|
GlyphGryph posted:The belief that science is worth doing has no basis in fact, or at least not in facts that aren't derived from beliefs which themselves have no basis in fact. .....says a guy who wasn't killed by a plague, has plenty of food available, and is posting on the internet. Sorry, I don't buy that one. OwlFancier posted:Well, yes, but neither does anything we do, including the option of lying still and waiting to die. If reality is not fact, and our current situation at this given date and time is not worth the work it took to get here, whats the point?
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If reality is not fact, and our current situation at this given date and time is not worth the work it took to get here, whats the point? There isn't one? Yet you still desire to act. You are not a rational creature, at heart, and if you try to act completely rationally it will only make you miserable. So act instead to make yourself happy, and to facilitate the same in others. I can tell you with near-absolute certainty that it's hopeless, that you will die, that it won't make much, if any, difference what you did when you were alive, and that there's nothing afterwards to look forward to, but it won't dissuade you from acting, because you don't need to be rational.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....says a guy who wasn't killed by a plague, has plenty of food available, and is posting on the internet. We cry at movies because we believe in their stories even if we know the events aren't real. We pursue science because we believe in the value of it's results, even if the things it results in have no objective or intrinsic value. rudatron posted:Good/Evil are 100% value-beliefs - specifically, they are related to different set of human desires. Social desires (avoiding shame/guilt, empathy/sympathy) are generally seen as good, and anti-social desires (pure self-interest, greed, vanity) are generally seen as evil, yet people will at various times indulge in both. Can belief in a god or gods be a value belief as well? Much like morality, a shared agreement that we recognize them as an aspect of the world that drives our decisions even if they aren't strictly speaking, real? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:We cry at movies because we believe in their stories even if we know the events aren't real. We pursue science because we believe in the value of it's results, even if the things it results in have no objective or intrinsic value. Unfortunately, this needs to be demonstrated by you. Its very wishy-washy Metaphysics sort of claim, considering the hard reality that we do derive tangible and objective value from science, which is then integrated into engineering or medicine, which then results in a product or a process. OwlFancier posted:There isn't one? Yet you still desire to act. You are not a rational creature, at heart, and if you try to act completely rationally it will only make you miserable. So act instead to make yourself happy, and to facilitate the same in others. We act because, so far as we know, this is the only tangible reality that we experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
We act because we have an impulsive desire to do so, regardless of whether we have thought about it, and everything past that is a post-hoc rationalization for our need to act. It is possible to look at the rationalization and derive, well, rational behaviors from it, even constructive ones, but we would still do things without any of that justification, because it feels better to do things than not. Regardless of whether you ever thought about the nature of reality or whether it's really real or suchlike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, this needs to be demonstrated by you. Its very wishy-washy Metaphysics sort of claim, considering the hard reality that we do derive tangible and objective value from science, which is then integrated into engineering or medicine, which then results in a product or a process. We derive relative, subjective value from Science, not hard objective value. Science is useful, in the context of our larger belief structure - no more, but also no less! (And that is a significant thing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Blind faith is pretty funny coming from someone arguing about the value of science, and the "wishy washy metaphysics sort of claim" is heavily ironic. In the context that everything is subjective and objectivity does not exist, yes. But suggesting that everything is simply "subjective" in comparison to the impossibly perfect "objective" and merits no further delineation is rather silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Blind faith is pretty funny coming from someone arguing about the value of science, and the "wishy washy metaphysics sort of claim" is heavily ironic. Do you even know how science works?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Do you even know how science works? Yes. My accusation of your blind faith has only a tangential relationship to anything scientific, though, and more to the unquestioning acceptance of the inherent value in preserving health and technological networks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:My accusation of your blind faith has only a tangential relationship to anything scientific, though, and more to the unquestioning acceptance of the inherent value in preserving health and technological networks. So, no, you don't know how science works. