Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[Filius99993]

Maybe not yet but over and over again it’s been tried. Even our own president said that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternate scientific theory but there’s no science involved in the theory. This creates a big problem for many people because once psuedo-science is taught in one school then it opens the door for more pshuedo-science.

Define “science”.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

the Truth is in your words, you said “Established” Theories, in truth there is MUCH evidence that proves evolution is a total lie. During the Time of Galileo, the theory that we revolved around the sun wasn’t Established. It was under investigation. If we teach things that aren’t established, we risk teaching people errors. Only when we are certain, then we teach it.

Science does not prove anything with absolute certainty. Even something like the fact that the earth is not flat cannot be proven with 100% certainty. Of course there are countless independent lines of evidence that show that the earth is not flat, but if you keep asking “How do we know that that’s true”, you eventually get to some assumptions (such as the assumption that there is some regularity to nature, and that the past can give us some indication of the future).

So if we waited until we were certain of something before teaching it, we wouldn’t be able to teach anything except cogito ergo sum. We could save a lot of money by slimming down our education system, but I doubt such a system would prepare students as well for the real world. If you want people to be taught that the earth is not flat, then you should teach people that evolution is true. For if you don’t base decisions of what to teach on the evidence, how could you argue that holocaust deniers would be unreasonable to want the Holocaust to be taught as “just another theory” of what happened?

Just as the theory that the earth is not flat is extremely well supported by many independent lines of evidence, so is the theory of evolution. Evolution has been evidenced by the fossil record, instances of bad design (which make more sense under evolution: eebweb.arizona.edu/michod/Cla…n%20design.pdf ), how species are distributed around the world, molecular genetics, embryology, and the presence of vestigial organs. The scientific case for evolution is as strong as many things that you would want taught as fact. If you don’t want evolution to be taught because of your personal beliefs, at least be honest about it.

 

[j1akey]

Define “science”.

You’re kidding right? Open a dictionary or encyclopedia. Is science some abstract thing now that needs to be defined?

 

[Matthias123]

I have not read any of this thread, but I want to chime in.

In general I would conclude that the Atheist is more inclined to commit evil actions, in reference to the Eternal Law of moral objectivism.

Thus Psalm 14:1 rings true “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Remember that this is in referring to the God of Israel. I think the atheist can conclude that they are wicked according the standard of this God. Whether you believe this God exists, or if objective morality exists is beside the point. Play devils advocate and pretend he does. If he did you would be wicked in his sight, and the scripture passage would be true.

Now will this matter to the Atheist? I would expect not, it is interesting to note.

To conclude it is hard to describe whether is Atheist is moral on the terms of the atheist, because morality is a relative thing for them. From our point of view the atheist is not moral at all.

 

[Matthias123]

You’re kidding right? Open a dictionary or encyclopedia. Is science some abstract thing now that needs to be defined?

That is a VERY good question. It is an open debate in the philosophy of science, and it is defined differently by many people.

 

[liquidpele]

I have not read any of this thread, but I want to chime in.

In general I would conclude that the Atheist is more inclined to commit evil actions, in reference to the Eternal Law of moral objectivism.

Thus Psalm 14:1 rings true “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”

Remember that this is in referring to the God of Israel. I think the atheist can conclude that they are wicked according the standard of this God. Whether you believe this God exists, or if objective morality exists is beside the point. Play devils advocate and pretend he does. If he did you would be wicked in his sight, and the scripture passage would be true.

Now will this matter to the Atheist? I would expect not, it is interesting to note.

To conclude it is hard to describe whether is Atheist is moral on the terms of the atheist, because morality is a relative thing for them. From our point of view the atheist is not moral at all.

You think we are not moral in one aspect, but surely you think morality encompasses more than just belief in God?

 

[j1akey]

Matthias123:

That is a VERY good question. It is an open debate in the philosophy of science, and it is defined differently by many people.

Science isn’t about philosophy or the philosophy of science. It’s that thing that everyone is taught in school but if I must define it then science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Science isn’t about philosophy or the philosophy of science. It’s that thing that everyone is taught in school but if I must define it then science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Exactly, sceince basically means knowledge, however nowadays when we talk about science we are refering to the scientific method. The method that has given us infinity more that religion ever could!

 

[CGDouglas]

Exactly, sceince basically means knowledge, however nowadays when we talk about science we are refering to the scientific method. The method that has given us infinity more that religion ever could!

Well the Roman Catholic faith contributed alot to the establishment of Science, which the Age of Enlightenment was somewhat a product of, even the Islamic faith contributed to Scientific knowledge, so in somewhat, thank these two religions that sought the enhancement of knowledge.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[j1akey]

Well the Roman Catholic faith contributed alot to the establishment of Science, which the Age of Enlightenment was somewhat a product of, even the Islamic faith contributed to Scientific knowledge, so in somewhat, thank these two religions that sought the enhancement of knowledge.

