Cool

[Program]

...

 

[Xier0]

Science is provable & repeatable. Religion is based on 'faith'.

Think about this scenario: Every human, book, etc on the Earth is wiped out and all evidence of religion and scientific discovery is destroyed. If there were to be another intelligent, human like species that evolved, they would eventually replicate all of the scientific findings of humans over time exactly. Chemistry, Mathematics, etc would all be the same & valid. If there were religions to emerge, they would not be the same as religions we have now.

 

[SmokeHut]

You're taking it as far as possible with the "prove to me anything that exists actually exists, and it's not just a figment of your imagination" approach, for there to be any sort of baseline to a discussion we all have to appreciate that what our sensory perceptions give us, is accurate and true. Without that, it's only really a matter of opinion.

Otherwise, we're literally debating our own imagination here.

At least, what we perceive to be true we are actually given, regardless of whether or not we rely on faith for it to be true. The fact we actually perceive it is evidence, and a commonality between all of us. God however, is an illusion created by a story, written by imagination.

 

[Xier0]

It's provable given that you believe in what your senses tell you. You're assuming what they tell you is truth. So...yeah. That scenario doesn't change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medit...ng_Those_Things_That_Can_Be_Called_into_Doubt

Everything that the Meditator has accepted as most true he has come to learn from or through his senses. He acknowledges that sometimes the senses can deceive, but only with respect to objects that are very small or far away, and that our sensory knowledge on the whole is quite sturdy. The Meditator acknowledges that insane people might be more deceived, but that he is clearly not one of them and needn't worry himself about that.

 

[SmokeHut]

The argument isn't necessarily that religion is true or right. The argument is that religion is equal to science in that both are assuming you can believe your senses or all the things religious people think.

Whilst this is factual, it's also capable of being a comparison for anything one can fathom.

It's just fair to say that there's a bunch of dreadlocked sharks smoking spliffs and controlling our every move with a playstation controller. It's just as valid, fair and equal to the argument you're presenting.

Like I say, for there to be any baseline for a discussion we have to accept what our sensory perceptions give us, are true. Otherwise there's no debate, we're just going to argue over how it is true, and how it isn't. There's no rational baseline.

 

[malakadang]

His argument sounds reasonable. Why believe that our senses give us information about the real world? Using Xier0's argument, as it is the immediate reply, that "Science is provable & repeatable", is actually a circular response to this question. It's like saying I believe our senses give us information about the world because the information they give us about the world is consistent (insert provable and repeatable), and it is consistent, provable, repeatable, because our senses... are valid. It's a circular argument.

So I entirely sympathise why people are seduced by the argument that are senses are not reliable. The proper way I would contest to get around this is to simply recognize that the you cannot deny your senses while using your senses to do the very denying! Your senses clearly allow you to read my argument, know that it was presented by me, etc, and you realize that you are not reading a spanish argument about brain tumours because you automatically accept the validity of your senses, that they can tell you valid information about reality, specifically, the content of this forum post.

Everyone who attempts to criticise the validity of their senses always performatively contradicts themselves, if not from the very moment they present the argument, immediately after when they look left and right as they cross the street. Note however, that this does not mean your senses are ALWAYS CORRECT, it just means that they are a good way to gain information about reality; reality exists independent of you, and even if your senses you contest are slightly faulty, considering you're still alive, you haven't fallen into any holes, walked into any fires, or drowned in any lakes, all courtesy of your senses being able to give you information about the perils of reality.

See how this differs from faith. Religion is based off faith, or for some people, erroneous beliefs, but it is not a contradiction to say that faith is not a good way to gain information about reality. The next step is to say here look at the empirical evidence derived from sensory information, however if someone is committed to saying that their senses are not a valid means of gaining such information, you cannot win. Just point out that they are performatively contradicting themselves with every action they take.

 

[Xier0]

The argument isn't to say that our senses aren't reliable, it's to say that we assume we can rely on them and base everything on that assumption. And since science is therefore based on a assumption, it is no better than religion. (I'm glad you realized why his argument couldn't hold against this as well)

Also I'm on your guys' side here. I'm trying to beat this too.

I might not be fully understanding your point, but here is a practical example between religion and science. Lets say both scientists and religious people at one point believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, because their senses made them think that. Scientists are willing to change their entire perspective of the cosmos if they are given sufficient evidence, because they know their senses are unreliable.

Also, noting that we get our knowledge of science through the senses doesn't add any validation to religion, because religion makes extraordinary claims far beyond anything that has to do with the senses.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Honestly this is an easy debate. Science is assumed and then proven or disproven. Religion is assumed and then adapted to suit the faithful' needs. Scientific words are taken from a source with skepticism in mind and a thirst for understanding at heart. Religious words are taken from a source with rapt faith in mind and a thirst for comfort at heart.