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the context that everything is subjective and objectivity does not exist, yes. But suggesting that everything is simply "subjective" in comparison to the impossibly perfect "objective" and merits no further delineation is rather silly. Ulltimately, my point is this, When people argue for the nonexistence of god and user that argument to try to tear down religion, the real substance of their argument isn't that others should change their recognition of the facts, it's that others should abandon their beliefs and values because the facts don't support them. But ultimately there are no beliefs and values the facts support. I think its stupid to try to tackle the subject from that direction. It makes others defensive and disinclined to listen, because beliefs are inherently valuable, and in fact they are the only thing that has that peculiar quality. The idea that someone must abandon their beliefs simply because those beliefs have no basis in fact is preposterous, because beliefs without basis in fact are the very essence of humanity and the foundation of modern civilization and science and technology, which most of us appreciate it's benefits largely because of those same beliefs! If I convinced you, with facts and logic, that morality definitely did not exist and thus you should abandon your belief in it and the beliefs that are derived from it, would you be better off by any reasonable definition of the term? Would you accept my argument, or cling to your morality in spite of it? Perhaps it would be better to argue that a person can believe in a different way, a way that better serves the parts of their belief they feel are the most valuable, than to argue they should discard the core of their beliefs completely and leave it with a gaping hole. CommieGIR posted:So, no, you don't know how science works. Thanks for clarifying. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:the inherent value in preserving health and technological networks. They don't have inherent value but they do have extremely easily demonstrable derived value, to the point that I would assume you can work that out yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Ulltimately, my point is this, The problem isn't so much arguing about the existence of god, its more people abusing science by trying to use evidence to disprove something that cannot be proven to begin with. Its part of the big reason I despise Dawkins. The whole 'Let's drag science into the realm of mysticism and myth' does nothing but muddy science. GlyphGryph posted:I do. You, obviously, do not. If you want to treat it like some sort of religion, prescribing values through etchings on stainless steel tablets or whatever, feel free. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Bullshit. Anyone who treats science as a religion is wrong. End of story. It shows a disconnect between what science actually is as a tool and their longing for belief. But either way, you've already thrown yourself under the bus. GlyphGryph posted:I do. You, obviously, do not. If you want to treat it like some sort of religion, prescribing values through etchings on stainless steel tablets or whatever, feel free. But don't act like it's true, or that science itself, a methodology methodology, supports the primacy of your goals and values. Oh looky looky, more Metaphysics level 'But what is truth' bullshit. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They don't have inherent value but they do have extremely easily demonstrable derived value, to the point that I would assume you can work that out yourself. I haven't disagreed with that at all. Science is our best and most powerful tool for identifying and filling needs. My point is that needs are always subservient to and only exist because of wants, so trying to argue away wants on the basis of science is pretty useless. Using logic to set beliefs against each other is a much better strategy if you want to change someone's belief set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem isn't so much arguing about the existence of god, its more people abusing science by trying to use evidence to disprove something that cannot be proven to begin with.  Okay, so: I'm not arguing science is a religion. Science is a tool for uncovering true facts about the world we can then use however we want. It is definitely not a religion. You're the one arguing science is a provider of objective values, trying to attribute it the qualities of an ideology or religion, not me. And yes, I agree, you are wrong to do so. I also agree that using science to try and disprove beliefs is a bad thing. So I guess you're actually agreeing with my goals and the basis of my argument here, and quibbling about the details of why? Finally, no, there is no metaphysics level "But what is truth" bullshit in that last sentence. I am just saying that Science isn't going to provide you you with a belief system, and it's belief systems that determine value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Oh, okay, I can agree to that. I see your point. However, as far as 'Truth' an objective value, Science can provide evidence of 'Truth' for someone to find. Its arguable that in some ways, Science is an objective value provider, and in other ways, not so much. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Ulltimately, my point is this, I disagree on both points, there are very pressing reasons to argue against the pursuit of religious beliefs because they are often actively hostile to the pursuit of tangible human welfare. Religion tends towards being antiscientific, arbitrarily prohibitive, oppressive to large sections of society, and excessively conservative to the point of being obstructive. While there is no objective truth, and thus no fact, there are certainly better, more defensible bases for belief than the ones offered by religion. The "facts" such as they are, support many things more than they do religion. They don't incontestibly prove them to be absolute truth, but they certainly offer greater support to them. GlyphGryph posted:I think its stupid to try to tackle the subject from that direction. It makes others defensive and disinclined to listen, because beliefs are inherently valuable, and in fact they are the only thing that