Science, Proof and Meaning

Is it useful to apply the scientific method in trying to understand life's important questions? Are there other ways of getting knowledge that are useful in understanding these issues? I'd argue that: (1) science is unlikely to address some of the issues that are most important to our lives; (2) it's better to use inexact methods in trying to find answers to these questions than to suspend judgment until science can provide answers, which may be never; (3) in using less exact methods and standards of proof, we necessarily assume greater risks of being wrong (that's life);(4) whatever propositions we accept should be consistent with science and supported by substantial evidence; and (5) metaphysics, approached cautiously and critically, has a useful role to play in helping us find meaning in life (which is different from the meaning of life).

 

Scientific method.

Only if you can test them in a controlled setting.

 

You should stop smokin'this stuff ...
It gets you all fuzzy on reality ...

Unless , you do just like some others do ...
and listen to older , wiser & experienced people on what they have to say ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ZCBrqTNrY"]YouTube- Terence McKenna- Culture is your operating system

 

The difference between a question like "Why do people think competition
is necessary in an economic system" and "Does god exist?" Is how
relevant the answer is to how reasonable our way of living together is.
I say that to express the fact that people only have different "Important"
questions because we have different understandings of the world around
us.

If you believe in god without using gods existence as justification for
disagreements then at least you acknowledge that some people arent
satisfied with ideas that have no proof. This begs the question, "why
is anyone satisfied with ideas that have no proof?". And i think its
because they dont understand how useful it is.

we could rant forever about institutional bottlenecks slowing things down.
politicians outlawing stem cell research, petrolium companies concerned
with profits rather than sustainability.....Religion is only picked on
because people think it is relevant here.




Scientific proofs are inside of everything, and like atheism, there is mass
misunderstanding of what it really is. Which is, the observable universe.

Not being satisfied with what we DO have, is just ungreatful.

 

Of the two questions, I think the answer to the latter is more relevant to how reasonable our way of living together is. Are we alone in an uncaring universe, or is it possible there's more to it?

I agree. Viktor Frankl, who survived the experience of a Nazi concentration camp, said the secret of survival lay in an ability to find meaning even in that appalling situation. And there was a largely subjective component to what they found it in--some in happy memories of loved ones, some in music, some in a ray of light on the wall, etc. But he also thinks there are some life goals that are dead ends from the standpoint of meaning--chasing sex, drugs, money, etc. Like Mill, he sees qualitative differences if pleasure. "If it feels good, do it" isn't likely to lead to an ultimately satisfying life.

Possibly it's because they understand that no proof is available, and are willing to take a chance on the basis of the best evidence available. The term "proof" comes up a lot on this formum, but the term is used in the real world to describe varying levels of evidence required for different purposes. Scientific proof is the most rigorous-- requiring rigorous empirical testing of refutable hypotheses and satisfaction of expert peer reviewers that the hypothesis is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not always an appropriate level of proof. Do we want to take action to control climate change, airborne lead, second hand cigarette smoke, etc. Manufacturers of suspect products have gotten considerable mileage out of the confusion over scientific proof and enough evidence to justify preventive action. The United States favors a risk assessment methodology that places a heavy burden of proof on someone claiming that a substance or product is possibly harmful. Europe uses the precautionary principle that shifts the burden to the manufacturers to prove safety. Regulatory agencies use "substantial evidence" instead of preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt as the appropriate standard for regulation. I use the same standard in deciding whether or not to believe in things that fall short of scientific proof. In a previous post, I gave a political analogy. A person insisting on scientific proof that one candidate is better than another won't vote--ever. I think the risk of President Palin is too great to adopt that position. In the case of God, I think God does make a positive difference to me and other Christians as a motivator for postive actions.

I can see why. Stem cell research, gay rights, teaching of evolution, etc., tend to have religious roots and political ramifications.

not too clear on this last point.

 

Okay.

You feel that gods existance is relevant to how reasonable our way of
living together is, but consider the fact that i am disagreeing with you
about this, and now we have a disagreement.

Dont you think the politicians that voted down prop 8 would agree with
you? And the suicide bombing muslims, and the organizations trying to
keep evolution out of schools?

How is gods existence at all relevant to how we live together?

You have to consider that those suicide bombers also think their actions
are positive ones, and your motivation is the same. I have to ask what
"positive" means to you.

