Like the question "Why are we here?". Science provides answers based on data and evidence. "This particle did this, and so forth".
What it doesn't do is give reasons for that beyond another scientific claim. It makes no claims on meaning or value. Which it can't and shouldn't anyway.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
Tell me, do you think that a universe where a god gave us purpose and meaning would be different than a universe without one?
Like the question "Why are we here?". Science provides answers based on data and evidence. "This particle did this, and so forth".
What it doesn't do is give reasons for that beyond another scientific claim. It makes no claims on meaning or value. Which it can't and shouldn't anyway.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
Asking for meaning or value about something isn't even something religion can answer without just making up unprovable and untestable bullshit. Philosophy is much more useful in finding any meaning in life than religion.
How are YOU defining purpose?
# function: what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"
# aim: propose or intend; "I aim to arrive at noon"
Some things have no function or aim. Function and aim can only exist with living things. There is no purpose for the multitude of stars in the universe that we cannot see and there is no reason to believe there is a purpose for all of the stars other than the human belief that everything was made for them.
If I were to ask the average person why an asteroid hits a random planet that we will never even know exists billions of parsecs away from Earth, that person will probably just say that there is no reason for it.
Like the question "Why are we here?". Science provides answers based on data and evidence. "This particle did this, and so forth".
What it doesn't do is give reasons for that beyond another scientific claim. It makes no claims on meaning or value. Which it can't and shouldn't anyway.
Why the hell not?
By "we" you are talking about human existence. We can find many parellels for many facets of our existence all the way down the line of science, from sociology to biology to chemistry to physics. For example, something that makes us human is the fact that we are social. But we're not alone—social organization has evolved independently several times in the animal kingdom, and seems to be highly favored by natural selection. Don't you think that is meaningful and valuable? That the inherent structure of the universe (or, at the very least, Earth) seems to funnel life to act socially and evolve altruism?
Or the evolution of consciousness and intelligence, or of life itself. Science provides fascinating and deeply meaningful answers to how inert matter has become aware of itself and the universe. We are the universe "waking up." And we are currently manufacturing technology that seems to be going along the same "waking up" trajectory, only exponentially faster.
I certainly don't see how "a sky god molded us out of clay and breathed on us so we could be his slaves" adds any more meaning or value to the question than what I said.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
But religion's answers to these questions are made-up nonsense.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
I'm generally of the opinion that people turn to religion for an answer that they like.
Like the question "Why are we here?". Science provides answers based on data and evidence. "This particle did this, and so forth".
What it doesn't do is give reasons for that beyond another scientific claim. It makes no claims on meaning or value. Which it can't and shouldn't anyway.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
Why not philosophy?
I never said philosophy couldn't do it either. You'll notice their's 2 "some people"s in there.
Like the question "Why are we here?". Science provides answers based on data and evidence. "This particle did this, and so forth".
What it doesn't do is give reasons for that beyond another scientific claim. It makes no claims on meaning or value. Which it can't and shouldn't anyway.
Why the hell not?
Because science doesn't do that? Science never talks about meaning.
Now, you can say that these questions are not relevant, which is fine. Some people think they ARE relevant. And some of those people turn to religion for the answers.
But religion's answers to these questions are made-up nonsense.
And what answers to questions of meaning AREN'T "made up nonsense" by your definition?
Because science doesn't do that? Science never talks about meaning.
Again, I ask: how is "the universe is structured in such a way that altruism, language, and culture naturally selected for" a less meaningful statement than "a Mesopotamian sky god made humans out of clay as slaves"?
I mean, we could get into a semantic argument about what "meaning" means. I just don't see how you're getting that religious answers to such questions are intrinsically more meaningful.
And what answers to questions of meaning AREN'T "made up nonsense" by your definition?
Ones that aren't made up, for starters. Ones that are based on empirical evidence, and that provide an intelligible framework for observed facts.
