why and/or why would anyone draw a line and say that no life after death isn't just as "scientifically proven" as anything else that you seem to think is?
Okay, so you read it. But no, you most assuredly missed the point of it, or you wouldn't have ignored the "if all of that is true, then..." part of the question.
Because what it all boils down to is this: when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
I am not going to object to going off topic on this thread, seeing as the conversation flowed rather naturally and the topic itself is so narrow that staying on it too strictly would be dull. Explore away.
Philosophy gives you questions that cannot be answered. Religion gives you answers that cannot be questioned.
I think that’s right…probably why I find myself sitting on the fence between philosophy and religion (although it does tend to give me a sore bu++ ) - since I like challenging some of the answers that religion provides.
The truth is, there are a LOT of good questions here.
How do youdefine atheism?
How do you define religion?
How do you define god?
All need answers.
Well…when you put it like that, I’m tempted to forget about any “scholarly references” and just let my 2-bit brain ramble…ergo…hence…thus…
Religion: my idea of what makes a religion is a belief in something beyond the five senses; it is something I hold onto even though there is no proof. I tend to think one of the essential elements in any religion is faith – ya gotta have faith.
God: to me that’s something superhuman…a higher power…an idea I was introduced to at an early age by my parents.
Atheism: relative to the my own 2-bit concepts of religion and God – I am inclined to think atheism is NOT a religion – since faith is not required to accept the fact that everything we perceive simply means that’s all there is.
I no longer believe in the supernatural (as most commonly defined).
And kudos to you for recognizing our approach to so-called "faith."
I do recognize that different people define faith differently, so definitions are needed there too.
Everybody has "faith," if you define faith the way some of us did. Everybody believes something. But there's an enormous difference between believing the sun will "rise" tomorrow and believing that this has only been happening for thousands of years. Believing the sun will rise is evidence-based. Believing it has only been happening for thousands of years (as opposed to a few billion) is contrary to evidence and requires a belief that an alternative explanation that defies evidence is correct.
Define evidence. And away we go!
...
But when you define faith as "believing something despite there being 'no proof,'" it gives us one less thing to argue about.
Atheism is not a religion because it does not entail belief in the supernatural.
Humanism is a worldview and philosophy, not a religion.
But if we were to switch gears and talk about these same words as defined by government, I would switch gears and argue that humanism IS a religion. Not that it entails a belief in the supernatural, but that it is entitled to the same protections and privileges as religion when it comes to government recognition. If you're not allowed to deny me a job based on my religious beliefs, but you are allowed to deny me a job based on my being an atheist, that is a violation of my rights. Not because atheism is a religion, but because as far as government is concerned, atheism and humanism should be entitled to the same protections. Government should not be allowed to say "Atheism is not a religion and is therefore atheists are not entitled to freedom from persecution or discrimination."
And lest you think that's a trivial argument: not really. Multiple states have constitutional provisions depriving atheists of the right to hold elected office. Those provisions are illegal and unenforceable, but that has not always been the case. They are only unenforceable because atheists stood up for their rights and won.
The point with government, I would agree in that context. Not sure you begin with definitions. Most of us intuitively know atheists/humanists etc. should not be discriminated against. So constitutional documents can be modified accordingly.
Because what it all boils down to is this: when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
I'm always leery of all encompassing statements.
Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything.
My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?"
Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven.
(Still there?)
Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.
The difficulty here probably resides in defining (or reaching an agreement on) what "proof" is and isn't. And there's no escaping the subjectivity that's necessarily involved in determining how much evidence is or will be deemed "sufficient" to either establish something as being true, or (perhaps more realistically) to produce a common belief (and acceptance) of it being true. Apart from the word of God, at what point does the impossible ever succumb or capitulate to mere statistical odds of improbability?
Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything.
My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?"
Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven.
(Still there?)
Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.
Theorems, proofs, and expanding our understanding of the universe based upon science. This brings up to me an interesting topic - that of Stephen Hawking.
A brilliant mind with ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease - a degenerative disease that gradually paralyzed Stephen over decades. Hawking in the last year of his life (he died less than 2 months ago made significant scientific contributions to modern physics and how people view the Universe.
