "evidence" relies on sense-perception, which is entirely subjective and therefore unreliable. The "Scientific" method is about interpreting the data we recieve via our perceptions. It can only work with concrete numbers it can measure, so it assigns numbers to some perceptions and declares anything it can't measure (like subjective experiences that can't be asigned a numerical value) to be invalid, uninteresting or the result of a deranged mind.

Bullshit. See my above point. Science only works in numbers? Hilarious! Science uses the initial two assumptions to then draw evidence to support claims. Without that we go nowhere epistemologically.

> But I'm quite sure that, having accepted contemporary natural science over other lenses, one may apply the abrogation principle. That's cheating in the same manner theism does. There's no need to revisit the first place in that context.

Exactly. Theism inherently makes more assumptions than scientific method does. Scientific method is not able to simulate all of existence at once at any given time. Our minds are incapable of knowing everything, of perceiving anything “perfectly”. We are limited in size and scope as a species. Science knows and accepts this. So we approach the world with inherent scepticism and say what evidence is there for my belief? The more evidence I have the more certain I am for a certain idea, theory or concept.

> You are confusing the ranking of the various branches of philosophy

Ranking philosophy? There are no levels of philosophy.

> To really understand why Science (or, indeed, Natural Philosophy) and Religion actually complement eachother one needs to start thinking philosophically. A lot of athiests have it in their heads that a religious person is living in some simple fantasy land, but that's just not true--nobody can deny the evidence of their own eyes. And yet, when natural philosophers first looked at cells under a microscope, or started to work out the nature of the solar system, they did not see this as a contradiction with god.

The burden of proof lies on the religious. Any claim of god requires evidence. If I say to you I have cured cancer you will ask me to prove it. If I cannot prove that I have cured cancer you will dismiss my claim. The same goes for god. PROVE IT.

> The universe has to be put together some how.

Why? Why can’t it have come from nothing? Why couldn’t it have been created from a giant knocking over a glass of juice onto the floor of its living room and the resulting mess on the floor is us? What if he is still getting around to cleaning up the mess? What if we all get sucked up into a giant broom and washed away? THE HORROR! Your point is what exactly? Or is there no point to this pointless statement?

> If it was all willed into existence by a supernatural being, then surely all these little complexities and the grand scale of it all only reflects the complexity and genius of the god that created it. The inconsistencies are our failure to understand the situation, and science is something that brings you closer to understanding the nature of god and yourself.

Ah the fallacy of the creator. How I do love thee! And who created the creator? Something even more grand than the creator no doubt! Even if you make the supposition that there is a creator where your proof for said creator?

> And yet, people ignore the evidence of their own eyes, and their minds, all the time.

Ah yes, the creator is self-evident! This reply is so flawed it is incoherent. If everyone agreed that a creator is self-evident, then there would be no-one questioning and denying the existence of a god in the first place. Divine existence is the very thing being disputed by me and evidence is the very thing you have yet to produce. You cannot push into accepting the very thing YOU need to establish by declaring it as “self-evident”.

> Personally, I tend to agree with Einstein, Galileo, Newton, and all the other great men of science and philosophy who had no problem reconciling the complex universe we live in with an involved and caring god.

Have you heard of the concept of Occam's razor? We take the conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions. Which approach makes the fewest assumptions? The epistemological approach I outlined earlier. Can the universe exist without the supernatural? Yes. So we conclude that the supernatural is unnecessary and we abandon it.

> The difference between modern theology and modern Natural Philosophy is that the latter refuses to engage with metaphysical questions and actively ignores them, while the former readily admits the problems they present and integrates epistemology and metaphysics..

See the previous point, regarding Occam’s razor. That religion incorporates additional assumptions is a logical weakness, not a strength. If you want to believe in the soul or god, YOU have to prove it. Not science. The burden of proof lies with you, because you are making extraordinary unnecessary epistemological assumptions.

> This is only a useful observation if the theory is right do you want to go over all the correct concepts that were abrogated by bad theories? Especially in the realm of disease? Or perhaps we should discuss Steady State theory and the abrogation of a beginning to linear time?

Because Scientific method has come up with incorrect theories does not invalidate new theories. It is actually a strength of the concept. We come up with ideas. We test them. And find them to be false so we abandon our search and try again. And the irony your statement, beautiful!

> Philogiston and aether were postulated physical phenomena. "Magic" is a word used to describe anything people do not understand and "the Soul" is not a physical concept . Neither "magic" nor the soul are accessible to Scientia because there is no numerical data to test.

No. It is not abandoned because there “are no numbers”. It is abandoned, because there is no proof. If you want to believe in a soul then prove it.

What if I claim that Western philosophy is wrong? The soul is not perpetual and inside the body, it is in fact outside the body. The Universe is the soul, the grand total of everything from which everything grows and is embodied by us briefly. Upon death we the body return to the soul. Am I correct in the assumption? I cannot say, I have no proof. So it is merely that a simple supposition that is interesting but not possible to know with any certainty. So I abandon it as a fleeting and playful thought.

> We've been over this, a scientific experiment requires an ordered universe, otherwise you can conduct any experiments. Therefore, you cannot test whether the universe is ordered, you can only infer that it is from the consistency of controlled experiments.

No again. Incorrect. Scientific method requires this universe. There could be other universes where other methods may be valid. I do not know. I have no proof. So I abandon it as unnecessary.

> An Omnipotent being is just that, all powerful, any all powerful being can do whatsoever it wishes. If it creates physical laws it can just as soon change or suspend them. This does not present a logical problem because the being in question is not defined, merely assigned certain attributes. It is not necessary to clarify what type of being would be Omnipotent, merely to recognise the consequences of such a being's existence.

Then why hasn’t he or it changed them? If they are so arbitrary why do they remain so constant? And to define an omnipotent being is easy. You. Your control over your own body is omnipotent. You are able to run the entirety of your body with no conscious thought. You in the realm of your own vessel of cells and matter are omnipotent.

> The soul is not a material thing, and no experiments have gathered any data on it.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. So in a universe where everything we see is material and everything is either matter or energy there is another mythical form that you call the soul? That is an interesting supposition. Please prove it. You can? Well then I am an elephant.

> That doesn't mean they have been proved false, but they are not novel and they have been adequately countered several times over the previous millennia.

Where are these mythical proofs? Hmmm? If they were so easily dismissed out of hand why don’t you do so right here and right now?

> The "soul" is an idea, it has never been defined, its effect has been observed as "a glint in the eye" etc., but that does not describe what the soul is. Hence, you cannot address it with the Scientific Method, which is why there have been no experiments which successfully addressed the question.

To live a single day in this Universe I must use scientific method. Say I wish to cross the street and not get hit by a car? I will use my sometime accurate senses to inform me of the best time to cross the street. Which is the basis of scientific method. That my senses are sometime correct and provide my perception with evidence I can use to understand the world I live in.

> However, even in the case of Aether you have to remember that scientific knowledge is ever advancing, and to not demand that your particular "facts" be enshrined as sacred. It may be that we will one day be able to measure and artificially construct the soul, but we should not assume that we will be able to, or that if we cannot that means it does not exist.