I never said philosophy couldn't do it either. You'll notice their's 2 "some people"s in there.
Well yeah, but that's akin to saying that some people can turn to alchemy for answers.
Would philosophy count as a science? Either way, it is based on reason and logic and has given more useful results than religion. For example, logic is much more useful than anything that resulted from religion.
Because science doesn't do that? Science never talks about meaning.
Again, I ask: how is "the universe is structured in such a way that altruism, language, and culture naturally selected for" a less meaningful statement than "a Mesopotamian sky god made humans out of clay as slaves"?
I mean, we could get into a semantic argument about what "meaning" means. I just don't see how you're getting that religious answers to such questions are intrinsically more meaningful.
I never said they were. Like .... ever.
And what answers to questions of meaning AREN'T "made up nonsense" by your definition?
Ones that aren't made up, for starters. Ones that are based on empirical evidence, and that provide an intelligible framework for observed facts.
What are these ones that aren't made up? How do you empirically prove meaning?
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
You're confusing that with the idea of science telling you what you "should" do. There's no way that science can tell you what "should" be done, it can only describe how things are. It can tell you what you must do if you want some end, but it can not decide what end you want. What end you want is ultimately completely arbitrary.
Religion attempts to tie some facts of reality with what you "should" do, as though there can possibly be a universal "should". Science tells us that a universal "should" is impossible. Ultimately it's up to everyone to decide their own "should", which I suppose lands more comfortably in the realm of philosophy.
Maybe I should rephrase it like this: there are two realms; science and philosophy, science gives you the description of the universe, and philosophy gives you the end goal that you should reach for. Religion tries to be both, telling you a description of the universe and telling you an end goal to reach for, but it does both without addressing logic.
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
Um, no it doesn't. Science says it cannot empirically prove or disprove that something has intrinsic meaning. It is, literally, outside the realm of science. It's a question abou which science can say nothing.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except this isn't about lack of evidence, it's about the inability to ever gain evidence.
You don't believe, in say, the orbiting teapot because there's no evidence of it.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except this isn't about lack of evidence, it's about the inability to ever gain evidence.
That's not because science is inadequate for explanations, it's because you've created standards for which nothing could ever reach reasonable conclusions.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except this isn't about lack of evidence, it's about the inability to ever gain evidence.
That's not because science is inadequate for explanations, it's because you've created standards for which nothing could ever reach reasonable conclusions.
So there's another way?
Science has no opinion on intrinsic meaning or purpose because it's not a scientific question. It's a philisophical one.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except this isn't about lack of evidence, it's about the inability to ever gain evidence.
You do realize "inability to ever gain evidence" implies lack of evidence, right? And that in the cases where it doesn't, we use another very pretty word to describe those arguments - pseudoscience.
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
Um, no it doesn't. Science says it cannot empirically prove or disprove that something has intrinsic meaning. It is, literally, outside the realm of science. It's a question abou which science can say nothing.
"Meaning" is not some untouchable concept. You might wish to make it so by forcing it to be slippery and vague, but you can create a concrete definition of "meaning" and its related concepts and they can be logically handled. Any real scientist or philosopher saying otherwise is just too afraid of getting in arguments with humanities professors. We can formulate a working definition of things like meaning and purpose and intent and all these other abstract concepts and examine them logically. We can decide whether the capability of their existence in different settings makes any sense.
Please provide me with a reason why these things are necessarily outside the realm of science.
What I'm saying is that, if you're going to create this concept that needs to be objectively defined, you have to have ways to objectively define it. As it is, you're creating something that can't be objectively defined but defending a system of belief that offers objective explanations. Philosophy can be subjective and frequently is when it comes to this "meaning" idea you're vaguely pointing at, but religions, by-and-large are not subjective, but are rather objective. God exists for you and me and everybody else and we're all beholden to the arbitrary system of judgment a given believer might attribute him with.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited January 2009
Shryke, the issues you bring up properly belong to metaphysics, a discipline within philosophy. Religion isn't any better at metaphysics than science is; assuming the existence of a creator-God only results in more vexing metaphysical quandaries, like "Who created God?" The answers to metaphysical questions may be ultimately unknowable, but religion doesn't get us any closer than science or philosophy do. It in fact leads us in circles.