The difficulty here probably resides in defining (or reaching an agreement on) what "proof" is and isn't. And there's no escaping the subjectivity that's necessarily involved in determining how much evidence is or will be deemed "sufficient" to either establish something as being true, or (perhaps more realistically) to produce a common belief (and acceptance) of it being true. Apart from the word of God, at what point does the impossible ever succumb or capitulate to mere statistical odds of improbability?
For me proof is an objective thing.
As with most scientific thought one of the elements of proof is predictability. How do we know two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make water? It's been done billions of times and will be done billions more. How do we know gravity exists? Apples fell before Newton and they continue to fall to this day.
That's why cold fusion fell flat. The scientists say they created it once, but nobody could replicate their experiment. (My theory: The original scientists unknowingly used a dirty test tube and whatever was in that test tube before served as a catalyst that helped create cold fusion. Nobody knows what dirtied the test tube so we'll never know what the catalyst was.)
So, I take it that you've (subjectively) chosen to disassociation yourself with any and all subjective aspects of what "proof" can mean or how it is defined...
nice.
or, perhaps I should say... how convenient.
Well, maybe this will add a bit more objectivity to the mix:
Or is this the "is mathematics objective or subjective?" question?
As mathematics defines itself by (or within) intrinsic rules, our subjective interpretation is not only unnecessary, it removes it from the category of mathematics.
As mathematics defines itself by (or within) intrinsic rules, our subjective interpretation is not only unnecessary, it removes it from the category of mathematics.
Ah, but can you remove mathematics from the mathematician? If a problem is solved in the woods and nobody sees or hears it, does anyone care? Thus intrinsic logic is bound to the extrinsic Illogical subjective nature of the human psyche.
Personally, I prefer my subjective love of mathematics to allow it to transform into a higher form of poetic expression, the haiku:
arc - parabola
life - our parabolic bow
ends that never meet
As mathematics defines itself by (or within) intrinsic rules, our subjective interpretation is not only unnecessary, it removes it from the category of mathematics.
Math defines itself? So does math determine the universe? Or does math describe the universe? Certainly is a useful tool.
We are built to look for patterns. We see patterns of math. But did the patterns of math shape the universe to make us to see it?
Or maybe matter and energy follow rules that result in patterns we call math. I feel less cross-eyed there.
So, I take it that you've (subjectively) chosen to disassociation yourself with any and all subjective aspects of what "proof" can mean or how it is defined...
nice.
or, perhaps I should say... how convenient.
Well, maybe this will add a bit more objectivity to the mix:
Another time, back in my university days, a grad student and I were discussing postmodernism.
It was her assertation that there was no reality, only perceptions.
"No reality, only perceptions," I repeated. "So if there are only perceptions, I go into a class and do what I percieve is "A" work, but you claim its "D" work. What makes one perception more valid than the other?"
"The one with the authority," she responded.
"But if all you have is perception, then authority too must be a perception."
She just kind of shook and walked away.
There is something out there, beyond my skin, that is more than my perception.
Newton percieved the apple, but something moved the apple seperate from Newton.
E=MC squared is a phenomenon that exists whether we percive it or not
(SNIP)...Humanism is a worldview and philosophy, not a religion.
But if we were to switch gears and talk about these same words as defined by government, I would switch gears and argue that humanism IS a religion. Not that it entails a belief in the supernatural, but that it is entitled to the same protections and privileges as religion when it comes to government recognition. If you're not allowed to deny me a job based on my religious beliefs, but you are allowed to deny me a job based on my being an atheist, that is a violation of my rights. Not because atheism is a religion, but because as far as government is concerned, atheism and humanism should be entitled to the same protections. Government should not be allowed to say "Atheism is not a religion and is therefore atheists are not entitled to freedom from persecution or discrimination."
And lest you think that's a trivial argument: not really. Multiple states have constitutional provisions depriving atheists of the right to hold elected office. Those provisions are illegal and unenforceable, but that has not always been the case. They are only unenforceable because atheists stood up for their rights and won.
Wow – that is news to me – and after reading Chockfull’s link to S. Hawking – I wanted to quote from it – then I will circle back to your comment…
Hawking said “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” That reminded me of some things said earlier on this thread – of religion providing the answers that you cannot (or may not) question…so in the instance you gave of multiple states having constitutional provisions barring atheists from holding an elected office – perhaps I am politically very naïve, but I thought our government had something of a separation of church and state, but what you’ve described sounds almost like these states were exercising sort of a religious authority…and I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to reduce “religion” down to its most basic level…as an interest, belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group – even if that “religion” or worldview is humanism…it should still be allowed the freedom of religion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
15
19
15
Popular Days
Apr 17
25
Feb 8
11
May 4
11
Feb 9
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 25 posts
T-Bone 15 posts
Bolshevik 19 posts
TLC 15 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2018
25 posts
Feb 8 2016
11 posts
May 4 2018
11 posts
Feb 9 2016
10 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
So if we get to the place where we decide atheism IS a religion, then do we also have to go down the road of deciding whether it is an ORGANIZED religion or not? aka Dana Carvey's routine - "la, la,
Raf
I used to think that atheism was an overreaction to leaving The Way. In my case, it was a good long time between leaving TWI and rejecting theism, so I doubt very much that it can be categorized
So_crates
Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Manage
waysider
Because it requires proving a negative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, it doesn't. That was the point of my post (which was evidently lost in translation.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Obviously you either didn't read, or didn't grasp, the point of my post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
.I read your post and grasped the point of it. I'm simply answering the question you posed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, so you read it. But no, you most assuredly missed the point of it, or you wouldn't have ignored the "if all of that is true, then..." part of the question.
Because what it all boils down to is this: when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.
(Just google that, if you don't believe me...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am not going to object to going off topic on this thread, seeing as the conversation flowed rather naturally and the topic itself is so narrow that staying on it too strictly would be dull. Explore away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think that’s right…probably why I find myself sitting on the fence between philosophy and religion (although it does tend to give me a sore bu++
) - since I like challenging some of the answers that religion provides.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well…when you put it like that, I’m tempted to forget about any “scholarly references” and just let my 2-bit brain ramble…ergo…hence…thus…
Religion: my idea of what makes a religion is a belief in something beyond the five senses; it is something I hold onto even though there is no proof. I tend to think one of the essential elements in any religion is faith – ya gotta have faith.
God: to me that’s something superhuman…a higher power…an idea I was introduced to at an early age by my parents.
Atheism: relative to the my own 2-bit concepts of religion and God – I am inclined to think atheism is NOT a religion – since faith is not required to accept the fact that everything we perceive simply means that’s all there is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By your definitions, T-Bone, I agree.
I no longer believe in the supernatural (as most commonly defined).
And kudos to you for recognizing our approach to so-called "faith."
I do recognize that different people define faith differently, so definitions are needed there too.
Everybody has "faith," if you define faith the way some of us did. Everybody believes something. But there's an enormous difference between believing the sun will "rise" tomorrow and believing that this has only been happening for thousands of years. Believing the sun will rise is evidence-based. Believing it has only been happening for thousands of years (as opposed to a few billion) is contrary to evidence and requires a belief that an alternative explanation that defies evidence is correct.
Define evidence. And away we go!
...
But when you define faith as "believing something despite there being 'no proof,'" it gives us one less thing to argue about.
Atheism is not a religion because it does not entail belief in the supernatural.
Humanism is a worldview and philosophy, not a religion.
But if we were to switch gears and talk about these same words as defined by government, I would switch gears and argue that humanism IS a religion. Not that it entails a belief in the supernatural, but that it is entitled to the same protections and privileges as religion when it comes to government recognition. If you're not allowed to deny me a job based on my religious beliefs, but you are allowed to deny me a job based on my being an atheist, that is a violation of my rights. Not because atheism is a religion, but because as far as government is concerned, atheism and humanism should be entitled to the same protections. Government should not be allowed to say "Atheism is not a religion and is therefore atheists are not entitled to freedom from persecution or discrimination."
And lest you think that's a trivial argument: not really. Multiple states have constitutional provisions depriving atheists of the right to hold elected office. Those provisions are illegal and unenforceable, but that has not always been the case. They are only unenforceable because atheists stood up for their rights and won.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The point with government, I would agree in that context. Not sure you begin with definitions. Most of us intuitively know atheists/humanists etc. should not be discriminated against. So constitutional documents can be modified accordingly.
I think context would frame how to define terms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I'm always leery of all encompassing statements.
Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything.
My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?"
Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven.
(Still there?)
Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
The difficulty here probably resides in defining (or reaching an agreement on) what "proof" is and isn't. And there's no escaping the subjectivity that's necessarily involved in determining how much evidence is or will be deemed "sufficient" to either establish something as being true, or (perhaps more realistically) to produce a common belief (and acceptance) of it being true. Apart from the word of God, at what point does the impossible ever succumb or capitulate to mere statistical odds of improbability?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Are you saying proof is a group effort?
Or is this the "is mathematics objective or subjective?" question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Theorems, proofs, and expanding our understanding of the universe based upon science. This brings up to me an interesting topic - that of Stephen Hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
A brilliant mind with ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease - a degenerative disease that gradually paralyzed Stephen over decades. Hawking in the last year of his life (he died less than 2 months ago made significant scientific contributions to modern physics and how people view the Universe.
https://www.universetoday.com/139167/heres-stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/
I like the science that expands the mind as opposed to the pseudo-science that restricts the mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
For me proof is an objective thing.
As with most scientific thought one of the elements of proof is predictability. How do we know two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make water? It's been done billions of times and will be done billions more. How do we know gravity exists? Apples fell before Newton and they continue to fall to this day.
That's why cold fusion fell flat. The scientists say they created it once, but nobody could replicate their experiment. (My theory: The original scientists unknowingly used a dirty test tube and whatever was in that test tube before served as a catalyst that helped create cold fusion. Nobody knows what dirtied the test tube so we'll never know what the catalyst was.)
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, I take it that you've (subjectively) chosen to disassociation yourself with any and all subjective aspects of what "proof" can mean or how it is defined...
nice.
or, perhaps I should say... how convenient.
Well, maybe this will add a bit more objectivity to the mix:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#58d86edf2fb1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As mathematics defines itself by (or within) intrinsic rules, our subjective interpretation is not only unnecessary, it removes it from the category of mathematics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ah, but can you remove mathematics from the mathematician? If a problem is solved in the woods and nobody sees or hears it, does anyone care? Thus intrinsic logic is bound to the extrinsic Illogical subjective nature of the human psyche.
Personally, I prefer my subjective love of mathematics to allow it to transform into a higher form of poetic expression, the haiku:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Math defines itself? So does math determine the universe? Or does math describe the universe? Certainly is a useful tool.
We are built to look for patterns. We see patterns of math. But did the patterns of math shape the universe to make us to see it?
Or maybe matter and energy follow rules that result in patterns we call math. I feel less cross-eyed there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Another time, back in my university days, a grad student and I were discussing postmodernism.
It was her assertation that there was no reality, only perceptions.
"No reality, only perceptions," I repeated. "So if there are only perceptions, I go into a class and do what I percieve is "A" work, but you claim its "D" work. What makes one perception more valid than the other?"
"The one with the authority," she responded.
"But if all you have is perception, then authority too must be a perception."
She just kind of shook and walked away.
There is something out there, beyond my skin, that is more than my perception.
Newton percieved the apple, but something moved the apple seperate from Newton.
E=MC squared is a phenomenon that exists whether we percive it or not
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wow – that is news to me – and after reading Chockfull’s link to S. Hawking – I wanted to quote from it – then I will circle back to your comment…
Hawking said “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” That reminded me of some things said earlier on this thread – of religion providing the answers that you cannot (or may not) question…so in the instance you gave of multiple states having constitutional provisions barring atheists from holding an elected office – perhaps I am politically very naïve, but I thought our government had something of a separation of church and state, but what you’ve described sounds almost like these states were exercising sort of a religious authority…and I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to reduce “religion” down to its most basic level…as an interest, belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group – even if that “religion” or worldview is humanism…it should still be allowed the freedom of religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.