To the Christians here...

[elliotfc]

Elliot, what is your proposed alternative to skepticism, and how exactly would you reconcile this alternative with science as we know it?

What's this? Has skepticism already been given the mantle as worthy of either/or status? If not skepticism, then what?

I'm not going to fall for that black/white trap.

I'm not telling you people to not be skeptical as you see fit. I'm only be skeptical of your personal skepticisms. Surely that's not a bad thing, surely it's good to have your faith questioned. You'd prefer your thought process to be unassailable and that all shall genuflect?

I have no theoretical problem with science as we know it, except scientists and science-types are being confused with science. Science is a method. What scientists say is something different. And yes, I'm happy to be skeptical of what scientists, and science-types, say.

I'm content, personally, to integrate a variety of schools of thought and understanding. Now it's your turn to inflate that in order to make a point.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

As the Bible doesnt seem to promise that there is a pattern of goodness in the world, this wouldn't affect my faith.

Many prayers do though. I think the very first prayer I learned had the words "God is good" in it. If God is good, and if God is the most powerful being, then we ought to see a pattern of goodness, wouldn't you say?

 

[rocketdodger]

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least. But you've decided that there is one. This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.

There isn't one, unless of course you are trying to survive and make a better life, in which case the most rational course of action is to adopt explanations with the most predictive power.

Or are you contending that it is possible for a being to survive without making any predictions at all? Or that it isn't easier for a being to survive if their predictions are more accurate?

 

[ReFLeX]

Perhaps the detached skeptics just keep to themselves.

I don't think I'd want to be detached. Let me tell you, no normal, emotional human is capable of being ideally detached. An unfortunate fact. Psychopaths are a good example of detachment.

 

[rocketdodger]

What's this? Has skepticism already been given the mantle as worthy of either/or status? If not skepticism, then what?

I'm not going to fall for that black/white trap.

Because you don't know what you are talking about -- it isn't a trap at all.

How does science work? We hypothesize, do experiments and/or collect data, examine how well the data matches the predictions made by our hypothesis, and decide whether or not that hypothesis will be any good in making future predictions (in other words, whether or not it "works," or is "correct").

In other words, science is skepticism. We don't assume anything is correct until we have the evidence that it is. In many cases even purely abstract philosophical evidence is enough, but it is still evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must be convincing. This is how science functions.

I am asking you how you would change the scientific method so that skepticism is no longer required. Should we accept all hypotheses before there is any evidence to support or refute them? Tell me, I am very interested in what you propose we do...

 

[ReFLeX]

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least.

Look up "model". A scientific model of the universe such as Newtonian physics has to have predictive power or it has no use. We didn't make it up, it's part of the scientific method, and for a good reason. You don't recognize that?

You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.
-Elliot

Ignoring the insulting intent here, this is simply not true. Predictive power is not something we "made up", that's silly. And skeptics criticize Randi and things the JREF do all the time. I don't understand what you mean by calling it "contrived". While being a skeptic is a part of my identity, you'd be presumptious to say that I need validation from this forum. I have plenty of self-validation that has nothing to do with my skepticism, and you don't know any of us well enough to insult us the way you are. It seems you are the one who's making things up to assert superiority.

 

[ned flandas]

Many prayers do though. I think the very first prayer I learned had the words "God is good" in it. If God is good, and if God is the most powerful being, then we ought to see a pattern of goodness, wouldn't you say?

Hi Tricky

I think you are saying that prayer is like a request form.

The way I see it is that prayer is communication with God. Prayer can be complete silence in the presence of God too.

From my experience, I can start by praying one thing and then have a revelation of something different by the end of it. So it seems to me like a two way process.

That being said, there is an immediate result of prayer.

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea ..

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least.

If you will look under the word "lion" in your dictionary, you will find no mention of the fact that they eat zebras, nor is it "inherent" in the concept of a lion. Would it be "dogmatic" of me, therefore, to assert that they do indeed eat zebras?

But you've decided that there is one.

No, elliot, I have observed that there is such an association.

This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.

Ironically, this is something you've made up. As amateur psychologists always come across as complete twats, I shall not speculate on your motives for so doing.

 

[elliotfc]

Many prayers do though. I think the very first prayer I learned had the words "God is good" in it. If God is good, and if God is the most powerful being, then we ought to see a pattern of goodness, wouldn't you say?

I see a pattern of goodness.

Or, goodness exists. Since it exists, a pattern can be made of it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

There isn't one, unless of course you are trying to survive and make a better life, in which case the most rational course of action is to adopt explanations with the most predictive power.

Don't confuse survival with objective truth. Animals have survived just fine without explanations and predicitions.

Or are you contending that it is possible for a being to survive without making any predictions at all? Or that it isn't easier for a being to survive if their predictions are more accurate?

I don't know, do animals make predictions?

Regarding origins questions, I don't see how this speculation applies.

Tell me, who lives longer lives in this country, rational people like yourself, or irrational people like me?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

How does science work? We hypothesize, do experiments and/or collect data, examine how well the data matches the predictions made by our hypothesis, and decide whether or not that hypothesis will be any good in making future predictions (in other words, whether or not it "works," or is "correct").

