Wtf?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Gulibility it all falls to gullibility....How gullible are you?

One need only to be convincing "enough" to lead any one to believe anything.

 

Would you believe me if I told you that silver puddle in my hand was a solid piece of metal only moments ago? The average Joe would say "no I don't believe" Why? because in the average joes mind metal melts at much higher temps than a human could stand touching... why? because that is what we're taught.

I had never heard of such a thing untill I was studying up on the melting points of metal for a project (and incidently it blew my mind that there was a metal out there that is solid at average room temp but melts at 80 or 90 something degrees!)

 

I think the status quoe has more to do with belief and what is accepted as science which is also a belief though more provable in most instances.

Is the sun really 93 million miles away? I was taught that it is. Do I believe it?

First tell me how they measured it!!! Show me!! prove it!!!!!

I don't believe anything that can't be physically proven. (and equations without representation don't count!!)

[Qfwfq]

Add... Einstein! And Hawking. Just to add another two.

 

Do you believe in the Big Bang, in inflation, in dark matter and energy?

 

EEG's have been taken of people as they die, and seems to indicate that what we know of consciousness and the artifacts thereof (particular brainwave patterns - our dataset) fails at death.

But that only concerns physiology Boerseun. What does it prove about non-material entities?

 

One could see it as a sign that the soul is packing its bags. As it does so, it's letting all the unwanted physiological junk go to seed...

 

Of course 'by definition'. Supernatural defines that which falls outside the boundaries of nature, nature, of course, being the realm of Science. Religion, and the belief in 'supernatural' entites, therefore by definition falls outside the scope of science.

I would say supernatural means above nature. That's why it makes no sense to aim at proving or disproving it with science.

 

Ooops, :eek2: I'm no longer a Space Odyssey now!

[GAHD]

EEG's have been taken of people as they die, and seems to indicate that what we know of consciousness and the artifacts thereof (particular brainwave patterns - our dataset) fails at death.

 

But that only concerns physiology Boerseun. What does it prove about non-material entities?One could see it as a sign that the soul is packing its bags...

That would be beleif. Prove this 'non-material entity' exists and at that point you are free to ask this question. Untill then it's completely unfounded; there is no idication that anything continues afterwards.

[Qfwfq]

Prove this 'non-material entity' exists and at that point you are free to ask this question.

I'm already free to ask it. "This question" was: What do the EEG's of dying people prove, for or against, about the existence of the soul? No physical test could prove against what many people believe.

[GAHD]

Wrong question; You don't prove against, you prove for. :eek:

With no proof for, you cannot conclude that it does exist.

[Pyrotex]

Physics, Natural Laws, Science, postulated extra dimensions and the likes (which are held here to be taken on 'belief', and therefore on a par with religion), differ from religion in one fundamental way:

Whether you 'believe' in it or not, you can't break Natural Laws. ...

The science fiction author, Philip K. Dick ("Blade Runner"), said: "Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."

 

I think it is very important to make sure that you understand that quote. If you do not understand it, then should immediately start another thread on the Nature of Reality.

 

I once "believed" in God and I had all the evidence that anyone could ever hope for. Then I stopped believing and all the evidence for God slowly faded away and disappeared. Reality remained. Also, my dog Skipper disappeared, but that may have been a coincidence. :eek:

 

Science is the study of everything that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it, Just like Boerseun said. In fact, scientists as a general rule do not "believe in" things like religionists "believe in" things. That phrase "believe in" means something entirely different to scientists. Typically, it means simply "I accept that the preponderance of evidence leads to that conclusion". For the religionist (or even the non-religious non-educated) "believe in" typically means "I vote for that" or "I want that" or "I take that on faith".

[Saitia]

But when you die, you die - nobody knows what's on the other side;

Can you be more specific? You know no person knows this how, exactly?

Is it just your belief, or are you absolutely certain? :hihi:

 

Science merely predicts that the chances of there being anything at all on the other side is pretty slim, based on our current data set.

". . .pretty slim"? ;) I'm curious how science worded that when it made its prediction. Jesus, who is usually recognized as an historical figure, claimed he knew what was "on the other side." Was he excluded from "our current data set"? Since Science seems to have no actual data on the "other side," how does its prediction about the chances of the other side existing differ from a mere negative belief based on a lack of information?:hihi:

 

 

But the 'belief' in anything connected to Science is not comparable at all to the 'Belief' in the supernatural - by definition, I might add.