Facts are not “enshrined”. They are evidence of varying validity that we can use to understand aspects of the world. If we disagree with them then we can test them. If they stand up to our own tests then we can agree to some certainty that they are accurate. If they do not stand up to the tests then we will set them aside and retest until our view is more certain. They are the results of the observable world.

> Concepts like the Aether are still around. Dark Energy is as vague and mystical as any Aether theory ever was. That doesn't mean anything by itself, but it goes to show that what you think of as concrete science now may very well be considered outdated and ridiculous hogwash in a few centuries.

Isn’t that an argument for Science? So we can try understand what we are and aren’t justified to believe based on evidence of the observable universe?

> As I said, "Science" cheats, anything it can't measure it ignores or decries as irrelevant, usually both.

That is not “cheating”. That is the basis of deductive reasoning and the burden of proof. With any extraordinary claim, comes the burden of extraordinary evidence.

The religious always decry this as “cheating” or a double standard. It is not. Science does not make these extraordinary claims, so does not have the burden of extraordinary proof. If I say I have a 12 inch cock you will say bullshit, and I would need to back up my claim with some evidence.

> Unfortunately for "Science" it doesn't control the universe or the debate. You can't abrogate something just because you can't fit it into your discipline - you might as well abrogate language as the soul.

Unfortunately you can discard anything that does not have evidence. Otherwise any old sap could say he had a million dollars.

> Not so, until 200 years ago most scientists in Europe and the Islamic world were not only religious, but also usually clergy.

Again, Ad Populum.

> You will struggle to find an important atheist between Aristotle and Einstein.

I wonder why that is? The suppression of debate against religion perhaps? The lack of proper education maybe? Plenty of explainable and evidential factors to be found.

> in reality scientists will bitterly defend their own theories, sometimes against all evidence and unto their deaths.

Where is your evidence for this claim? And additionally it is not an argument that opposes science. It actually is an argument for more peer reviews and science. The more critical evidence based reasoning we undertake the less likely people will stake their egos on unsubstantiated claims!

> Again, you are describing the establishment - modern "science" will not accept a new theory unless there is overwhelming evidence in support of it.

Yes. How is this a bad thing? We do not know everything, our equipment improves over time. So will our understandings and applications of this evidence.

> "The truth is eternal and will never change" is in no way a foolish or illogical statement,

However, with our flawed perceptions and occasional inaccuracy how can we ever say what we know is certain? It is possible that there is some truth that ties everything together. Science strives to find it, through trial and error. With claims using evidence. With justification.

Religion arbitrarily states what it says is the truth. Why? Why is it the eternal truth? How do you, with your flawed human nature know it is the truth? Because it is in the Bible? That is an Appeal to Authority, not a legitimate argument. Because god said its true? Whose god? Your god? Fred’s god? The god of snakes? How did he tell you? Why did he tell you? Why didn’t he tell someone else? What if you heard it wrong? What if you wrote what you heard wrong and missed the key elements of what he said?

Religion creates more questions than it answers. Therefore it is an unnecessary assumption and we abandon it.

Ugh, too many fallacies. Need a break. To be continued…

[naut]

As a break from refuting fallacy after fallacy let me put forward several ideas for you all to mull over:

Every religion supposes that it is the "correct" religion. Over the years new religions are founded (Hindu was one of the first, through Greek Polytheism, through Mormon and recent things like Scientology, etc.). Let us assume that the same rate holds and new religions will be founded, each claiming they are "correct". It is just as likely that the "correct" religion has not yet been founded, as it is any of the current religions.

Let us consider whether our species and plane of scope and size is actually important. What if we are not important and the actual important scale of the Universe is much larger? Imagine if you can the vast vacuum of space filled with huge beings, each assigned their own galaxy. Each filled with "cellar" solar systems. And the whole purpose of the thing is for each being to sculpt, tend and develop those planets, stars and matter to create their version of beauty. Whether it is a perfectly ordered and harmonious galaxy or a chaotic fiery mess of stars, planets and matter. And they are all competing with one another, aiming to win a grand contest, the winner of the contest gets to be freed from their eternal existence as guardian of a galaxy. When a winner finally emerges he is released from this plane and the universe is crushed and then reborn, due to the loss of a huge amount of mass, mass that is invisible to basic life-forms. And then the whole thing starts all over again.

How am I to say that this isn't the case? If I say it is the case and we are all just a part of a living galaxy is this not a religion? An attempt to explain the universe without the necessary evidence?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is not what religion is. That is meta-physics. Similar concepts yes, but slightly different. Religion is the use of supernatural claims, without evidence, to explain natural phenomenon in the universe. Religion makes claims to try to explain the universe without ever providing actual physical evidence. Science makes claims to try to explain the universe using what we have observed as a species, and we accept that some of our suppositions may be incorrect and are subject to a burden of proof and rigorous testing. Am I justified to belief that the two fish I caught today will mean I have 5 fish when I put them in my fridge that already contains three fish? Well I’ll put them out next to each other and count them. Two fish there and three fish there equal five fish. Therefore I am justified to believe I have five fish.

I reject your definition of "religion".

"Religion" defines a type of belief system, nothing more. I am not in the business of defending "religion" en masse any more than I am in the business of defending "politics" or "literature".


As a statement I would agree. Science is based on two basic epistemological suppositions:

• I exist
• At least some of the time, some of my senses are accurate (they reflect reality)

From these two suppositions I am able to observe and interact with the world and draw conclusions from the world. If I do not do so, I am fundamentally unable to do anything.

And the third epistdemological claim: what I observe is scrucable to a reasoned analysis, this is the element which is said to presuppose a theistic worldview.


Bullshit. See my above point. Science only works in numbers? Hilarious! Science uses the initial two assumptions to then draw evidence to support claims. Without that we go nowhere epistemologically.

Science works exclusively in numbers - numbers are ultimately measured by fallible human senses.


Exactly. Theism inherently makes more assumptions than scientific method does. Scientific method is not able to simulate all of existence at once at any given time. Our minds are incapable of knowing everything, of perceiving anything “perfectly”. We are limited in size and scope as a species. Science knows and accepts this. So we approach the world with inherent scepticism and say what evidence is there for my belief? The more evidence I have the more certain I am for a certain idea, theory or concept.

"Because I am a skeptic, your belief is invalid" - no that doesn't wash.


Ranking philosophy? There are no levels of philosophy.

Of course there are - metaphysics is at the top, and we proceed downwards with branches which require more and more assumptions.


The burden of proof lies on the religious. Any claim of god requires evidence. If I say to you I have cured cancer you will ask me to prove it. If I cannot prove that I have cured cancer you will dismiss my claim. The same goes for god. PROVE IT.

No proof I might present would be acceptable, I could shout the name of God and cast out demons, walk on water, raise the dead, and you'd die looking for the wires and trapdoors.


Why? Why can’t it have come from nothing? Why couldn’t it have been created from a giant knocking over a glass of juice onto the floor of its living room and the resulting mess on the floor is us? What if he is still getting around to cleaning up the mess? What if we all get sucked up into a giant broom and washed away? THE HORROR! Your point is what exactly? Or is there no point to this pointless statement?

