Welcome to Gaia! ::

Shouldn’t logical scientific determination dictate our belief systems?

“To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles. Our brains are a composition of chemicals and “we,” as individuals, are little more than biological programs comprised of our experiences. There is no universal justice system, we don’t have “souls,” and god(s) don’t exist.

Religion is a societal institution, the true purpose of which is to protect family structure, in addition to justifying, asserting and instilling concepts of morality and laws (through targeted use of guilt, self-doubt and fear, created by spouting the dogma of a human-conceived God).

When our scientific understanding of the Universe was exceedingly limited, religion gave understanding, origin, reason and cause where there was none. People were taught to believe in life after death which gave individuals purpose and hope. Religion kept the masses subservient through fear of God's wrath, judgment, and justified laws on a higher level. Divine right to rule asserted that a monarch was subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God.

Religion is based on nothing more than blind, unquestioning, unwavering faith. It is outdated and no long required to explain life’s former mysteries. Biologically our “purpose” is to reproduce and further our species. Cosmically there isn’t a definable purpose, intent or goal. However in the effective reality you experience on a day to day basis, you can give your existence whatever meaning or purpose you choose. It is your job to define yourself and your immediate purpose. Not the job of the god of an archaic belief system. You just don’t need baseless, antiquated beliefs to give your life and your existence meaning.
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?

Anyway, sorry, but... from what I've seen, humans just don't work that way. We're naturally superstitious. Talk all you want about genetics, brain chemistry, particles, chance, etc. but we see ourselves as more than a collection of cells, and we see the world as whole organisms. No... whole beings. And even non-religious people are liable to believe in things like luck. Flip a coin 20 times, always get tails, you're going to expect it to land on tails again, but it's still a 50/50 chance. That's how our brains work, we look for patterns.

And sometimes, we see patterns and the brain cries "not a coincidence!" We are liable to expect a higher power is working behind the scenes. We're not logical, reasoning robots. We're emotional, irrational humans.

And that's okay.
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.

Uh-huh. So the possibility that it could be magic still exists?
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.

Uh-huh. So the possibility that it could be magic still exists?


That, or non-particulate.
Xiam's avatar

Anxious Humorist

13,600 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Hero 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.

Uh-huh. So the possibility that it could be magic still exists?


That, or non-particulate.

I'm sure scientists will reject such heresy.
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.

Uh-huh. So the possibility that it could be magic still exists?


That, or non-particulate.

I'm sure scientists will reject such heresy.


Given that gravity is non-particulate under orthodox renormalization of general relativity, I'm not.
Defenestrate Windows's avatar

Newbie Noob

6,750 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Xiam
Lucky~9~Lives
Lysid
Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles.


Everything empirically detectable, at best...except gravity...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Why such an exception for gravity?


The graviton has yet to be discovered.

Uh-huh. So the possibility that it could be magic still exists?
Yes. If you can come up with a theory that is better than what we have, and explains it better, and is falsifiable then yes. Science isn't a constant. If science gets something wrong the scientists admit it and show us the better theory that fits the evidence. Some people may not want to trust this because it can change. I like to be on the pursuit for truth. Not sit on my butt and have think what I believe is true forever. The Scientific method has time and time again proven to be pretty darn good at figuring out truth. Truth is based on evidence. We have evidence. We don't have all the evidence. If you can for this analogy see evidence as information then if we don't have all the information and we have a good amount of it we can still figure it out. Look at basic algebra. 3x + 4=13. I am sure you can figure that out what x is. I do understand it is an extreme over simplification. Just trying to keep it really basic. I know there is a better example but I would really like to keep it simple. smile
Lysid
Shouldn’t logical scientific determination dictate our belief systems?

“To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles. Our brains are a composition of chemicals and “we,” as individuals, are little more than biological programs comprised of our experiences. There is no universal justice system, we don’t have “souls,” and god(s) don’t exist.

Religion is a societal institution, the true purpose of which is to protect family structure, in addition to justifying, asserting and instilling concepts of morality and laws (through targeted use of guilt, self-doubt and fear, created by spouting the dogma of a human-conceived God).

When our scientific understanding of the Universe was exceedingly limited, religion gave understanding, origin, reason and cause where there was none. People were taught to believe in life after death which gave individuals purpose and hope. Religion kept the masses subservient through fear of God's wrath, judgment, and justified laws on a higher level. Divine right to rule asserted that a monarch was subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God.

Religion is based on nothing more than blind, unquestioning, unwavering faith. It is outdated and no long required to explain life’s former mysteries. Biologically our “purpose” is to reproduce and further our species. Cosmically there isn’t a definable purpose, intent or goal. However in the effective reality you experience on a day to day basis, you can give your existence whatever meaning or purpose you choose. It is your job to define yourself and your immediate purpose. Not the job of the god of an archaic belief system. You just don’t need baseless, antiquated beliefs to give your life and your existence meaning.


First of all, science has not proved that there are no souls, nor has it proved that there is no god. You can take what you know about science, and with it make an educated guess about the possibility of the existence of a god, but you cannot prove it one way or another. I understand if you choose not to believe in a god, or any other force outside of known science, but I find it very arrogant when people claim that there cannot possibly be things out there that current science can't explain. It's as if you think that we are the most supreme beings in the universe and we know absolutely everything there is to know, just because of the scientific knowledge we currently have.

If there is no god, then everything you said makes sense. If there is a god then he certainly could have designed the whole universe to function with the very laws of science that you study, and he certainly would be able to set up churches on this earth so that we could know about him. Scientifically, both options are equally plausible because they are both equally impossible to prove or disprove.
One main problem:

One of the basic foundations that science relies upon, cause and effect, has not been established to be true. We've only yet to really find a contradiction. But this doesn't mean it's true.
Too bad determinism is bunk, not that the word is even being used appropriately.
The Catfish Blues's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

5,600 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Tycoon 200
keito-ninja
Lysid
Shouldn’t logical scientific determination dictate our belief systems?