Do I understand you to say that your belief that "nobody knows what's on the other side"— based on science's mere prediction "the chances of there being anything at all on the other side [are] "pretty slim"— is not comparable "at all" to the belief that there is plenty on the "other side"?

Why isn't a religious belief based on personal experience comparable to a scientific belief based on personal experience?

 

 

 

—Saitia

[Qfwfq]

You don't prove against, you prove for.

;)

 

I've seen many a proof against something. One notorious example, to complete Fermat's theorem it was necessary to show that certain cases don't exist. Other examples abound.

 

Further, I never claimed one could prove the existence of the soul on the basis of physical phenomena, I said the opposite. I said it can't be proved or disproved by physical experiment. :pirate:

[Qfwfq]

Why isn't a religious belief based on personal experience comparable to a scientific belief based on personal experience?

In what sense would a scientific belief be based on personal experience?

 

A key requisite for fact being accepted as scientific is objectivity. Something that only a few "special" people experience, and they can only claim to experience, aren't quite the hallmark. These people can believe it and others are free to believe or disbelieve their claim.

[Boerseun]

Can you be more specific? You know no person knows this how, exactly?

Is it just your belief, or are you absolutely certain? :pirate:

Of this, I am absolutely certain. Anybody who gets to 'see' the other side, is, by definition, dead. Dead people make for notoriously unreliable, not to mention non-productive, witnesses.

". . .pretty slim"? ;) I'm curious how science worded that when it made its prediction. Jesus, who is usually recognized as an historical figure, claimed he knew what was "on the other side." Was he excluded from "our current data set"? Since Science seems to have no actual data on the "other side," how does its prediction about the chances of the other side existing differ from a mere negative belief based on a lack of information?:pirate:

There are plenty people saying that they 'know' what's on the other side, even today. Not only in Jesus' time. These people contribute exactly nothing to the debate as seen from a scientific point of view, because, as Qfwfq pointed out above, they are not objective. Jesus is of course excluded from our current data set, because whether he got resurrected or not or whether he saw 'heaven' or 'hell' on the other side is immaterial: His testimony as far as this debate goes comes from a 2000-year old book. Whatever He experienced, is non-repeatable. Unless you're willing to volunteer.

Do I understand you to say that your belief that "nobody knows what's on the other side"— based on science's mere prediction "the chances of there being anything at all on the other side [are] "pretty slim"— is not comparable "at all" to the belief that there is plenty on the "other side"?

Yep. You understood that one pretty well. I just don't think you understand why I said it, and I guess you'd want to rehash the old argument that if I can 'believe' that, then your belief is equally valid. It's not. Read Pyrotex's post above regarding 'reality being what's left over once you stop believing it'. If you have read that post already, read it again. But read it a bit slower this time, and think about the ramifications thereof.

Why isn't a religious belief based on personal experience comparable to a scientific belief based on personal experience?

First of all, there is no such thing as 'scientific belief'. Much less so a 'scientific belief based on personal experience'. I think Qfwfq summed it up pretty nicely in the post upstairs.

[GAHD]

...I never claimed one could prove the existence of the soul on the basis of physical phenomena, I said the opposite. I said it can't be proved or disproved by physical experiment. ;)

 

"One could see it as a sign that the soul is packing its bags..." is the root of what I disagree with.

 

Physical phenomina are the basis of science, and to consider that 'the soul is packing it's bags', there first has to be substantial evidence for the soul having been there before; there is no such evidence, so logicly one can't say such a thing exists. If it doesn't exist it can't pack up to leave, that's my point.

[Qfwfq]

"One could see it as a sign that the soul is packing its bags..."

 

"...if one believes in the soul", is what I had meant. ;)

[Pyrotex]

There is a popular myth that is still going around: This scientist, a devout Christian, found folks from several churches who were dying and who volunteered for an experiment. They would die hooked up to every sensor imaginable. The bed they were on would rest on a precise set of scales. And sure enough {gasp!} when these people died, their weight lowered by 4 ounces over a period of a few seconds. This was the weight of their souls leaving the body!

 

Of course it is a myth. Various attempts to track down the scientist or the volunteers all came up with nothing. Nobody can find any published results or even letters from the participants. No clues at all have ever been found.