Your giant would be "God", wouldn't it. We could come from nothing, but then you are saying that something spontaneously generated itself from nothing, rather than it being generated by an outside force.


Ah the fallacy of the creator. How I do love thee! And who created the creator? Something even more grand than the creator no doubt! Even if you make the supposition that there is a creator where your proof for said creator?

The fallacy of the fallacy - all Cube said was if there is a Creator, there is no fallacy in his statment because he did not then go on to argue that complexity demonstrates the existence of a creator.


Ah yes, the creator is self-evident! This reply is so flawed it is incoherent. If everyone agreed that a creator is self-evident, then there would be no-one questioning and denying the existence of a god in the first place. Divine existence is the very thing being disputed by me and evidence is the very thing you have yet to produce. You cannot push into accepting the very thing YOU need to establish by declaring it as “self-evident”.

You are putting words in my mouth, all I said was that people believe what they want to - like when you believe your wife isn't cheating on you.


Have you heard of the concept of Occam's razor? We take the conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions. Which approach makes the fewest assumptions? The epistemological approach I outlined earlier. Can the universe exist without the supernatural? Yes. So we conclude that the supernatural is unnecessary and we abandon it.

I have, but you have the formulation wrong. William Ockham (14th Century Scientist and Theologian) said that when presented with two equally likely explanations we should prefer the simplest. However, he went on to say that this did not make the simpler explanation correct, just more likely.

So, when you can demonstrate that something from nothing is more likely than something from something, you may be on to something. You'll also need to actually have an explanation for everything including annoying ningles like conciousness before you can say that the universe definitively does not require the Supernatural.


See the previous point, regarding Occam’s razor. That religion incorporates additional assumptions is a logical weakness, not a strength. If you want to believe in the soul or god, YOU have to prove it. Not science. The burden of proof lies with you, because you are making extraordinary unnecessary epistemological assumptions.

Stop flinging that razor around, you've already cut yourself once - I expcet that if I told you what Ockham used it for you'd throw up.


Because Scientific method has come up with incorrect theories does not invalidate new theories. It is actually a strength of the concept. We come up with ideas. We test them. And find them to be false so we abandon our search and try again. And the irony your statement, beautiful!

True, but it does mean you can't make logical leaps like "there is no soul" just because you want to. You are not engaging with my argument though, so I'm probably wasting my time.


No. It is not abandoned because there “are no numbers”. It is abandoned, because there is no proof. If you want to believe in a soul then prove it.

You can't force me to use Scientia, I can use inference or perception instead. Just because you cannot measure something does not mean it does not exist.


What if I claim that Western philosophy is wrong? The soul is not perpetual and inside the body, it is in fact outside the body. The Universe is the soul, the grand total of everything from which everything grows and is embodied by us briefly. Upon death we the body return to the soul. Am I correct in the assumption? I cannot say, I have no proof. So it is merely that a simple supposition that is interesting but not possible to know with any certainty. So I abandon it as a fleeting and playful thought.

This might be construed as a summarisation of Thomas Aquinas' principle of esse, the participation of living things in the "being" of God. It could also apply to various forms of reincarnation. Just because this does not interest you does not mean such question are not worth reflecting upon or taking positions over.


No again. Incorrect. Scientific method requires this universe. There could be other universes where other methods may be valid. I do not know. I have no proof. So I abandon it as unnecessary.

Oh behave - this universe is stated to be order be "Scientists", it has not been proved - the entire edifice rests upon this untestable claim.


Then why hasn’t he or it changed them? If they are so arbitrary why do they remain so constant? And to define an omnipotent being is easy. You. Your control over your own body is omnipotent. You are able to run the entirety of your body with no conscious thought. You in the realm of your own vessel of cells and matter are omnipotent.

Like I said, if He did change them you would say they hadn't changed.


AHAHAHAHAHAHA. So in a universe where everything we see is material and everything is either matter or energy there is another mythical form that you call the soul? That is an interesting supposition. Please prove it. You can? Well then I am an elephant.

Everything you perceive via your physical senses might be material, but then those physical senses are only attuned to physical stimuli.

If a blind man declared there was no such thing as sight, would you believe him?


Where are these mythical proofs? Hmmm? If they were so easily dismissed out of hand why don’t you do so right here and right now?

If you wish to frame a philosophical argument I shall go and find the corresponding counter.


Facts are not “enshrined”. They are evidence of varying validity that we can use to understand aspects of the world. If we disagree with them then we can test them. If they stand up to our own tests then we can agree to some certainty that they are accurate. If they do not stand up to the tests then we will set them aside and retest until our view is more certain. They are the results of the observable world.

Oh please, go look up "Steady State Universe"


That is not “cheating”. That is the basis of deductive reasoning and the burden of proof. With any extraordinary claim, comes the burden of extraordinary evidence.

The religious always decry this as “cheating” or a double standard. It is not. Science does not make these extraordinary claims, so does not have the burden of extraordinary proof. If I say I have a 12 inch cock you will say bullshit, and I would need to back up my claim with some evidence.

Not all reasoning is deductive, not all positions are reasoned - you are cheating by claiming that it is so.


Unfortunately you can discard anything that does not have evidence. Otherwise any old sap could say he had a million dollars.

Ah, so you have no friends then, as you have no Scientific evidence to support the validity of any particular human relationship.


Again, Ad Populum.

If a man can sit and work out the mathematics behind magnetism or genetics and then get down on his knees and thank God for this revelation than evidence of an Ordered and Scientifically explicable universe is not an argument against Theism.

That leaves intellectual fashion as the main explanation for why modern scientists tend to be atheists.


I wonder why that is? The suppression of debate against religion perhaps? The lack of proper education maybe? Plenty of explainable and evidential factors to be found.

Lack of proper education, among Scientists?

Suppression of Religious debate?

Newton was a theologian who did physics when he was bored, and an acknowledged Arrian heretic.

People used to do theology one day and mathematics the next - your argument is clearly invalid, the two are compatible and were practiced by perfectly self-aware individuals.

Go read up on medieval universities.


Where is your evidence for this claim? And additionally it is not an argument that opposes science. It actually is an argument for more peer reviews and science. The more critical evidence based reasoning we undertake the less likely people will stake their egos on unsubstantiated claims!

Richard Dawkins.

Fred Hoyle.

Stephen Hawking

Galileo

All defended untenable positions after they had proved wrong - in Galileo's case if he had followed the evidence he could have presented it to the Pope and avoided excommunication, but he suppressed the evidence because it didn't fit his model.

Also you, right now, slandering scientists of the past as being weak-willed or ignorant because they don't conform to your idea of what a Scientist should be.


Yes. How is this a bad thing? We do not know everything, our equipment improves over time. So will our understandings and applications of this evidence.

I was responding to someone describing "religious" suppression of Science, my point was the modern scientific establishment does the same to new theories and the historical religious element is incidental.


However, with our flawed perceptions and occasional inaccuracy how can we ever say what we know is certain? It is possible that there is some truth that ties everything together. Science strives to find it, through trial and error. With claims using evidence. With justification.