has that peculiar quality. The idea that someone must abandon their beliefs simply because those beliefs have no basis in fact is preposterous, because beliefs without basis in fact are the very essence of humanity and the foundation of modern civilization and science and technology, which most of us appreciate it's benefits largely because of those same beliefs! Beliefs are not inherently valuable, nothing is inherently valuable, beliefs can have a value constructed from their utility, or may be argued as possessing value by some other means, but they are not inherently valuable. I am willing to allow people to hold beliefs without rationalizing them, as long as they don't get in the way, and it's entirely possible to do so, and yes, it is quite important to being human that you do so. But when your beliefs are actively obstructive to the needs of others, then they must be changed. Whether you like it or not is relevant only to the method used to change your beliefs, not at all to the morality of doing so, at the very worst, it may make you unhappy, but it is likely, if you are being challenged on your beliefs, that your holding them is promoting greater unhappiness, and thus your finite, individual capacity for unhappiness is likely unable to eclipse the utility of changing your beliefs. GlyphGryph posted:If I convinced you, with facts and logic, that morality definitely did not exist and thus you should abandon your belief in it and the beliefs that are derived from it, would you be better off by any reasonable definition of the term? Would you accept my argument, or cling to your morality in spite of it? Given that I already believe that I can't really answer it. But if you had convinced me then obviously I would agree with whatever your position was. Additionally, if we assume you are requiring me to modify my concept of morality because it is causing harm to others, whether or not I am better off is entirely irrelevant. I'm a big boy, I can manage a little crisis of faith. In order to convince me to change you would probably have had to show that I'm causing plenty of harm, which is rather more difficult to deal with than a personal identity crisis in my experience. It would certainly be nice if you could make everyone happy, and supply some new belief to supplant the one you tore out of a person because it was detrimental, but ultimately, they are only one person. And one person is not so important as to fear to make them uncomfortable in order to make many more happier. I'm sure, being human, they can fabricate some new thing to believe in of their own accord, rather better than I could make something up for them. We're good at that, given that it appears to be fairly necessary for our healthy mental state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Beliefs are (well, can be) inherently value because beliefs determine what is valuable and most beliefs will determine themselves as valuable. Maybe that's more "tautologically valuable" on the level of "values are valuable because I value values", but it's the closest to inherent we have. Again, if you're going to try to tear some beliefs out of someone, you've got to ultimately do it by using the other beliefs they already hold or you're not going to make any traction. And I believe it's okay if people hold beliefs that are not strictly in keeping with the facts, so long as they are not "antiscientific, arbitrarily prohibitive, oppressive to large sections of society, and excessively conservative to the point of being obstructive. ", in your own words. I don't think those are inherent qualities or even tendencies of religion. I think people hold non-religious value systems that make those things valuable to them, and religion is largely a tool they use to enforce it. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The belief that science is worth doing has no basis in fact, or at least not in facts that aren't derived from beliefs which themselves have no basis in fact. Science makes you live longer. If you're going to say "the belief that living longer is worth doing has no basis in fact" then go ahead and say it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Science makes you live longer. If you're going to say "the belief that living longer is worth doing has no basis in fact" then go ahead and say it. The belief that living longer is worth doing (in a manner independent of other beliefs) has no basis in fact. But if you believe that living longer is worth doing, facts are gonna be how you pull it off. This isn't really germane to the conversation at hand as near as I can tell though. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
vessbot posted:No, let us call it the collective consciousness of humanity. I just assumed that this was the original meaning of the world prior to all that mish mash. I assumed the existence of intelligent children. The existence of stupid adults is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're going to complain that the bible isn't realistic then I don't think there's a great deal of reason to pay attention to it at all. It contains the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors in the form of symbols. It might still be valuable
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
It contains the accumulated waffling of a few very specific ancestors processed through a load of translation. There's a lot more wisdom by a lot more ancestors who had a lot more of value to say if you want to read that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The belief that living longer is worth doing (in a manner independent of other beliefs) has no basis in fact. But if you believe that living longer is worth doing, facts are gonna be how you pull it off. This isn't really germane to the conversation at hand as near as I can tell though. It lets everyone know that you have a strange concept of "worth." And also of "fact."