In other words, science is skepticism. We don't assume anything is correct until we have the evidence that it is. In many cases even purely abstract philosophical evidence is enough, but it is still evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must be convincing. This is how science functions.

Convincing, then, is contingent on the judgment of individuals. What may be convincing can be declared to be assumed by another who does not find it convincing.

I am asking you how you would change the scientific method so that skepticism is no longer required.

I don't want to change the scientific method. And I'm fine with skepticism.

Should we accept all hypotheses before there is any evidence to support or refute them? Tell me, I am very interested in what you propose we do...

No.

I propose something very simple. Stop invoking rationality and intelligence as if such concepts were contingent on your chosen methodology.

-Elliot

 

[psy kick]

I am here because I am sad there are so many hucksters who defraud so many gullible people.
You make it seem as if a christian must believe every woo woo. Not so. We are smart! Actually!
People are multifaceted, you realize.

 

[elliotfc]

Look up "model". A scientific model of the universe such as Newtonian physics has to have predictive power or it has no use.

That depends what you mean by use.

Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made.

We didn't make it up, it's part of the scientific method, and for a good reason. You don't recognize that?

I have no problem with the scientific method. It is useful. Does objective reality depend on whether or not the scientific method can be used? No.

While being a skeptic is a part of my identity, you'd be presumptious to say that I need validation from this forum.

Fine, I retract this application in your case.

I have plenty of self-validation that has nothing to do with my skepticism, and you don't know any of us well enough to insult us the way you are.

Certainly none of your postings have led me to this conclusion. And if you're correct, your assertion is certainly not equally applied, or accepted, for that matter. I've seen religious believers insulted continually for years in this forum. That's what leads me to my conclusion.

It seems you are the one who's making things up to assert superiority.

Shrug. If you think that I think I'm better, smarter, or more rational than anybody else here, you can hold that til oblivion or be corrected in the next one.

Oops. Edited to add...I do think I'm smarter than two other people who post here at least occasionally, but I don't consider much of that fact. Meaning it isn't saying all that much.

-Elliot

 

[ReFLeX]

I am here because I am sad there are so many hucksters who defraud so many gullible people.
You make it seem as if a christian must believe every woo woo. Not so. We are smart! Actually!
People are multifaceted, you realize.

The more mature among us realize Christians are every bit as smart as any other group, you just happen to have different thinking habits.

 

[Tricky]

Hi Tricky

I think you are saying that prayer is like a request form..

No, not at all. I know full well that not all prayers are beseeching.

The way I see it is that prayer is communication with God. Prayer can be complete silence in the presence of God too.

I did that too. What I came to realize was that prayer was nothing more than just "thinking" with the addition that you were imagining that someone could hear your thoughts.

From my experience, I can start by praying one thing and then have a revelation of something different by the end of it. So it seems to me like a two way process..

Except that I can do this without God just as easily. The way you are describing God is as nothing more that a conversation piece to stimulate your thought. Sure, I could imagine God is talking back. I can imagine almost anything. I can make it seem real too. I began to lose my religion when I started realize that.

That being said, there is an immediate result of prayer.

That is something I have never seen. Sure, it makes some people feel better, but so do lots of things. It stopped making me feel better because I began to realize it made no sense.

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea.

And that's the thing. What is the difference between an entity that does things that you have no idea about and can never understand, versus no entity? How does God behave in any way that we can differentiate from just plain old random activity? I can't find one. I can't find a case where God has made any difference whatsoever, and believe me, I have looked.

I wish there were a God who was concerned with us and cared about us, but based on lifelong observations, I no longer think there is. Still, I remember when I used to imagine it, and it felt like it was true. But feelings can change, as any divorced person will tell you.

 

[Tricky]

The more mature among us realize Christians are every bit as smart as any other group, you just happen to have different thinking habits.

Yep. That guy Ken Jennings who won 74 consecutive Jeopardy games was a devout Morman. He is my hero (except for the religion part.)

 

[I less than three logic]

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea ..

Does there need to be a “why”? “Why” tends to suggest some intent, and it is for this intent that you cannot seem to find an answer; “how” on the other hand I’m certain could be answered. When you remove the idea of intent “how” and “why” start to have much more similar meaning.

 

[rocketdodger]

Don't confuse survival with objective truth. Animals have survived just fine without explanations and predicitions.

I don't know, do animals make predictions?

They don't have explanations, they don't need them.

Predictions? Do you think animals simply walk around in random patterns until they find food and water? NO THEY DON'T. They have some idea (insofar as an animal can think) of where food might be, where water might be, and how they might be able to get it. Even instinctual behavior is predictive.

Tell me, who lives longer lives in this country, rational people like yourself, or irrational people like me?

We both have similar life spans. If you really want to know why, you should read "Atlas Shrugged."

Now, tell me -- what is responsible for the increased life span that we enjoy now as opposed to the people living in 1400? Here is a hint: IT IS NOT RELIGION.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yep. That guy Ken Jennings who won 74 consecutive Jeopardy games was a devout Morman. He is my hero (except for the religion part.)

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

 

[tkingdoll]

I'm still waiting for links to these alleged insults to Christians. This debate is a bit shallow without some evidence to back up the claims being made.