This does not mean there is no truth, just that it is impossible to see - just like the Higgs Bosun, which brings me to...


Religion arbitrarily states what it says is the truth. Why? Why is it the eternal truth? How do you, with your flawed human nature know it is the truth? Because it is in the Bible? That is an Appeal to Authority, not a legitimate argument. Because god said its true? Whose god? Your god? Fred’s god? The god of snakes? How did he tell you? Why did he tell you? Why didn’t he tell someone else? What if you heard it wrong? What if you wrote what you heard wrong and missed the key elements of what he said?

It was announced "Higgs Bosun found" in the news, but it wasn't - what was found were emissions of child-particles.

You are comparing the sort of doctrinal statements prepared for the congregation with scientific study carried out by universities. Why don't you compare doctrinal statements to news reports, or theological doctors to ones in the Natural Sciences.

Right now you are engaging in the fallacy of false equivalence, presumably thinking I won't notice.

Obviously, you never actually read my posts, just quote them.


Religion creates more questions than it answers. Therefore it is an unnecessary assumption and we abandon it.

Oh right master, forgive me in my churlish ignorance, please don't beat me for my superstitions!


Ugh, too many fallacies. Need a break. To be continued…

Rather fewer fallacies than you claimed - just because you can make it sound like a fallacy, doesn't mean it is one - as "No True Scotsman" demonstrates.

[Tuuvi]

Rather than quote every single fallacy I've used image board standards:...

So If I'm understanding you right, you choose not to believe in something that can't be measured, tested, seen, etc. (I would add that science doesn't prove anything, according to my geology textbook). How does that answer GC's question, which was: "Why can't people believe in both science and religion?"

[a completely inoffensive name]

So If I'm understanding you right, you choose not to believe in something that can't be measured, tested, seen, etc. (I would add that science doesn't prove anything, according to my geology textbook). How does that answer GC's question, which was: "Why can't people believe in both science and religion?"

Have people not been reading Monty's posts? Scientific discovery rests upon the manipulation and observation of the tangible. Anything intangible is not of use and is disregarded completely. The scientific method fails utterly at concepts of the soul and other objects that are beyond human observations, so by default they are rejected completely.

It's like asking why can't you be a Christian and a polytheist at the same time. The fundamental principles both operate on are incompatible.

[Tuuvi]

Have people not been reading Monty's posts? Scientific discovery rests upon the manipulation and observation of the tangible. Anything intangible is not of use and is disregarded completely. The scientific method fails utterly at concepts of the soul and other objects that are beyond human observations, so by default they are rejected completely.

It's like asking why can't you be a Christian and a polytheist at the same time. The fundamental principles both operate on are incompatible.

I understand that Science can't be used on religious concepts. What I don't understand is: Why Science and only Science? If I base my belief on faith, is it necessarily illogical?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nay, NAY! A thousand times nay.

Science is a method for measuring what can be measured and figuring out what can be figured out.

Religion is structured speculation on the things that cannot be measured.

If you try to have one without the other, I'd say you're missing out. :shrug:

If it can't be measured, it's not real​. Where is the compatibility in that statement?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have people not been reading Monty's posts? Scientific discovery rests upon the manipulation and observation of the tangible. Anything intangible is not of use and is disregarded completely. The scientific method fails utterly at concepts of the soul and other objects that are beyond human observations, so by default they are rejected completely.

It's like asking why can't you be a Christian and a polytheist at the same time. The fundamental principles both operate on are incompatible.

Right, it fails - that's like me declaring music pointless because I can't play or sing a note and I'm a bit tone deaf.

Actually, I love music even though I can't experience all its complexities or ever play it myself.


If it can't be measured, it's not real​. Where is the compatibility in that statement?

This is a statement of belief, nothing more.

You occupy a monistic-materialistic universe, I occupy a dualistic one.

I've said it before my conception of the universe is just bigger, if not actually more complex. A lot of people were offended by that last time - my response is that those same people don't think I'm crazy, so they have to get to grips that I can do my theological stuff and their science stuff.


Nay, NAY! A thousand times nay.

Science is a method for measuring what can be measured and figuring out what can be figured out.

Religion is structured speculation on the things that cannot be measured.

If you try to have one without the other, I'd say you're missing out. :shrug:

Couldn't have said it better my self, or even as well, especially the last part.


I understand that Science can't be used on religious concepts. What I don't understand is: Why Science and only Science? If I base my belief on faith, is it necessarily illogical?

This rather depends on your definition of logic - and you then have to consider if "logical" is a simple equivilent for "good" or "correct".

Given the very small amount of information we have to work with I think it's quite possible to make an illogical decision and still be right.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's absurd. That's turning science into a fundamentalist institution, by which standards all kinds of modern advancements would never have been made because the notions were 'unmeasurable' and therefore 'not real.'
That's at all true. Being exclusionary doesn't make you fundamentalist. Name the modern advancements that we take for granted which remain unmeasureable to us.



Science is a method, not an institution. Whether you use Religion, advanced theoretical physics theories, or some strange metaphysical notions of your own, you need to try and quantify the unmeasurable.

Science is a branch of philosophy put into practice. It is the end result of materialism which has axioms incompatible with religion. Asserting that theoretical physics is just as wishy washy as sitting around pondering about God's love is ignorant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Right, it fails - that's like me declaring music pointless because I can't play or sing a note and I'm a bit tone deaf.

Actually, I love music even though I can't experience all its complexities or ever play it myself.
The analogy fails because you still observe music, so you can't reject it outright. Pick something better.




This is a statement of belief, nothing more.

You occupy a monistic-materialistic universe, I occupy a dualistic one.
As I just explained to GC, science is an offshoot of the philosophy of materialism. It ultimately comes down to a disagreement in axioms, but axioms which nevertheless are opposite to each other.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:shrug:

I wonder how many theoretical physics theories you've actually read up on. Taken to their logical conclusions, every one of them suggests a universe far wierder and more magical than anything in the Bible.

How many have you read up on? Weird != not quantified or not measurable. It's magic to you because you don't know the logic behind it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The analogy fails because you still observe music, so you can't reject it outright. Pick something better.

It's a simile, not an analogy, so it's fine.


As I just explained to GC, science is an offshoot of the philosophy of materialism. It ultimately comes down to a disagreement in axioms, but axioms which nevertheless are opposite to each other.

and what you just said was wrong - because you failed to account for a dualistic model.

Go read Ockham, or even read about him.

[Montmorency]

that depends on what you think the soul is, I suppose. I don't consider it a material thing - so materialism is much of muchness. Granted, if you insist on being a pure materialist then there is no place for the soul, there's also no place for anything else other than sex, eating, sleeping, and taking a dump.
I don't believe there are any pure materialists.


There's no place for anything if there's no place for the soul, is that what you're saying? But it's not really how brains operate AFAIK. I'm sure the majority of scientists discount any nonmaterial explanation, anyway.


I don't buy it - madness as an unusual frame of reference doesn't wash. As you noted, people here have called me insane but most other have called them rude, because you can see that my rational ordered thought processes function - so my frame of reference is explicable.

Madness is inexplicable to rational thought processes.