As far as I can tell some guys that happened to be catholic because all other religions were illegal came up with the scientific method so the catholic church claims responsibility. As far as I can tell the faith itself had nothing to do with it but I’m not going to let that get me off topic. However please point me in the right direction where I can see for myself differently if I’m mistaken.

Either way It’s about what is and what is not science. Pseudo-science is what intelligent design is. It’s made up and dressed up to appear scientific but it doesn’t use the scientific method.

 

[CGDouglas]

It isn’t about that either. It’s about what is and what is not science. Because the church contributed to the establishment doesn’t mean that faith based “science” is actual science using the scientific method. Science is based on the results of testing and experimentation and observation and prediction. It has nothing to do with who “came up with it” it works.

I know it isn’t about it.

It wasn’t about who came up with it, it was in reply to Charles Darwins statement that religion seems to do nothing.

I was just responding that religion did pave a way.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I know it isn’t about it.

It wasn’t about who came up with it, it was in reply to Charles Darwins statement that religion seems to do nothing.

I was just responding that religion did pave a way.

God Bless.

Chris.

Religion is excluded from science and for good reason. I think religion has alot to contribute to society, but not as fact, as a link to the past.

 

[CGDouglas]

Religion is excluded from science and for good reason. I think religion has alot to contribute to society, but not as fact, as a link to the past.

Religion is not about contributing to society in my opinion, but in form is something that seeks truth, and that which the minds of faith agreed with is that truth cannot contradict truth.

I don’t see why Religion should be excluded from Science when the Religious minds even of the Medieval era sought to utilise Religion with Science, and as you say not as fact, as a link to the past, rationality was present there too:

Such as William of Ockham; his principle that later became ‘Occam’s Razor’ (which became the foundation of the Scientific Method), Roger Bacon for making the concept of ‘Laws of Nature’, Robert Grosseteste who is considered the founder of Scientific thought in Oxford, Nicole Oresme who was a propagator of modern sciences… The list goes on.

If Religious thinkers can shape Science in the past, it can be possible today.

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Religion is not about contributing to society in my opinion, but in form is something that seeks truth, and that which the minds of faith agreed with is that truth cannot contradict truth.

I don’t see why Religion should be excluded from Science when the Religious minds even of the Medieval era sought to utilise Religion with Science, and as you say not as fact, as a link to the past, rationality was present there too:

Such as William of Ockham; his principle that later became ‘Occam’s Razor’ (which became the foundation of the Scientific Method), Roger Bacon for making the concept of ‘Laws of Nature’, Robert Grosseteste who is considered the founder of Scientific thought in Oxford, Nicole Oresme who was a propagator of modern sciences… The list goes on.

If Religious thinkers can shape Science in the past, it can be possible today.

God Bless.

Chris.

Religion is excluded in the sense that “god did it” is not an answer, the question would be how did go do it?

Religion does not seek truth because you start with the conlusion “god did it”. When seeking truth one should start with the evidence, not a conclusion.

 

[Filius99993]

You’re kidding right? Open a dictionary or encyclopedia. Is science some abstract thing now that needs to be defined?

You have to define what “science” is before you can define what “pseudo-science” is. So… what is science?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You have to define what “science” is before you can define what “pseudo-science” is. So… what is science?

We have been through this? Look a few posts up. Science as in how YOU perceive it refers to the scientific method.

 

[j1akey]

Filius99993:

You have to define what “science” is before you can define what “pseudo-science” is. So… what is science?

I already did but here it is again from my previous post.

j1akey:

It’s that thing that everyone is taught in school but if I must define it then science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Pseudoscience=
Wikipedia:

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method. Subjects may be considered pseudoscientific for various reasons;

Karl Popper considered astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted, whereas Paul R. Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others, and are selective in considering evidence. More generally, Thagard stated that pseudoscience tends to focus on resemblances rather than cause-effect relations.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe. Systems of belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science.

Some statements and commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. “Pop” science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific methodology and expert peer review.

If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and methodological standards are upheld, it is not “pseudoscience”, however odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, but the methodology is sound, caution should be used; science consists of testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the work may be better described as ideas that are not yet generally accepted. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been adequately tested by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a scientific field.

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning.

*Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
*Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
*Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test them). (See also: Reproducibility)
*Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam’s Razor)
*Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
*Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.
*Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.

 

[Matthias123]

Exactly, sceince basically means knowledge, however nowadays when we talk about science we are refering to the scientific method. The method that has given us infinity more that religion ever could!

