I like the medium of reading and writing because it is always more clear. When you speak in any form, phone or in person, it changes the formal communication by substituting it for more informal communication, i.e. expression. Since I see that our ideas are so far apart, and perhaps in some ways diametrically opposed, I'd rather not assume your intended meanings.

I'm also not holding you up to some standard. I'm saying that its just possible to do it if you put you mind to it. It takes patience. You sound like you could very well be a well thought out individual, but honestly I'm not sure.

I also like the idea of doing it here because this conversation begain publically. I think more than just myself are interested and I would love to see the participation of others, especially other who do not seem to fully share either of our points of view.

Either way, I feel like we've beat this horse to death and then kicked it around a bit


jason

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mmboost

Quote:

Originally posted by christoph1371
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Well sound only happens if someone is there to hear it because it requires a healthy ear or other mechanism that translate vibrations into perception. Since it is perception it is subjective... Chris hears a tree-falling. Chris is the subject, the tree-falling is the object. Chris must hear the tree for the qualification of it to be a sound. However, the tree-falling, being the object will transfer kinetic energy from one form to another whether that event is perceived in any form or not. The objective reality here is what concerns the object: tree-falling. The possibly correct subjective reality here is if Chris hears the tree by the kinetic transfer reaching his brain through various organs and sensors.

Sound only happens if someone is there to hear it? That is a false statement. Sound is created the pressure waves that are emitted by the tree when it hits the ground. There could be a million people there or not one person in the universe, the tree striking the ground would still make sound.

 

Steppin,

part of my point was that sound is only sound if it is perceived as sound, other wise, you are correct, it is just pressure waves. Make sense? Like cold... one could argue there is no such thing as cold, just a lack of heat-energy. Cold is a perception. A lack of heat-energy, or "pressure waves", describes the situation whether it is perceived or not.

jason

 

hahaha and you thought this thread was gonna die....

Yeah, that makes sense. We all are pretty sick of hearing about this subject, but I just wanted to make sure everybody is okay with everything. I know I learned a fair amount from this thread, especially that the laws of science are not set in stone. That has always been one of my biggest arguments against a god, but you guys have forced me to think a little deeper. I still feel that I can explain everything that I have ever seen or done using the laws of science or just plain logic. I also think we have come a very long way since the days of the "flat earth" in terms of what we know factually, but there are still plenty of areas of reality where we do not know things for sure and for me those are the most exciting areas.

 

Well, I'm not OK with everything. Some things **** me off... tailgaters for example... but I'm OK with this thread

I'm glad you can admit that it made you think, which was my intention in bringing up the point about this blind faith in science (sounds ironic doesnt it) in the first place.

Whether you believe what I do, that God exists, or not... at least think critically about your own view.

jason

 

>I'm glad you can admit that it made you think, which was my intention in bringing up the point about this blind faith in science (sounds ironic doesnt it) in the first place

There is no such thing in my mind that science is blind faith. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. If you think that, you have the wrong idea about science and the scientific method. While lay persons will take scientific principles and theories at face value, or what you are calling "Blind Faith" Scientists don't and won't we need to see data and proof (repeatable proof) that will change their mind about anything.

 

Peaty, I agree with everything you say... except that believing in God or science is not a matter for scientists only. Infact there's many more "lay persons" in the picture than scientists. I was under the impression we were discussing general culture, not just scientists.... which at any rate was what my statements were based up.

Again, why do I call science blind faith? Well for all our tests, we do often eventually find ourselves wrong... despite previous, vehement arguing to come to something we have thought to be true... only to find it was wrong.

If science, even for scientists does not require blind faith of at least some degree, then I ask the question: How do we know we are not wrong?

As someone said earlier, you cannot prove a negative. I say, therefore, we never do know when we are right

jason

 

I still think Peaty brings up a valid point. Jason, you have made science out to be some sort of witchcraft that requires one to be blind in order for them to believe in it. If you're talking about science hundreds or thousands of years ago, then you could be closer to the truth.

But if we're talking about modern science, I think your assumptions are entirely untrue. Most of the mathematical theories we have today are the foundations of mathematics which have become more and more proven millions of times each and every day. If you're talking about basic laws of physics, such as Newton's laws, those have proven to be a very accurate and repeatable way of describing how things work in our environment. Will those laws apply when we're talking about black holes and supernovae? Probably not. We still have quite a bit to learn when it comes to that, and any one who tells you he knows exactly how those phenomena is not a scientist because he does not have objective, repeatable evidence that his theory is true.