Rational as in systematic? Or rational as a tool of self-agrandization? What you call madness has method and internal consistency. The "mad" simply rely on - different core assumptions than ours. The mad are different from us neurologically, but don't beg the question socially.

Madness is quite explicable, unless the method of analysis is pure scorn or revulsion.


I disagree.

Physically speaking, we are either fully "ordered" causally or not.



I said that madness was the result of a disordered mind, not a diseased soul - and I must once again ask you not to make assumptions.

Same thing. The mind is either the brain or the soul.

[Sigurd]

Name the modern advancements that we take for granted which remain unmeasureable to us.

Laws of logic

[Papewaio]

So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither Dead or Alive it also doesn't exist until the box is open?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Have people not been reading Monty's posts? Scientific discovery rests upon the manipulation and observation of the tangible. Anything intangible is not of use and is disregarded completely. The scientific method fails utterly at concepts of the soul and other objects that are beyond human observations, so by default they are rejected completely.

It's like asking why can't you be a Christian and a polytheist at the same time. The fundamental principles both operate on are incompatible.

I reject this. As others have stated - just because something cannot be quantified, or explained, does not mean that it does not exist. Belief in something that can be explained and in something that cannot be are mutually exclusive concepts. I can, and do, choose to reject those things that cannot be explained, but I can never - definitively - state that it is impossible.


There's no place for anything if there's no place for the soul, is that what you're saying? But it's not really how brains operate AFAIK. I'm sure the majority of scientists discount any nonmaterial explanation, anyway.

Same thing. The mind is either the brain or the soul.

Why not both? And a source for the majority of scientists? I seem to remember (although it was a while ago) being told at uni that there was no evidence that directly precluded the existence of a non-material soul alongside a material brain...

The only way to reject this possibility is to become a total materialist - which as Calicula said is incredibly unusual...

[a completely inoffensive name]

So Schrodinger's Cat is not only neither Dead or Alive it also doesn't exist until the box is open?

The cat can still be "measured" in that you can still open the box and look.

EDIT: Also, let me clarify that the last few posts I have been making are not "my view", I am just arguing for it. I am not a religious person at all, but I do think there is something real about the intangible. The post I made about scientists vs engineers a while back is my view however.

The point I am arguing here is that I think there is an obvious reason that science and religion have conflicted in the public sphere for hundreds of years, it's a difference in the philosophy each side comes from. Yes, there is compatibility in areas but if it was so easy to have both at the same time, why do we not have it such?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's no place for anything if there's no place for the soul, is that what you're saying? But it's not really how brains operate AFAIK. I'm sure the majority of scientists discount any nonmaterial explanation, anyway.

The soul is not part of the brain - an organ which we do not really understand, despite enjoying messing around with it in a lab.


Rational as in systematic? Or rational as a tool of self-agrandization? What you call madness has method and internal consistency. The "mad" simply rely on - different core assumptions than ours. The mad are different from us neurologically, but don't beg the question socially.

People who suffer from OCD realise they are being irrational, we don't call them mad because they realise, but schizophrenics and people with MPD often don't realise - this is not a question of their governing assumptions, it's a question of something being broken.


Physically speaking, we are either fully "ordered" causally or not.

Well, you don't know that because you don't know where your mind actually resides.


Same thing. The mind is either the brain or the soul.

Ah, you know this?


Laws of logic

I've pointed this out before - nobody listens.

[Montmorency]

The soul is not part of the brain - an organ which we do not really understand, despite enjoying messing around with it in a lab.

That is, I don't think anyone ever entered a comatose or vegetative state having concluded that there is no such thing as the soul. Or am I missing the point?



People who suffer from OCD realise they are being irrational, we don't call them mad because they realise, but schizophrenics and people with MPD often don't realise - this is not a question of their governing assumptions, it's a question of something being broken.


What is the case for those who have OCD being less rational, either in the systematic or logical sense? In the former, they seem more rational. In the latter, not necessarily either more or less so due to it.

Divergence from commonly desired function of the upper tier. "Broken" - in the sense that a burnt-out light-bulb is broken, sure. Interesting that these notions -your semantics - presuppose teleological force...but perhaps I'm overplaying my hand.


Well, you don't know that because you don't know where your mind actually resides.

Physically speaking, our corporeal aspects, which may or may not coincide with all our aspects, are just as ordered as those of the "mad".

You know, I once read the abstract of a paper that speculated whether the mind or soul might be some kind of exotic or extradimensional form of matter. The authors admitted that there isn't really a scientific reason to entertain the idea, but, you know, maybe... :wiseguy:


Ah, you know this?

The mind is either physical or it isn't.


Why not both? And a source for the majority of scientists? I seem to remember (although it was a while ago) being told at uni that there was no evidence that directly precluded the existence of a non-material soul alongside a material brain...

The only way to reject this possibility is to become a total materialist - which as Calicula said is incredibly unusual...

I can't find any surveys asking scientists to give their stance on materialism and the physical, but I think it would be strange if the majority of physicists today - especially as the majority of them are atheists - believed that a given phenomenon could be explained through a non-physical process.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I can't find any surveys asking scientists to give their stance on materialism and the physical, but I think it would be strange if the majority of physicists today - especially as the majority of them are atheists - believed that a given phenomenon could be explained through a non-physical process.

I appreciate you looking - but at the end of the day, and I am an atheist, there is no scientific evidence that precludes the existence of the soul. As mentioned above, it is not something that can conclusively be analysed - hence it cannot be 'disproved'. As such it is not impossible. It may well be true - I'm not one qualified to judge and physicists are no more so...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is, I don't think anyone ever entered a comatose or vegetative state having concluded that there is no such thing as the soul. Or am I missing the point?

I don't know, but I'm fairly sure I don't understand yours. My point was that the soul is an immaterial thing, and the brain is a material thing.

If the soul exists then one might interpret the brain a complex transmitter which receives the soul and translates the will into the physical world, maybe.


What is the case for those who have OCD being less rational, either in the systematic or logical sense? In the former, they seem more rational. In the latter, not necessarily either more or less so due to it.

Divergence from commonly desired function of the upper tier. "Broken" - in the sense that a burnt-out light-bulb is broken, sure. Interesting that these notions -your semantics - presuppose teleological force...but perhaps I'm overplaying my hand.

Don't get excited - this part of the argument started because you didn't accept that madness was seen as a lack of conformity to Order, you don't have to agree that this is what madness is, merely that this is what it is seen as.


Physically speaking, our corporeal aspects, which may or may not coincide with all our aspects, are just as ordered as those of the "mad".

You know, I once read the abstract of a paper that speculated whether the mind or soul might be some kind of exotic or extradimensional form of matter. The authors admitted that there isn't really a scientific reason to entertain the idea, but, you know, maybe... :wiseguy:

Again, restricted to a physical conception. Still hidebound within a monistic-materialistic model.


The mind is either physical or it isn't.

Not necessarily - it could be a confluence - the "mind" may be what you get when a soul and a brain are brought together.


I can't find any surveys asking scientists to give their stance on materialism and the physical, but I think it would be strange if the majority of physicists today - especially as the majority of them are atheists - believed that a given phenomenon could be explained through a non-physical process.