“To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles. Our brains are a composition of chemicals and “we,” as individuals, are little more than biological programs comprised of our experiences. There is no universal justice system, we don’t have “souls,” and god(s) don’t exist.

Religion is a societal institution, the true purpose of which is to protect family structure, in addition to justifying, asserting and instilling concepts of morality and laws (through targeted use of guilt, self-doubt and fear, created by spouting the dogma of a human-conceived God).

When our scientific understanding of the Universe was exceedingly limited, religion gave understanding, origin, reason and cause where there was none. People were taught to believe in life after death which gave individuals purpose and hope. Religion kept the masses subservient through fear of God's wrath, judgment, and justified laws on a higher level. Divine right to rule asserted that a monarch was subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God.

Religion is based on nothing more than blind, unquestioning, unwavering faith. It is outdated and no long required to explain life’s former mysteries. Biologically our “purpose” is to reproduce and further our species. Cosmically there isn’t a definable purpose, intent or goal. However in the effective reality you experience on a day to day basis, you can give your existence whatever meaning or purpose you choose. It is your job to define yourself and your immediate purpose. Not the job of the god of an archaic belief system. You just don’t need baseless, antiquated beliefs to give your life and your existence meaning.


First of all, science has not proved that there are no souls, nor has it proved that there is no god. You can take what you know about science, and with it make an educated guess about the possibility of the existence of a god, but you cannot prove it one way or another. I understand if you choose not to believe in a god, or any other force outside of known science, but I find it very arrogant when people claim that there cannot possibly be things out there that current science can't explain. It's as if you think that we are the most supreme beings in the universe and we know absolutely everything there is to know, just because of the scientific knowledge we currently have.

If there is no god, then everything you said makes sense. If there is a god then he certainly could have designed the whole universe to function with the very laws of science that you study, and he certainly would be able to set up churches on this earth so that we could know about him. Scientifically, both options are equally plausible because they are both equally impossible to prove or disprove.
You can't prove that enki, or brahman, or Zeus or Jupiter or the yellow emperor or adi Buddha, or xenu doesn't exist, so since they are just as plausible as Yahweh-El why don't you worship them too?
The Catfish Blues
keito-ninja
Lysid
Shouldn’t logical scientific determination dictate our belief systems?

“To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

Scientific reasoning determines that everything is comprised of particles. Our brains are a composition of chemicals and “we,” as individuals, are little more than biological programs comprised of our experiences. There is no universal justice system, we don’t have “souls,” and god(s) don’t exist.

Religion is a societal institution, the true purpose of which is to protect family structure, in addition to justifying, asserting and instilling concepts of morality and laws (through targeted use of guilt, self-doubt and fear, created by spouting the dogma of a human-conceived God).

When our scientific understanding of the Universe was exceedingly limited, religion gave understanding, origin, reason and cause where there was none. People were taught to believe in life after death which gave individuals purpose and hope. Religion kept the masses subservient through fear of God's wrath, judgment, and justified laws on a higher level. Divine right to rule asserted that a monarch was subject to no earthly authority, deriving his/her right to rule directly from the will of God.

Religion is based on nothing more than blind, unquestioning, unwavering faith. It is outdated and no long required to explain life’s former mysteries. Biologically our “purpose” is to reproduce and further our species. Cosmically there isn’t a definable purpose, intent or goal. However in the effective reality you experience on a day to day basis, you can give your existence whatever meaning or purpose you choose. It is your job to define yourself and your immediate purpose. Not the job of the god of an archaic belief system. You just don’t need baseless, antiquated beliefs to give your life and your existence meaning.


First of all, science has not proved that there are no souls, nor has it proved that there is no god. You can take what you know about science, and with it make an educated guess about the possibility of the existence of a god, but you cannot prove it one way or another. I understand if you choose not to believe in a god, or any other force outside of known science, but I find it very arrogant when people claim that there cannot possibly be things out there that current science can't explain. It's as if you think that we are the most supreme beings in the universe and we know absolutely everything there is to know, just because of the scientific knowledge we currently have.

If there is no god, then everything you said makes sense. If there is a god then he certainly could have designed the whole universe to function with the very laws of science that you study, and he certainly would be able to set up churches on this earth so that we could know about him. Scientifically, both options are equally plausible because they are both equally impossible to prove or disprove.
You can't prove that enki, or brahman, or Zeus or Jupiter or the yellow emperor or adi Buddha, or xenu doesn't exist, so since they are just as plausible as Yahweh-El why don't you worship them too?


I am not saying that people should worship God because his existence is plausible. I'm saying that it is just as scientifically reasonable for someone to acknowledge the existence of a god as it is for someone to dismiss the existence of a god.
I Refute Berkeley Thus
Too bad determinism is bunk, not that the word is even being used appropriately.


It isn't actually bunk, but yes, it being misused here.

Here the OP has attempted to make it a belief of "science" when it in fact has, simply being a description of the origin of things, nothing to say on the existence of souls or deities. Indeed, on can easily attribute a determined world to originating from a deity, co-existing with a deity or having a occurrent existence with souls.

Of course, in this particular instance, they are arguing that the only explanation of the existence used should be the one that is empirically suggested as well, but this isn't inherent to a deterministic universe, so determinism is being characterised in rather a misleading manner. Indeed, it is quite possible that determinism produces instances where it is impossible to view the world thorough a deterministic and sorely empirical frame.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games