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I also agree that using science to try and disprove beliefs is a bad thing. So I guess you're actually agreeing with my goals and the basis of my argument here, and quibbling about the details of why? Using science to disprove beliefs isn't a bad thing. Or, rather, it isn't a bad thing if the belief is making a testable, investigable claim. For example some people believe that vaccines cause autism, which is a belief that can be, should be, and has been disproved*. People still believe it, and those people should have the relevant evidence that contradicts this belief hammered into them at every opportunity. Likewise if someone says that angels (as in physical, observable winged men) exist and make his car move by turning gears with hand cranks it's worth popping the hood and investigating whether or not this is true. Not all beliefs are equal, not all beliefs are beyond the realm of observation, and not all beliefs should be respected or tolerated. That doesn't mean you should belittle or harass believers (or non-believers as applicable), but the notion of "Well, like, that's just your *To a reasonable degree of certainty Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Quift posted:It contains the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors in the form of symbols. It might still be valuable  Wisdom I wouldn't call it that... Who What Now posted:Using science to disprove beliefs isn't a bad thing. Or, rather, it isn't a bad thing if the belief is making a testable, investigable claim. For example some people believe that vaccines cause autism, which is a belief that can be, should be, and has been disproved*. People still believe it, and those people should have the relevant evidence that contradicts this belief hammered into them at every opportunity. Likewise if someone says that angels (as in physical, observable winged men) exist and make his car move by turning gears with hand cranks it's worth popping the hood and investigating whether or not this is true. Pretty much this. Science is very good at figuring out truths that are testable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Science makes you live longer. If you're going to say "the belief that living longer is worth doing has no basis in fact" then go ahead and say it. Also makes you have any quality of life if you are disabled. Faith healers, whatever, there's a placebic place I'm sure. But it's hardly 'lightweight crutches and anti-spasmodic drugs' in terms of allowing people to pursue happiness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Well, wisdom has made some improvements during the last 1600 years. I'm not claiming that their knowledge was the sum total and sufficient for all our needs. I'm just saying that it helps to understand the bigger context of the world if you try to understand history. And understanding the value systems of our ancestors is quite a useful endeavour in that regard. And plenty of things about people have not changed much since then. So, remains useful even today
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Also makes you have any quality of life if you are disabled. The only place faith healing has is next to 'Dr. Thompsons Miracle Tonic Water!!!' in an exhibit called "Scams Across the Ages".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Faith healers should be jailed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
As for accumulated wisdom of our ancestors which is still relevant today, I quite like Catullus's letters where he called his opponents gay and said he would gently caress them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As for accumulated wisdom of our ancestors which is still relevant today, I quite like Catullus's letters where he called his opponents gay and said he would gently caress them in the rear end. Some wisdom is timeless...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As for accumulated wisdom of our ancestors which is still relevant today, I quite like Catullus's letters where he called his opponents gay and said he would gently caress them in the rear end. They are not gay, they are worse than gay. They are pussy lickers. Getting hosed in the rear end would be an improvement for their status. Catullus is suggesting the only remedy open to them. The burn is even harsher once you really get the values of the society it is made in. It is an awesome burn. The ancestors have so much to teach us. Now go read the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Quift posted:They are not gay, they are worse than gay. They are pussy lickers. Getting hosed in the rear end would be an improvement for their status. Catullus is suggesting the only remedy open to them. I'm pretty sure, "Haha, ur wussies" is a pretty weakass burn in any context. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Quift posted:They are not gay, they are worse than gay. They are pussy lickers. Getting hosed in the rear end would be an improvement for their status. Catullus is suggesting the only remedy open to them. No he's literally saying they're stupid because they're bitchmade knobgobblers and he will gently caress them in the rear end because he's cool and therefore also right. Because Rome is weird about gay sex. And apparently writing at length about it in latin is classy. Though I suppose polemics were a traditional school of argument. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Quift posted:Now go read the Bible. Did. Not impressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Quift posted:I just assumed that this was the original meaning of the world prior to all that mish mash. Why would you assume that? "God" has traditionally meant (and means today, in mainstream interpretations) a being that exists independently of humans; it created them (along with everything else, in some capacity) and is certainly not supposed to be a figment of our imagination. quote:I assumed the existence of intelligent children. The existence of stupid adults is irrelevant. It is very relevant. You tried to dismiss the creation myth as something not seriously held by the religious side, in order to remove their liability of defending the indefensible, and thereby increasing their credibility. Oh silly strawman-slaying internet atheists, not even kids actually believe this dumb thing, what do you think you're accomplishing by discrediting it?  But they do hold it, children and adults alike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Science rules. God can suck it... or not, because he's not real. If God is real then let him delete this post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
What's wrong with metaphysics
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Reason is the enemy of faith Reason is and ought only be a slave of the passions From a sentimentalist perspective (and the pomo theory of value being presented here is sentimental as gently caress), that would mean that faith represents a dire threat to values and even morality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:11
|
|
