Vaccines—Who Needs 'Em?

[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.

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.

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]

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...

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...

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.

[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.