The problem here is chicken or egg - are modern scientists atheists because they study science, or is it a cultural bias. Think about it, it's quite hard to get masculine men to study ballet outside Russia, which is a problem because the slighter men struggle with lifts. This is because ballet is seen as "effeminate", so most boys don't take it up. Similarly, the fact that "science" is seen as opposed to "religion" (neither accurate labels) means that religious people are discouraged, and modern scientific departments can be actively hostile to people who are openly religious.

Consider what I have to put up with here "do you believe in evolution" "I'm surprised you would say that [Scientific knowledge advances]" "go back to your Bible and don't [insert topic on modern life/science/sex]"

Now, why would I go into the Natural Sciences where my faith can be used to actively attack me?

[Montmorency]

I don't know, but I'm fairly sure I don't understand yours. My point was that the soul is an immaterial thing, and the brain is a material thing.


Yes, I probably misunderstood the original point.


Don't get excited - this part of the argument started because you didn't accept that madness was seen as a lack of conformity to Order, you don't have to agree that this is what madness is, merely that this is what it is seen as.

OK. I'm not sure that it is implicitly by those who don't really consider such things, but I'm willing to leave it at that.


Not necessarily - it could be a confluence - the "mind" may be what you get when a soul and a brain are brought together.


Regardless of what category it would be placed into, in that case, the introduction of an immaterial factor...


Again, restricted to a physical conception. Still hidebound within a monistic-materialistic model.

I found it amusing and relevant. The gymnastics some are willing to resort to...


The problem here is chicken or egg - are modern scientists atheists because they study science, or is it a cultural bias. Think about it, it's quite hard to get masculine men to study ballet outside Russia, which is a problem because the slighter men struggle with lifts. This is because ballet is seen as "effeminate", so most boys don't take it up. Similarly, the fact that "science" is seen as opposed to "religion" (neither accurate labels) means that religious people are discouraged, and modern scientific departments can be actively hostile to people who are openly religious.

How the character of contemporary science came about hasn't really been my concern.


I appreciate you looking - but at the end of the day, and I am an atheist, there is no scientific evidence that precludes the existence of the soul. As mentioned above, it is not something that can conclusively be analysed - hence it cannot be 'disproved'. As such it is not impossible. It may well be true - I'm not one qualified to judge and physicists are no more so...

Philosophy is philosophy. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, I probably misunderstood the original point.

That was the totality of the point - first principle, the soul is immaterial.


OK. I'm not sure that it is implicitly by those who don't really consider such things, but I'm willing to leave it at that.

Implicit things aren't things you think about. Part of what I'm trying to do here is get you to think about things you've been trained not to.


Regardless of what category it would be placed into, in that case, the introduction of an immaterial factor...

...means the problem is not scientifically soluble.


I found it amusing and relevant. The gymnastics some are willing to resort to...

...because they don't want to believe in the immaterial, but want to believe in the soul.


How the character of contemporary science came about hasn't really been my concern.

Perhaps it should be, if you are using the pronouncements of contemporary scientists to support your point.

[Montmorency]

Perhaps it should be, if you are using the pronouncements of contemporary scientists to support your point.

I don't have that kind of energy. This is probably the most drawn out and sprawling thread I've ever participated in. Thanks for the ride.

[Tuuvi]

How the character of contemporary science came about hasn't really been my concern.

But this is the crux of the whole debate. Is the current hostility towards religious scientists really justified?

[Papewaio]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg might be a philosophical debate it ain't a biological one.

Biology's answer is the Egg came first.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But this is the crux of the whole debate. Is the current hostility towards religious scientists really justified?

Exactly - but beyond that you have to ask if the current religio-scientific bun fight is not only pointless, but actually actively harmful.


Which came first? The chicken or the egg might be a philosophical debate it ain't a biological one.

Biology's answer is the Egg came first.

It isn't really though - because only chickens give birth to chickens. The first thing to lay a chicken egg was near as damned a chicken anyway. Beyond that, a non-chicken might lay the chicken in a chicken egg, or a non-chicken egg.

So...

The mystery of life continues.

[Papewaio]

Near but not quite a chicken had an egg.

A proto chicken begat a chicken egg.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Near but not quite a chicken had an egg.

A proto chicken begat a chicken egg.

Are you sure?

Isn't it just as likely that a near-chicken begat a chicken within a near-chicken egg?

So that, in fact, it is possible that the first chicken egg was indeed layed by a chicken?

[Tuuvi]

This is one of the things that fascinates me about evolution. Where do we draw the line between proto-chicken and chicken? Did the chicken appear suddenly, or was it a slow gradual change?

[Moros]

Are you sure?

Isn't it just as likely that a near-chicken begat a chicken within a near-chicken egg?

So that, in fact, it is possible that the first chicken egg was indeed layed by a chicken?

The placenta of a child shares DNA and is part of the baby. A large part of the egg is actually a bit like this, but most is either nutrients produced and passed on to by the mother. And of course the scale is also made by the mother according to her body inner design and workings and thus DNA. In other words if you ask me the first fully chicken egg must have come after the first chicken. More exactly the first true chicken that mated with a true cock or a near cock who passed on only the right parts of his DNA to produce an offsspring that was fully chicken/cock. Well at least I'm sure the chicken came first, though it's a bit confusing at 4 am.

[Papewaio]

If chickens were single cell creatures then chicken could/would come first.

But the chances of all the cells in a large multi cellular creature all experiencing the same mutation are diminishing small. Much easier for the changes to occur within a single cell ova or sperm.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is nothing anti-scientific about reasoning "up" to a belief in god or in an immaterial soul. At that level of thought we are just grasping, our feeble attempts at expressing our experience of the world in words come up short, and we try for something that seems to fit best. The problems come with reasoning "down", with taking a belief in god as a solid premise or foundation (my directions are getting confused here sorry). Often people who believe in god have a much firmer grasp of the important truths than atheists. Theologians and religious philosphers on the other hand end up in all kinds of strange places.

[Sigurd]

There is nothing anti-scientific about reasoning "up" to a belief in god or in an immaterial soul. At that level of thought we are just grasping, our feeble attempts at expressing our experience of the world in words come up short, and we try for something that seems to fit best. The problems come with reasoning "down", with taking a belief in god as a solid premise or foundation (my directions are getting confused here sorry). Often people who believe in god have a much firmer grasp of the important truths than atheists. Theologians and religious philosophers on the other hand end up in all kinds of strange places.

Exactly...

Taking contemporary science and using it to develop explain theology is a fallacy. One we call the Aquinas fallacy.
One such is the immaterial God, taken from the not so contemporary anti-matieria philosophy in the Hellenistic tradition. You got all kinds of new theology from that including monasticism.

Then... when contemporary science is yesterday's news, you can either adapt theology to new contemporary science... or continue in your yesterday's theology and be creative.

[Beskar]

This is one of the things that fascinates me about evolution. Where do we draw the line between proto-chicken and chicken? Did the chicken appear suddenly, or was it a slow gradual change?