Science shows the true nature of things, often leading to discomfort and broken beliefs. This is not a bad thing because it liberates a possibility for progress where inaccuracies are then abandoned. Religion shows the accepted nature of things, giving reassurance to a norm or belief and comfort to those who seek to use religion to justify their beliefs. This leads to old ideas, long since disproven, clinging to life. It's a blockade for progress, it is quite literally a refusal to overwrite the ideas and knowledge of an age LONG since passed.

I'm not anti religion, I believe that if people find comfort in words of love and reinforced morals or beliefs, it's their prerogative. But it becomes a problem when religion interferes with scientific progress.

 

[Variously]

Science is proven or disproven under the bracket of the assumption that you can trust your senses.

So no matter what, science is an assumption just like religion is. No matter how you describe science and religion, it doesn't much matter because both are assumptions and are therefore on an equal footing.

If you really believe that senses are an assumption, then this argument is pointless. You can choose to believe these words you are reading now are totally agreeing with you and everyone in this thread is all on your side, because why not? Your senses are lying to you so rearrange these words in your mind to what it "truly" says.

The point is, if you believe that senses are an assumption then you'd see what you want to see instead of what's actually there. It's a pretty ridiculous argument and I think you know it; otherwise you wouldn't be acknowledging what people are saying here.

You can take any amount of people, isolate them, and ask them to perform a science experiment. They will all come to the same conclusion. If senses aren't to be trusted at all then isn't that a ridiculously impossible coincidence?

Note that you couldn't isolate people, give them a starting point of a religion, and find them all coming to the same conclusions about that religion.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Science is proven or disproven under the bracket of the assumption that you can trust your senses.

I don't know where you got that idea... science is not based on senses alone, it's based on repeatable experiments as well as observation. Much of the high-profile science today can't even be directly sensed. Quantum mechanics, astrological physics, nuclear physics, these things cannot be sensed, they can only be hypothesized, tested, and disproven in light of new evidence and experimental results.

 

[Xier0]

Thank you for responding, but based on your response it is easy to see you don't understand the argument/problem I'm trying to solve here. You're attitude is not one I want to participate with either. Looking for a productive conversation. Thanks.

The senses are the only way anyone obtains any information whatsoever. Everyone's arguments have already completely explained this. Anything comparing science with religion in regards to the reliability of the senses is completely non-sequitur.

I'm really beginning to think this is a troll thread.

 

[malakadang]

The argument isn't to say that our senses aren't reliable, it's to say that we assume we can rely on them and base everything on that assumption. And since science is therefore based on a assumption, it is no better than religion. (I'm glad you realized why his argument couldn't hold against this as well)

Also I'm on your guys' side here. I'm trying to beat this too.

It's not an assumption though, it's a fact. You can't do violent surgery on the meaning of words to produce what you want. Saying that we're assuming that we can rely on our senses is like saying we are assuming there is something that exists. You don't assume undeniable statements, they are undeniable for a reason, the very requirements to make a denial force you to first accept them. You can't assume undeniable things, that's a contradiction in terms, the very fact that it is undeniable proves it truth-hood, and something that is proven in that respect cannot be defined as an assumption without some severe surgery to its definition.

There is a priori justification for the senses but such justification does not extend to faith. This is the fundamental difference between the two, and why it is incorrect to say science is based on an assumption, because it is infact based on an undeniable truth, whereas is it not incorrect to say religion is based on an assumption in faith, since there are no a priori, or empirical (there can't be if you actually hold that we assume our senses to be true) points to support it. The only way the argument is won by your friend, if is he can succeed in demonstrating that you can deny the validity of your senses without first invoking their validity to do the denying, because only when that is shown, do you show that the senses are not an undeniable truth.

 

[Snowbunnies]

This reminded me of a conversation on an anonymous irc. Me and him basically raged at each other for 20 minutes debating whether or no there is an afterlife or not. He basically said the afterlife does not exist for this realm is but a journey you only experience once and then you fade into nonexistence. He told me he was also a 25 year old badass that knew what faggot meant. Really hated this guy and the long and short of it was we could not disprove or prove each others ideas even though he was being a total fag. Doesn't this relate that no one knows or should know what happens when we die? I think people worry too much about religion or science because they are afraid of being nonexistent. Even if god or mother nature created you, you're here for a purpose and that it is your mission to fulfill it and be awaited to be called or fade out. You will be driven to insanity because of the unknown. Religion and Science argument is the Moby Dick of debates. You can tell other people you saw this whale. You can tell other people you heard this whale, but to show them this whale would be nigh impossible for the whale is never to be seen. People build their own realms of ideas and beliefs and then look towards other people for acceptance of themselves. When that is rejected your own self worth is in danger and lash out in defense perpetuating debates. The problem with the world as of now is 0 teachings 0 individualism. People can't go out on their own anymore to explore and find themselves in this world anymore, because of how much they long for other to accept them and so they conform to others and lose their individualism become another raindrop in the sea. There is no teachings about life and how to enjoy it anymore, because they are told what to enjoy and how to enjoy it. Everyone's lives are scripted and commonplace now. Society's history will eventually repeat itself like a bad meme. Just live your life the way you want to, but uphold good morals and ethics. Personally, you know what's right and what's wrong and then justify that the ends by the means. You will never go far with that and it will haunt you and god knows if you're highly religious too. People are gonna be people, but don't every let yourself be other people. When you look in a mirror you see the reflections of yourself not the people around you. Please for the love of god and science be yourself

