Science vs. Faith Flowchart [PIC]

Post Reply New Topic

Not even a fashion statement, justification. As for the the freethoughtpedia pic, it is a ridiculous strawman and a generalized insult against three groups of monotheists done by the admin of this site if that says anything.

Not even a fashion statement, justification. As for the the freethoughtpedia pic, it is a ridiculous strawman and a generalized insult against three groups of monotheists done by the admin of this site if that says anything.

Hehe,Americans have finally discovered modernism....

That belief in science as ultimate and only tool of explaining reality was quite popular in continental Europe,to the level of violent imposing of this same belief.
This notion is rejected from 1940-es onwards,after collapse of Logical positivist school,when they finally have seen that scientific knowledge is based on premises,which are based on interpretations,and these interpretations are again based on beliefs.
In simpler terms,if we have an idea,evidences would always support this idea,since evidences are interpreted through this idea.

Main problem in reason is that he just create conclusion from premises.
In logical sense premises may be false,but the answer would still be true,since in logic only formal structure of argument is important,not its content.
Anything may be considered as premise,and premises and their truthfulness depends on belief,not knowledge,since premises are irrational as such.
Knowledge is conclusion that we draw from premises.

'Understanding the universe' only depends of interpretation.
Classical Greeks consider as material elements four aggregate states of matter (hard,liquid,gas,energy),while modern science use different interpretation of elements,based on atomic structures.
Is it classical Greek definition 'incorrect'?
Facts depends on interpretations about what actually is considered fact.

Algorithm presented in here that represent 'science' is actually example of circulatory definition of established belief.
I use facts to confirm the hypothesis,but I also use hypothesis to interpret facts.

Using science to confirm and reject metaphysical concepts is like using Chemistry and Chemical terminology in attempt to confirm phenomenon of music,or poetry.
Such Chemists have to reject both poetry and music as 'nonsense',since it cannot be defined through chemical terms.


P.S

Problem in most Americans,and lots of English speaking people is that they never actually experienced 'enlightenment' of Atheism and Science(in its absolute form) like lots of people in European continent.
Its funny(and annoying) to see this Jacobin/Bolshevik zeal in young internet geeks,but I can understand it in some sense.
Western societies are formally 'religious' (USA in particular),so fighting against that makes them 'rebels' and 'elite'.

"Most people are stupid and ignorant,but we are smart and intelligent.....therefore we know what is best for them".

This belief is source of all dictatorships and genocides in last 200 years.

How society based solely on science and atheism would look like is best explained in 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley...and its very grim.

Belief that quantitative and deterministic interpretation of reality(science) is only possible one is totalitarian in its basis.


P.P.S

Spontaneous generation

Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, alligators and crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

In 1546 the physician Girolamo Fracastoro theorized that epidemic diseases were caused by tiny, invisible particles or "spores", which might not be living creatures, but this was not widely accepted. Next, Robert Hooke published the first drawings of a microorganism in 1665. He is also credited for naming the cell which he discovered while observing cork samples.

Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. This sparked a renewal in interest in the microscopic world.

The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1688, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, from an egg).

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.

Three years earlier, Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (published in 1859), had presented an argument that modern organisms had evolved, over immense periods of time, from simpler ancestral forms, and that species changed over time in accordance with cell theory. Darwin himself declined to speculate on some implications of his theory - that at some point there may have existed an ur-organism with no prior ancestor and that such an organism may have come into existence, formed from non-living molecules.

Although Pasteur had demonstrated that modern organisms do not generate spontaneously in nonliving nutrients, his experiments were limited to a smaller system, and for a shorter time, than the open surface of the planet over millions or billions of years. The ur-organism implied by Darwin's theories would have occurred in the deep geological past, 3.87 billion years ago, and it had a billion years from the beginning of the planet to be formed.

Well, according to your Bible, your own God is a sinner!

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him." [John 3:36]

A deadly sinner at that!

The problem with postmodernism, deconstructionism, etc. is its negative nature.

Postmodernism boils down to nihilism.

I find modernism and the Enlightenment or even romanticism much more appealing than postmodernism, whose only contribution has been irony-laced satire (e.g., The Simpsons).

The problem with postmodernism, deconstructionism, etc. is its negative nature. These philosophical systems and analytical methods criticize the limitations, assumptions, and scope of other systems but really offer nothing of their own. Postmodernism boils down to nihilism.

Hunh? Maybe I have not done enough research, but where is the implication that God sins in that passage? Not only that, but I thought that the classic response to the problem of evil, which is where you might go, is that God ordains evil for the greatest good as measured by God, in a manner by which we cannot understand it. Thus meaning that God is in some ways regarded as unfalsifiable from that standpoint, especially when combined with the typical Christian solution to the Euthyphro dilemma.