I'm not concerned with what your doing, but why your doing it, and doing
"positive" things to other people.

 

I guess I think that God's existence is relevant to how reasonable my way of living is. I'm not sure about whether, if at all, my beliefs are relevant to yours, especially if you don't believe in God. Would belief in God make your life better? I don't know. We Okies have the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you're satisfied with your life the way it is, and you're doing good in the world, why change, just because some dude who doesn't know you thinks you'd be better off doing it his way. That's when we get disagreements.

I don't think they'd agree with me at all--especially when I call them evil.

Positive to me is life-affirming: enjoying the beauty of the earth and the wonder of the universe, loving life and other people, being kind and altruistic toward them, going out of my way to make their lives less burdensome, bearing with them, empathizing with them,maybe even risking my own interests or life for them--going beyond just doing no harm, although that would be a step forward for most people. One of the things that motivates me to do this is my conviction that we're all made in the spiritual image and likeness of God, which is similar in effect to the Hindu concept of atman; others are the example and teachings of Jesus: the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule, etc. Suicide bombers, whatever they might think of themselves, are negative in doing more harm than good. They may think of themselves of ridding the world of this or that evil, but they're mistaken. There are also atheists whose belief systems have made the world a worse place to live in; Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the anti-altruistic "Objectivist" followers of Ayn Rand, the "Prophet of Profit" (who at least have rationalism going for them). It's not necessary to avoid having any belief at all just to avoid having a false one.

 

Well, as long as you understand that you have no reason to think god is at all
relevant to me the disagreement between us would be satisfied.

The notion that gods existence is relevant to how we live together is the
reason for suicide bombings and the like. I cant speak against an individual
who chooses to fast or pray because of a religious belief, provided he
understands what he is proposing for himself. But if he chooses to interact
with me a certain way (preventing evolution, suicide bombing a building,
ect...) because his bible told him what "right" and "wrong" is, it more often
than not involves disregarding my well thought out arguments against his
motivation.

So, your saying that someone who is willing to crash a plane into a building,
killing himself, the passengers, and injuring hundreds of other people to uphold
a religious belief does not believe god is relevant to how we should live
together.

I agree, but they are "mistaken" in the exact same way most other religious
folks are when they are attempting to spread their own "positivity".

The list of atheist oppressors goes on for days, but do you really believe they
did the things they did because they were atheist? That doesn't make
sense at all. Atheism isn't even a belief.

 

Not quite. The suicide bomber certainly believes God is relevant to how we should live (or die) together, but is wrong in those beliefs. The terrorist acts of suicide bombers are contrary to Islam. In all religions, there are fanatics who misunderstand the teachings of their faith. The Qur'an asks: "Do you love your Creator? Love your fellow beings first"."to kill one person is to kill all humankind". "Wish not or supplicate death before its time cometh." And the Great Jihad is within. "The most excellent jihad is conquest of self." The terrorists who crashed the planes are guilty of hiraba, waging war against society. The media give too much attention to the crazies of the religious world and too little to the decent folks of all faiths who go about their lives in harmony with God and their fellow humans. But of course good news is no news.

I don't think the suicide bombers did the things they did because they were religious. They did them because they were a particular kind of Muslim fundamentalist--alQaeda. Quakers, Amish, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., don't have a history of violence, and even the Catholics have turned pacifist in the past few decades.

Atheist mass murderers didn't murder because they were atheists, but because they were a certain kind of atheist. The atheism was incorporated into broader belief systems. But did it play a role? Religious people of all persuasions were on the hit lists just for being religious. Atheism per se has never had enough of a following historically to do a lot of damage, but it does tend to weaken certain inhibitions in doing things that reason or science seem to dictate, whether "scientific socialism", objectivism, or scientism. Dawkins hasn't yet been given an opportunity to implement his notion that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse. I see potential for violence and suffering latent in that "rational" notion.

 

i think that it is very useful to apply scientific method in trying to understand life's important questions... but i think it would be foolish to ONLY apply scientific method... there are other ways of understanding things and, as in nature, ALL available methods should be utilized...

 

Call it Islam or not, the man still held those beliefs. Whether they are religious beliefs or not isn't even relevant. Influencing people with a belief that isn't based on reason or knowledge produces ugly results.

I realize there are outstanding religious people, but i can promise you i am just as concerned with them.