Slow gradual change and to answer your question, look at the animals we call "dogs" and how varied they are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Slow gradual change and to answer your question, look at the animals we call "dogs" and how varied they are.

Except that foxes aren't wolves - so your analogy fails.

[Vladimir]

There is nothing anti-scientific about reasoning "up" to a belief in god or in an immaterial soul. At that level of thought we are just grasping, our feeble attempts at expressing our experience of the world in words come up short, and we try for something that seems to fit best. The problems come with reasoning "down", with taking a belief in god as a solid premise or foundation (my directions are getting confused here sorry). Often people who believe in god have a much firmer grasp of the important truths than atheists. Theologians and religious philosphers on the other hand end up in all kinds of strange places.

Reminds me of statements by Einstein about wanting to find God working in His garden. He focused on the search for God, not Truth, and his work and reputation suffered. "Playing dice" comes to mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Reminds me of statements by Einstein about wanting to find God working in His garden. He focused on the search for God, not Truth, and his work and reputation suffered. "Playing dice" comes to mind.

His reputation also suffered because he wasn't a good Jew - I recall that some American Rabbis complained to him about his statements regarding a non-interventionist God.

Still, Einstein's God was synonymous with Truth anyway - so he should not be criticised.

[Beskar]

Except that foxes aren't wolves - so your analogy fails.

How does it fail? Icecream Cones are not Tennis Rackets, so your analogy fails.

Perhaps you completely missed my point or inferred an incorrect analogy, but making random statements and say my analogy fails doesn't cut it.

[rvg]

Are you sure?

Isn't it just as likely that a near-chicken begat a chicken within a near-chicken egg?

So that, in fact, it is possible that the first chicken egg was indeed layed by a chicken?

For the sake of the argument let's assume that protochickens and chickens are identical in all respects except one: protochickens have two heads and chickens have one. If a 2-headed protochicken lays an egg with a 2-headed embryo, then it's a genuine protochicken egg, and the hatchling will be a protochicken. If however, a 2-headed protochicken lays an egg with a 1-headed embryo, that will be a genuine chicken egg, and its hatchling will be a chicken. So, it seems that the egg comes first.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps you completely missed my point or inferred an incorrect analogy, but making random statements and say my analogy fails doesn't cut it.

Yeah, that's my rhetorical defense @PVC, don't steal it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How does it fail? Icecream Cones are not Tennis Rackets, so your analogy fails.

Perhaps you completely missed my point or inferred an incorrect analogy, but making random statements and say my analogy fails doesn't cut it.

I should have been more direct, but I couldn't be bothered.

Dogs are just wolves, but they are also canines. Foxes are canines too, but they aren't wolves. The reason your analogy fails is that incremental change doesn't adequately explain the difference between species - it can only be explained by sudden mutations.

Case in point, all mammals have a common ancestor, but we also have different genetic structures, including differing numbers of chromosomes. With foxes and wolves, as with horses and donkeys, the separation between species is not a simple question of genetic divergence, it is a question of profound genetic incompatibility.

The point being that anything sufficiently like a chicken to fall within your analogy would be a chicken, instead of a not-chicken.


For the sake of the argument let's assume that protochickens and chickens are identical in all respects except one: protochickens have two heads and chickens have one. If a 2-headed protochicken lays an egg with a 2-headed embryo, then it's a genuine protochicken egg, and the hatchling will be a protochicken. If however, a 2-headed protochicken lays an egg with a 1-headed embryo, that will be a genuine chicken egg, and its hatchling will be a chicken. So, it seems that the egg comes first.


Moros has already covered this and demonstrated that your argument is too simplistic.

[rvg]

Moros has already covered this and demonstrated that your argument is too simplistic.

What's wrong with that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's wrong with that?

Well, for starters, you can get two-headed chickens.

[rvg]

Well, for starters, you can get two-headed chickens.
Just as you can say that a regular chicken is a one-headed protochicken. The question is, how do we draw the line between a mutation and a new species?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just as you can say that a regular chicken is a one-headed protochicken. The question is, how do we draw the line between a mutation and a new species?

That's an easy one - if they can't interbreed they're a new species.

[rvg]

That's an easy one - if they can't interbreed they're a new species.

Not quite so easy. Homo Sapiens Sapiens could and did successfully interbreed with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, even though we were two distinct species.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not quite so easy. Homo Sapiens Sapiens could and did successfully interbreed with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, even though we were two distinct species.

No, they were two distinct sub-species.

This is why wolves are now classified as canines rather than lupines, because they can successfully interbreed.

[rvg]

No, they were two distinct sub-species.

This is why wolves are now classified as canines rather than lupines, because they can successfully interbreed.

But the issue remains. You can't jump to being a different species before being a different sub-species. That's the first step on the road to evolutionary separation. So, who's to say that a normal chicken isn't merely a one-headed protochicken, as opposed to being a new sub-species?

Or to put it another way, we can go all the way back to the first chicken. Its parent had to be a protochicken, otherwise its parent would be classified as the first chicken.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But the issue remains. You can't jump to being a different species before being a different sub-species. That's the first step on the road to evolutionary separation. So, who's to say that a normal chicken isn't merely a one-headed protochicken, as opposed to being a new sub-species?

Or to put it another way, we can go all the way back to the first chicken. It's parent had to be a protochicken, otherwise its parent would be classified as the first chicken.

We don't actually fully understand how separate species form - most subspecies are the result of the expression of different variants of the same genes which are already present in the progenitor. So most the genes to create dogs were present in wolves, what we did was selectively breed them so that the offspring had groups of genes that clustered in one direction rather than another.

This process of selective breeding was just working with what was already there - no matter how hard you tried you couldn't selective breed a fox from a wolf, even if you bred something that looked like a fox.

So what we call "evolution" is really adaptation, or as some like to call it "micro-evolution", we don't know how you make the jump from proto-mammal to rat-thing to horse and dolphin, but successive micro-jumps don't provide a sufficient explanation, because genetics are self regulating. You can breed a certain level of passivity or immaturity into a wolf to make a dog, but eventually you his a ceiling and they don't get any more passive - sometimes you start getting the opposite effect.

As to the second point - you are correct, at some point a proto-chicken gave birth to a chicken. But that's not what's up for discussion. The question is whether the first chicken hatched from a true chicken egg, or a proto-chicken egg.

Essentially, we are debating what makes a chicken egg - which was the original debate. So Pape is wrong, and science hasn't answered the question properly.

[rvg]

Essentially, we are debating what makes a chicken egg - which was the original debate. So Pape is wrong, and science hasn't answered the question properly.
Wouldn't the chicken embryo be what makes the chicken egg? In other words, if the embryo had one head, then it's a good indicator of a possible new evolutionary path.
In fact, if in this day an age we could breed a viable 2-headed chicken that would in turn begat a bunch of 2-headed chickens, who could in turn create a self sustainable population of 2-headed chickens, we'd be able to claim a new subspecies.

[Kralizec]

I don't think there are any domesticated animals that can't interbreed with their wild counterparts. I was thinking of horses but according to wikipedia they can still interbreed with wild ones. That doesn't prove anything though; thousands of years is a short timeframe.