What I'm trying to get at is that modern science has absolutely nothing to do with blind faith. I do agree that it is important to have an open mind when dealing with just about everything, but I challenge you to provide a concrete example of modern science being proven wrong.

PS - Thank you for giving me some time to think about this and then remembering to bring it ttt.

 

Hmmm.. how do I explain...

I'm trying to be single-minded or pointed about my, uh, point because we always hear and assume the exact opposite without really analyzing it. Perhaps Kostemojen can put his two cents in from his POV since he seems to agree with me.

I'm not saying science is always untrue. I don't mean to make it out to be some sort of hocus pocus. In fact, I don't think I've ever done that. I'm merely challenging the ideas behind the phenomenon that the majority of people in our culture revere science, its methods and what it produces as though it were two stone tablets carried down a mountain by Moses.

See the connection? I'm not questioning science, or even scientists, as much as I am questioning our perception of science. A general perception that science is this pillar of hope for mankind that it is always right and true. That we can eschew any other faith because science can handle it all. I am trying to say that science can't handle that. Yes there are things we know. There are also things we do not know and there are many things we've realized we thought we knew but now we know were wrong conclusions.

And yet, people will say "I dont believe in God, I trust in science". Do trusters of science do so because science is right? Or because of the method? What good is the method for a system of trust (or actually belief) if it is not always right? So then you might say its OK to be wrong... well then, what is of less trustworthiness about spirituality then?

How can something like spirituality be such trash relative to science even though it cannot be proven right or wrong, when science is periodically shown to be not only right, but also wrong? Again, I'm not question science, I am questioning how we respond to it and how it is not very different from spirituality. In fact, I would submit that it is just another spirituality.


jason

 

Just for the record, we're comparing faith in science to faith in god. It is beyond my how one could say that these two are even remotely the same. People have faith in science because it is knowledge or a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. Science is our way of explaining why things happen and in order to be correct, one must be able to provide systematic and repeatable evidence that one's explanation is correct.

Why is it a phenomenon that people "revere" something that can be shown to be systematic and repeatable? Because when one can systematically and repeatably explain why something happens, one is in a state of knowing rather that in a state of misunderstanding or ignorance. So in reality, it is not a phenomenon when people "revere" science at all. It is totally logical that one would want to understand rather than not understand.

Faith in god is unreasonable (to me) because god is something that absolutely cannot be systematically or repeatably shown to exist. Therefore it is not logical for one to believe in god.

One might argue that science has drawn incorrect assumptions in the past and therefore science should not be "believed in" any more than god should be "believed in."

Incorrect assumptions are not a part of science because science can be defined as knowledge rather than belief. Knowledge is fact, belief is not.

 

>And yet, people will say "I dont believe in God, I trust in science". Do trusters of science do so because science is right? Or because of the method? What good is the method for a system of trust (or actually belief) if it is not always right?

The nub is this, science knows, understands and expects to change it's view. We learn more through new methods and technologies. Although scientists may have pet theories they would like to cling to, they will change their view if presented with evidence.

However, no matter how much evidence you present to a person of faith they will not change their view, why because it's based on faith and you can not convince someone that isn't willing to change. They have made up their mind. In my opinion their mind was really made up for them, but that's another debate I suppose.

 

Yes!! Thank you Peaty!!

 

Again, I do not think science is wrong... I'm just wondering how a whole culture can place its trust so completely in something that has never been completely right. Knowledge and science in and of itself are not wrong or bad, but people are. And people develop science. Our knowledge of science doesn't come to us on tablets from a fire mountain. It comes through trial and error and sweat and death. When we trust in science we are trusting in ourselves and our ability to perceive and discern. When I look around the world I ask myself, "Who is trustworthy? Who has valid discernment?" The number shrinks by the minute. Do you realize how much science has been dictated by politics from the internationl down to the personal level? Will you let someone's greed or pride shape your worldview? Now, compound that with human falibility. You talk about the process of the development of science. If it is so encompasing and so pure, why do we find ourselves to be wrong? I say it is because we are 1) falible and 2) we don't know everything.

When humans become perfect and humanity learns Everything, then I will give science a due respect like our culture currently gives it... dispite those unfufilled conditions.


jason

p.s. If you want to say similar things about, oh say, Christianity... I'm not going to argue with you. Its not my point. I am, however, trying to show that science, not being immune to all these flaws (and more) is not so trustworthy.