 

[omgkings]

Science can't be Assumptions, as the entire concept is backed up by theories, then controlled testing. Science aims to prove assumptions are real.

Religion is just a Middle Schoolers way of winning the god of gaps argument. There's no real proof that God does exist, but people still look towards it for correction and some sort of following. Religion is nothing but a downwards spiraling plane, that causes death, destruction and suffering where ever it is. Christopher Hitches outlined most of it in his book, "God Is Not Great".

 

[Xier0]

Your senses are of course an assumption. They are an assumption we all have to live with and don't care much about, but an assumption nonetheless.

Can you define assumption?

 

[SmokeHut]

Can you define assumption?

Supposedly the case, without proof. That's his argument entirely.

Now I've read more of his responses I understand his forthcoming.

He's tried to counter this argument with someone, couldn't so came here to see if anyone could provide a reasonable argument. However, people are taking the step after the one he want's to discuss.

Yes, science proves/disproves cases. However, he wants an argument for the "assumption" what our senses give us are flawlessly true i.e Undeniable. Where as proving such an argument is impossible. Hence, earlier I stated that without the baseline for the debate it cannot be debated.

It's as good as saying prove the entire universe didn't come into existence 5 seconds ago, and all your memories with it. It's impossible to disprove it.

However, the comparison between trusting your senses and trusting a book someone wrote, it's clear that at least one of them gives you foundation and the ability to explore this planet. And the other requires your time, dedication and money. It doesn't take someone with a great deal of 'sense' to realise the goal behind religion.

Again though, the argument cannot be countered because we cannot provide any slam dunks. Because, as he says.. The reliant on your senses ultimately is assumption. So therefore you're having faith in it to be true.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

All of the examples you listed are interpreted by our senses. All of these things we assume we know based on our trust in our senses. We can only comprehend these things because we interpret them with our senses

Eh?? You can't sense quantum mechanics, it's literally on the atomic level.

These measurements and experiments are taken with highly precise and objective tools for the sole reason that our senses aren't sharp or reliable enough to measure the results.

 

[SmokeHut]

Eh?? You can't sense quantum mechanics, it's literally on the atomic level.

These measurements and experiments are taken with highly precise and objective tools for the sole reason that our senses aren't sharp or reliable enough to measure the results.

The argument is taken to the next level, to interpret them results you rely on your senses, which are taken on the assumption of being true.

Hence, there's no foundation for a debate.

 

[omgkings]

I agree with your first point. I think this is a pretty pointless argument because it can't be beat, but is also kinda stupid IMO. Just wanted to see if someone could beat it so it didn't bug me. Apparently not. So I'm done with it.



You obviously don't understand the argument I described. Read it before you reply lol.



Case closed, seen enough to know it can't be beat or I'm wasting my time trying to get people to understand the concept.

What do you mean case closed, you literally said;

Both require you to believe what your senses are telling you to be true.

Which is wrong in every perceivable way. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Not, "Hm, I think I'm feeling cavemen were real today, must be true".

Your logic is encompassing the sense that Religion is something people feel is the right thing to look towards. That doesn't make any sense at all. People either look towards Religion as a final stance of hope, or look towards Religion because their ideals are completely null and or brainwashed. Science can't be by "Feeling", as studies are either tested extensively, or backed up by experimental or physical proof. Homo antecessor, or Homo heidelbergensis were not "feelings" that the Science community brought up, they are backed up by physical proof of fossils that dated 800 thousand - 1.2 million years ago.

Religion is a collective of individuals that share 'beliefs' based on what Religion they stand on. There is no factual, physical or experimental proof that anything stated by any Religion is true. Which is why the God of Gaps argument exists in the first place. It was the argument that Humans could not of been augmented in the time the Big Bang occurred, hence a super natural, higher being or outer world being dabbled in the creation of humans. However even that argument is null as, descent with modification stated that the first sign of life was based around a form of self replicating Bacteria that eventually grew to a sustainable microbe that gradually evolved into a Bacteria that we now know and understand as Human microbiota.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

The argument is taken to the next level, to interpret them results you rely on your senses, which are taken on the assumption of being true.

Hence, there's no foundation for a debate.

There's no foundation for ANY debate when you claim that objective measurements and results are inadmissible because humans are the ones observing them........