The method that has given us infinity more that religion ever could!

First of all, finite beings cannot give infinite anything.

Second of all Catholic Christianity does not claim to proclaim truth about the natural world as a mission. She proclaims Truth, and that Truth may involve things of the natural world.

Finaly the qeustion of what science is, is a philosphical question. If isn’t, what kind of question would it be? A scientific one? A theological one?

Dawkins and Hitchens define science differntly then others. They say that for it to be science it needs to be theoreticaly oberservable and falsifiable instead of praticaly observable and falsifiable. This is the position of the Austrian philsopher of science Karl Popper. Now Dr. P.Z. Myers a doctor in evolutionary biology defines differently. He actually gives three separate definitions.

References can be found in the book “The irrational Atheist”:

irrationalatheist.com/files/TheIrrationalAtheist.pdf

So if two major evolutionary biologists define science differently, you can hardly say science is defined.

So in conclusion, sceince is not defined and it is a question of philosphy.

 

[liquidpele]

First of all, finite beings cannot give infinite anything.

Second of all Catholic Christianity does not claim to proclaim truth about the natural world as a mission. She proclaims Truth, and that Truth may involve things of the natural world.

Finaly the qeustion of what science is, is a philosphical question. If isn’t, what kind of question would it be? A scientific one? A theological one?

Dawkins and Hitchens define science differntly then others. They say that for it to be science it needs to be theoreticaly oberservable and falsifiable instead of praticaly observable and falsifiable. This is the position of the Austrian philsopher of science Karl Popper. Now Dr. P.Z. Myers a doctor in evolutionary biology defines differently. He actually gives three separate definitions.

References can be found in the book “The irrational Atheist”:

irrationalatheist.com/files/TheIrrationalAtheist.pdf

So if two major evolutionary biologists define science differently, you can hardly say science is defined.

So in conclusion, sceince is not defined and it is a question of philosphy.

I give you infinite: O

Science is defined by the scientific method, which is defined as well. Debate and opinion may adapt the definition, but currently that is not the case and thus it is not a philosophical question - unless you like to simply question everything for fun.

Dawkins and Hitchens I have never heard claim that… but if they did I would disagree with them. Theoretical anything to me is not science, it’s just a claim - the beginning of a hypothesis only. ID for instance is in this category.

If another person gives me a link to that book, I’m going to throw up. I read the thing - the straw men and non sequitur logic within was quite funny. Half the book was just an attack on Hitchens and Dawkins (two men I have never read books by, but I recognize an agenda when I read it).

 

[j1akey]

Matthias123:

First of all, finite beings cannot give infinite anything.

It was a figure of speach, it’s commonly used when trying to get someones point across.

Second of all Catholic Christianity does not claim to proclaim truth about the natural world as a mission. She proclaims Truth, and that Truth may involve things of the natural world.

Finaly the qeustion of what science is, is a philosphical question. If isn’t, what kind of question would it be? A scientific one? A theological one?

Dawkins and Hitchens define science differntly then others. They say that for it to be science it needs to be theoreticaly oberservable and falsifiable instead of praticaly observable and falsifiable. This is the position of the Austrian philsopher of science Karl Popper. Now Dr. P.Z. Myers a doctor in evolutionary biology defines differently. He actually gives three separate definitions.

References can be found in the book “The irrational Atheist”:

irrationalatheist.com/files/T…nalAtheist.pdf

So if two major evolutionary biologists define science differently, you can hardly say science is defined.

So in conclusion, sceince is not defined and it is a question of philosphy.

Ok…Karl Popper was a philosopher and not a scientist. He didn’t challenge science itself or have a different definition of it. What he did do is challenge the approach (sort of). He claimed that no amount of testing can prove a scientific theory correct because you would need an infinate amount of tests to confirm it while a single negative result can prove something wrong which I’m sure is really over simplifying it but I don’t have a PhD in this stuff either. The example he gave was this.

He replaced induction with falsification. His simplest argument here says that no induction can prove that all swans are white, since this will require an infinite number of observations, but that the observation of a single non-white swan will falsify the statement that all swans are white.

Either way, you know what science is. I know you’re intelligent enough to know so this game about “we need to define science” is rediculous. It’s not a philisophical question, you just choose to make it into one. A philosopher challenged the accepted approach (which by the way is still accepted today) then it suddenly becomes a philisophical thing? That doesn’t make sense. Popper was right that nothing can be proved 100% but it can be pretty damn close that it may as well be. It just sounds like you’re dodging the issue to me to make me have to yet FURTHER explain something so you can avoid the question of theological theories like ID being pseudoscience rather than real science. Now I suppose someone is going to ask me to define “real”. You’re just playing games here. :banghead: