View Single Post
  #280  
Old 01-15-2010, 09:09 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Scientists cannot prove something, they can only attribute likelihoods to hypotheses. Statistical methods might seem like an irrelevant detail, but it is important to understand empirical work and realize that science is inherently humble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
Scientific theories result from tested hypotheses, which are developed to explain a given set of facts and relationships that are observable, or inferenced. But to think a scientific theory represents ultimate truth is wrong, only religion deals with absolutes in this manner. Scientific theories change overtime. They are not simply refined, they undergo dramatic reversals and revisions, at times. And they tend to be governed in their expression by the existing dominant paradigms the scientists are operating under. It is not a simple matter that science is based on fact and religion is based on faith.
I apologize. You are both correct that Scientists can't prove anything for 100% certainty and I made an error in my earlier post which I have now corrected. Since gravity is only a theory I wonder if either of you would take a leap of faith of a cliff or would you both take Newton's word for it? Because of this debate I have been reading about different religions and I think I'm willing to give religion a second chance. I've decided to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since gravity is only a theory I submit to you my church's theory of gravity the "FSM Theory of Gravity" contained in in our holly text here. I feel it is equally valid to Newton's little theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chator View Post
Religous views maybe based on facts as well, and scientists are required to have faith in the theories, concepts, axioms, and paradigms of their predecessors and culture.
Well the burden of proof lies on Religion to present those "facts" for the claims they are making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
1. Science does have the right to research religious claims but it won't get very far because the supernatural is outwith the material world
Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
2. Dawkins is trying to prove that God does not exist because evolution does. Plenty of scientists believe in God
Dawkins doesn't have to prove anything. All Dawkins has to do is cast doubt on the claims that Religion is making. The burden of proof falls on Religion to prove the claims it is making. Dawkins isn't opening up any museums claiming God doesn't exist for 100% certainty check out my exhibits. As for plenty of scientists believing in God this is an interesting study:

Quote:
A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
3. Dawkins says that God is a delusion. If I believe in something that is a delusion then I am delusional. He is trying to pacify Theists with semantics.
I've already explained this more then once. I guess all children that believe in Santa Claus are also delusional then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
4. Dawkins logic is not sound. You are saying that God is a preposterous idea which is why the appeal to ignorance doesn't work for this. Explain to me what caused the Big Bang. If you can't then the idea of a greater power is not preposterous. Millions of people would be willing to attest to personal experiences of that greater power. Can Dawkins disprove these experiences? I doubt it. There is evidence for the existence of God but there is not enough to state for certainty that he exists. In the same way that there is not enough to prove that he doesn't.
Thank God or in my case FSM that you are not a lawyer. Read the link you posted again. Dawkins isn't using an "Appeal to Ignorance." I even quoted the section for you in my earlier post. Dawkins doesn't have to prove anything the burden of proof is on Religion to prove its claims. The majority of people thought the world was flat not so long ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
5. You are correct that not just philosophers and theologians have the right to question religion. But don't expect me to pay any credence to a guy with a doctorate in Zoology about questions of philosophy. I don't care much for his opinion on Shakespeare either. But if he wants to write a book on it, so be it.
This speaks for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
6. Well you can take offense at being told you are going to hell if you don't believe in God/ Allah. I take offense to being told that the God I have personal experience of is a delusion. So now we are both offended.
I never said I'm offended. I said I can understand why an atheist could be offended by that statement and I explained why in previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
The Vatican were telling Roman Catholics they can believe in Extra terrestrial life not you. You clearly are not a Roman Catholic so what the pope says or doesn't say with regards to Extra Terrestrial life really has nothing to do with you. In the same way that what Barack Obama says about Health care reforms has nothing to do with me. I can agree or disagree with it but frankly I don't care enough to do that.
Have you heard of sarcasm? Either way if the Vatican has to tell people what they can believe in, it just goes to show what kind of control they have over people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janeway72 View Post
And with that I'm going to get the same bus as Horatio. This debate is going nowhere and until Dawkins can prove God doesn't exist then he can stop calling me delusional and I'll stop calling him an idiot.
If you no longer wish to debate I respect that. It has been interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
it was always fun to discuss issues with you, EC, especially in the good ol' times.
But as we are going in circles I am out of here.
Like I said to janeway72 if you no longer wish to debate I respect that. I'm not quite sure what the rest of that statement means but I'll take it as a compliment and it has been fun debating with you as well.

I honestly hope that when I die there is something on the other side but like Bill Maher in Religulous I'm ok with saying I don't know what happens when you die. I think it's far better then making claims that you do.
Reply With Quote