As a kid in high school I wondered what the mechanism was not just for mutation, but increase in chromosomes in evolution, since that's one major reason why closely related species can't interbreed. IIRC my teachers (very brief) answer was that it probably was due to viruses messing with a hosts genome and passing it on to descendants. That was before I decided that biology was boring.

[rvg]

I think that what really matters is where the mutation (any mutation) occurs at first. In other words, barring external factors (like being hatched on the Three Mile Island) can a chicken acquire a mutation that it lacked as an embryo inside the egg and then pass that mutation on.

[Kralizec]

That mutation would have to occur in the ovaries or testicles to be passed on to descendants; and would require sperm or egg cells specifically from the mutated parts. I think that would be pretty rare, and that mutation of embryos would be far more common.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wouldn't the chicken embryo be what makes the chicken egg? In other words, if the embryo had one head, then it's a good indicator of a possible new evolutionary path.
In fact, if in this day an age we could breed a viable 2-headed chicken that would in turn begat a bunch of 2-headed chickens, who could in turn create a self sustainable population of 2-headed chickens, we'd be able to claim a new subspecies.

What if a chicken egg has a slightly different cell-structure than a non-chicken egg? As noted, the placenta is an amalgam of material from mother and child, so extraordinary it can allow transfer between blood groups.

How awesome is that?

So, what does make a "pure" chicken egg?


I don't think there are any domesticated animals that can't interbreed with their wild counterparts. I was thinking of horses but according to wikipedia they can still interbreed with wild ones. That doesn't prove anything though; thousands of years is a short timeframe.

As a kid in high school I wondered what the mechanism was not just for mutation, but increase in chromosomes in evolution, since that's one major reason why closely related species can't interbreed. IIRC my teachers (very brief) answer was that it probably was due to viruses messing with a hosts genome and passing it on to descendants. That was before I decided that biology was boring.

So he didn't know, and to my knowledge nobody else does.


I think that what really matters is where the mutation (any mutation) occurs at first. In other words, barring external factors (like being hatched on the Three Mile Island) can a chicken acquire a mutation that it lacked as an embryo inside the egg and then pass that mutation on.

I believe it can, yes, there's some evidence that genetic change can occur throughout your life through exposure to viruses etc., even starvation can cause changes which are later expressed in grandchildren or great grandchildren.

Beyond that, you could have a mutation just in your testicle, which would affect your little men.

[rvg]

...mutation of embryos would be far more common.

Are you talking about acquiring a mutation while maturing inside the eggshell or already having it by the time the egg drops out of the hen?

[Montmorency]

I believe it can, yes, there's some evidence that genetic change can occur throughout your life through exposure to viruses

Hold on, do you mean - in the set of all human cells belonging to an individual?

I feel like I'm reading too much into it, but I have to make sure.


So, what does make a "pure" chicken egg?

Eggs do have complex and variegated structures, so I find PVC's consideration of a chicken egg vs. proto-chicken egg to be worthwhile. That said, there's little use in considering it further unless someone manages to dig up legitimate academic speculation informed by paleontology and genetics. If not, best to leave it at:

perhaps it was a chicken egg containing a proto-chicken, a chicken egg containing a chicken, or a proto-chicken egg containing a chicken. Does the cover all the bases?

[rvg]

That said, there's little use in considering it further unless someone manages to dig up legitimate academic speculation informed by paleontology and genetics.

I asked my 7 y.o. about the chicken and the egg. She thought about it, looked at me and said: "Daddy, this is the hardest question EVER!"

Kids... :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

She's right :2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

That mutation would have to occur in the ovaries or testicles to be passed on to descendants; and would require sperm or egg cells specifically from the mutated parts. I think that would be pretty rare, and that mutation of embryos would be far more common.

An article came out recently about the increased error/mutation rates in human sperm as the father ages.

The mutation to be multi-generational would have to effect the gene line.

So this could be an entire being, part of a being including testes/ovaries, divided embryo, an undivided embryo, a sperm or an egg. Occam's razor would favour the later examples as they are simpler to have a consistent effect on.

Now radiatin can create changes. Viruses are much better as their very mission is to get into a cell and use its machinery to create virus copies. Sometimes these virus copies stick and in the long term ad up to a different species once enough changes have occurred. The most effective way to create sterile offspring is when the chromosome numbers don't match between parents. Virus codes can be found throughout our DNA. Makes sense we have libraries of instructions and viruses come in to do some photocopying, some of the loose leads are left in the libraries books.

It is believed the ability of placenta to adhere to the uterus wall is from/enhanced by one of these virus mutations occurring.

Anyhow for a mutation to be multi-generational it has to be within the germline. If a cell mutates say in your chin, it will not create a change in offspring. Now the least complex and most likely (but not only) mutations that are multigenerational occur in those cells that create or are the germline cells ie testes, ovaries, sperm, ova and embryo.

So it is far more likely that it was an egg first. The odds that a virus or other mutagen created a whole chicken post hatching are much much longer odds.

Antibiotics need to consider evolution for new strains and egg products can cause allergic reactions in shots... just tying it all back in ;)

[Vladimir]

What if, as we age, there is a biological mechanism that goes something like "Hey, I've had a few good ideas over the course of my exciting life, why not try and pass some on through my sperm?" Thus the higher mutation rate.

Yes, which makes me wonder, if we had such short lifetimes in the past, is that a viable possibility?

[Greyblades]

Remember when this thread was about vaccines and those who reject them? No, me niether.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, which makes me wonder, if we had such short lifetimes in the past, is that a viable possibility?

Average lifespans are deceptive, there have always been people who lived well beyond their sixties, just not many of them.

[rvg]

And then you have this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen) guy on the other end of the spectrum.

[Ironside]

What if, as we age, there is a biological mechanism that goes something like "Hey, I've had a few good ideas over the course of my exciting life, why not try and pass some on through my sperm?" Thus the higher mutation rate.

Not that we're aware of. The closest thing is epigenetics, which controls the gene expressions a bit.

[drone]

This thread, like a defunct disease, rises from the dead! :skull:

Measles outbreak tied to Texas megachurch sickens 21 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/measles-outbreak-tied-texas-megachurch-sickens-21-8C11009315)


An outbreak of measles tied to a Texas megachurch where ministers have questioned vaccination has sickened at least 21 people, including a 4-month-old infant -- and it’s expected to grow, state and federal health officials said.

“There’s likely a lot more susceptible people,” said Dr. Jane Seward, the deputy director for the viral diseases division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sixteen people -- nine children and seven adults -- ranging in age from 4 months to 44 years had come down with the highly contagious virus in Tarrant County, Texas, as of Monday. Another five cases are part of the outbreak in nearby Denton County.

All of the cases are linked to the Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, Texas, where a visitor who’d traveled to Indonesia became infected with measles – and then returned to the U.S., spreading it to the largely unvaccinated church community, said Russell Jones, the Texas state epidemiologist.

“We have a pocket of people that weren’t immunized,” said Jones, noting that vaccination rates typically hover above the 98 percent range in his county.

Infections spread to the congregation, the staff and a day care center at Eagle Mountain International.