 

But the popularity of the myth goes on and on. The myth says what so many people WANT to believe. It makes them feel good to believe it. It makes some people feel good to snort cocaine, but that's another subject. As long as humans think that the power of belief has any correlation at all with truth, they will continue to believe in whatever makes them feel good.

[InfiniteNow]

The bed they were on would rest on a precise set of scales. And sure enough {gasp!} when these people died, their weight lowered by 4 ounces over a period of a few seconds. This was the weight of their souls leaving the body!

Ever seen 21 Grams?

 

 

Personally, I'd sooner attribute this to the lack of incoming air.

[Pyrotex]

Ever seen 21 Grams? Personally, I'd sooner attribute this to the lack of incoming air.

Here's a good link:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

 

No, even the air in lungs would be negligable weight. The "experiment" mentioned in the link was purported to have been done in 1906. I would chalk the differences up to experimental error and subjective bias (wishful thinking which affects interpretation).

[Saitia]

Hello Qfwfq,

 

 

In what sense would a scientific belief be based on personal experience?

In the sense that it is a personal experience in the consciousness of the individual scientist.

A scientist who makes a factually verifiable and repeatable discovery believes— in his consciousness— that what he has done is real, based on his a priori assumptions that life, matter, and motion are real to start with. Those other persons who choose to believe his experience— or not— do so on the exercise of faith; i.e., relative confidence.

 

Since there is a healthy dose of dogmatism running through this thread, e.g. the careless use of the word "absolutely," the distinction about who or what actually has the experience is critical. Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist making the science is not. For lack of a better word, it's super-material. Ordinary matter, i.e., a brain, simply cannot "know" truth; it can't love anything, let alone take an interest in reality. But moral convictions based on spiritual insight and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another— and higher— level.

 

A key requisite for fact being accepted as scientific is objectivity. Something that only a few "special" people experience, and they can only claim to experience, aren't quite the hallmark. These people can believe it and others are free to believe or disbelieve their claim.

Objectivity is certainly a worthy goal for a scientist. But if a scientist claims to have successfully cloned a dog, er, scratch that; if a scientist posits that the origin of the universe is a result of the BB, and she predicts "the chances of a spiritual dimension of the universe are "pretty slim," has she reached your hallmark?

 

The truly "objective" scientist, as such, is limited to the discovery of the relatedness of material facts. Technically, she has no right to assert that she is either materialist or idealist, for in so doing she has assumed to forsake the attitude of a true scientist— since any and all such assertions of attitude are the very essence of philosophy.:ebasball:

 

Where's the fire? :confused:

 

—Saitia

[Pyrotex]

...A scientist who makes a factually verifiable and repeatable discovery believes— in his consciousness— that what he has done is real, based on his a priori assumptions that life, matter, and motion are real to start with. Those other persons who choose to believe his experience— or not— do so on the exercise of faith; i.e., relative confidence....Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist making the science is not. For lack of a better word, it's super-material. Ordinary matter, i.e., a brain, simply cannot "know" truth; it can't love anything, let alone take an interest in reality. ...

Your arguments are faulty, in that (1) they are based on assumptions that are debatable, and (2) you engage in the mixing of metaphor and fact.

 

To repeat a previous post, you continue to rely on the phrase "believe in" in two different and somewhat incompatible senses, switching from one sense of the phrase (to accept the evidence of experiment, or of one's senses) to the other (to accept as "fact" certain hypotheses without benefit of experiment or experience, but on the basis of some authority assumed to be trustworthy) whenever it appears to support your contention. It takes a sharp eye to spot this, and I'm willing to cede that you may be doing this unintentionally.

 

A scientist may accept some explanation (I shall avoid saying "believe in") on the basis of, as YOU said, verifiable and repeatable experiment. Others scientists do NOT as a rule take this on faith. They repeat the experiment. You appear to assume that experiments are performed only once, and therefore agreement must be a process of "faith". This is unfounded. Other scientists repeat the repeatable and reverify the verifiable. If the hypothesis is controversial, this repetition of experiment may go on for decades, across several generations of scientists.

 

The scientific literature contains detailed descriptions of how these experiments were set up, how conducted, how controlled, how verified, and what conclusions were reached. As a particular experiment is verified with the same results, the willingness to accept the conclusions as fact increases.

 

The statement that physical matter cannot "know" or "love" is a profound assumption based on, well, nothing at all. It is a fact that we are made of matter and that we both know and love. There is no need to make the unwarranted assumption that supernatural "magic" is required to explain these observations.