It doesn't really make sense to refer to atheism as an "It", since the word only exists as a distinction.

There is nothing in atheism to follow.

from atheists?

 

Not necessarily. The leaders in the movement to abolish slavery were religious. That wasn't so ugly.

Why?

But it's a useful one. Otherwise we wouldn't have an Angnosticism and Atheism forum, and the Four Horsemen might be out of business. It's legitimate to refer to distinctions as "it".

At minimum, an atheist is saying "I don't believe in God." That's something somebody could follow.

From parents trying to protect their kids and/or from the Man at the door trying to take them.

 

I'm sure the leaders that instituted it were too.

Its the very least they could have done.

Because i am concerned with reason for beliefs.

Without religion, atheism would probably just be called Science and the four horsemen would still hold their degrees, thought they would be undoubtedly less popular.

Atheism is not and cannot be an "it" that can "play a role".

Bald is not a hair color and not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

It really isn't, though. This is exactly why i made the thread about the word "Atheist".

denying an infeasible idea is not proposing anything.

Abuse your kids, and then try to protect them? lol

 

I think you'd be hard put to find evidence that the leaders who instituted slavery did so for religious reasons. We could also talk of the positive influence of religion on art and science (e.g., Pythagoras, Newton, Leibniz, etc.)

Why? Would it make sense to be concerned with reason for atheism? And is there some reason you use the term reason instead of reasons? For a good discussion of the wide variety of reasons for religious beliefs, see William James, Varieties of Religious Experience.

But bald is a good hair descriptor and not collecting stamps might be something to put down on a dating profile. Not collecting stamps is not generally something anybody would be interested in. But being a non-believer is probably as important on Match.com as being a non-smoker.

The structure of your argument, if it can be called that, is delicioulsy ironic. On the one hand, you want lump all religions together and insinuate that they are pretty much the same. That way you can try use Muslim suicide bombers as prototypical of "religion", as though Quakers and Methodists can somehow be held responsible for their misdeeds. But on the other hand, you want to deny the entitivity of atheism, so that atheists can't be generalized about at all. It's easy enough to see why you'd do that, but do you think anyone would fall for it? Your attempt is particularly flagrant, but the Four Horsemen, particularly Sam Harris, do the same thing--a common failing perhaps of people in the same "non-category". Admit it; you're all alike. Non-peas in the same non-pod!

Calling an idea held by intellectually gifted scholars certainly is.

No. To protect them from the abuse of misguided atheists.

 

I think I've repeated enough times that i'm not against religion. but rather why people believe it is justification for living together a certain way.

Anyways, their motivation wasn't based on reason and knowledge so what difference does it make what particular idea slavery was a product of.

No, because atheism is not a belief.

The point is that the word atheism functions to express the absence of an idea.

It only exists to act against the billions of religious people on the planet
forcing relevancy into religious ideas.

I'm beginning to think you aren't trying to understand what atheist means.

We are guided by the universe itself. Teaching kids to be satisfied with not understanding things doesn't sound like abuse, but it doesn't sound like a good idea either.

 

Okay, now im positive you don't understand what atheism means.

Just say "Naturalist" if you want to generalize. I've seen enough videos to know they are all naturalists.

 

But so am I.

 

Then go ahead and criticize your own beliefs. Skepticism is unbelievably important.

 

heeh2- technically, atheism is a belief. it is the belief that god does not exist. agnosticism is lack of belief.

okie-to refer to your OP, perhaps sometimes experience can be a better tool than the way we are currently applying the scientific method. i'm not saying the method is necessarily flawed-it seems to be a pretty good system to me-but sometimes, when there is a lack of necessary information to make a solid conclusion, we make them anyways.

for instance, a good portion of the scientific community concludes that emotions are caused by chemical interactions in the body. i'm not saying this is false, just that it is a bit premature to conclude that, because chemical interactions occur when emotions are experienced, the chemicals are the cause. correlation does not equal causation. emotions could be the cause of the chemical interactions. i feel it is likely that the process is far more complex than either of these possibilities, but the evidence to truly conclude anything on the matter doesn't exist.

in this case, when dealing with emotions, (in my opinion) it is better to work with what you know from experience. unfortunately, it has become almost a standard in this country to work with emotions from the chemical standpoint, which has done quite a bit of harm.

 

Science: bringing to you a bunch of educated guesses and making you believe them for 500 years!