Please provide me with a reason why these things are necessarily outside the realm of science.
They aren't.
Going OT:
My personal opinion is that a main reason for the lack of scientific consensus on the "existence of god" are the still associated stigma in many parts of the world with making that claim, the basic need of most humans to avoid conflict and the ability of some very bright individuals to hold onto a belief shifting it from religious to philosophical, but lying to themselves that it's still a religion.
Religion is a set of rules or guidelines for correct social behavior within a culture; that has always been its primary function. All the mystical, magical, whooooo stuff is slowly being revealed as a just a smokescreen.
I acknowledge this is an atheistic perspective. :P
Religion is a set of rules or guidelines for correct social behavior within a culture; that has always been its primary function. All the mystical, magical, whooooo stuff is slowly being revealed as a just a smokescreen.
I acknowledge this is an atheistic perspective. :P
I always saw it as more of a system of control, at least in history, when it was wielded about like a bludgeon to threaten, intimidate, extort and provide justification for absolute power.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Religion is a set of rules or guidelines for correct social behavior within a culture; that has always been its primary function. All the mystical, magical, whooooo stuff is slowly being revealed as a just a smokescreen.
I acknowledge this is an atheistic perspective. :P
I always saw it as more of a system of control, at least in history, when it was wielded about like a bludgeon to threaten, intimidate, extort and provide justification for absolute power.
Those two explanations aren't mutually exclusive, religion has been extensively used for both of those purposes.
Religion is like any other tool. It can be used in different ways by different people.
Many people just use religion as a way to deal with their fears, while others use religion as a way to network for various means. Some people just have overactive imaginations.
Unlike, say, guns, which can be be harmless, accidentally harmful, or intentionally harmful, religion has no harmless mode, because it requires ignorance.
However, some of the subtler religions have relatively harmless levels of ignorance. Your typical American practitioner of Buddhism is suffering rather minimally and may easily get enough benefit from their faith that it easily compensates for what they lose by having arbitrary and unsupportable beliefs, if they don't mind falling into the "ignorance is bliss" notion.
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
Um, no it doesn't. Science says it cannot empirically prove or disprove that something has intrinsic meaning. It is, literally, outside the realm of science. It's a question abou which science can say nothing.
"Meaning" is not some untouchable concept. You might wish to make it so by forcing it to be slippery and vague, but you can create a concrete definition of "meaning" and its related concepts and they can be logically handled. Any real scientist or philosopher saying otherwise is just too afraid of getting in arguments with humanities professors. We can formulate a working definition of things like meaning and purpose and intent and all these other abstract concepts and examine them logically. We can decide whether the capability of their existence in different settings makes any sense.
Please provide me with a reason why these things are necessarily outside the realm of science.
Why don't you then? Why don't you show me how these questions can possibly be answered scientificaly.
Shryke, it's on you to ask a question and then demonstrate that what you seem to be defending (religious belief) offers an answer that is preferable to a reasoned, logical answer.
Shryke, it's on you to ask a question and then demonstrate that what you seem to be defending (religious belief) offers an answer that is preferable to a reasoned, logical answer.
What's that got to do with what we're talking about?
He is saying Science can provide answers that attach meaning and value to things. I'd like to see him demonstrate this.
It's been demonstrated. You're just dodging around with definitions of "meaning" and "value" that you haven't let anybody else in on yet, ones that seem to specifically preclude naturalism from providing input.
Shryke, it's on you to ask a question and then demonstrate that what you seem to be defending (religious belief) offers an answer that is preferable to a reasoned, logical answer.
What's that got to do with what we're talking about?
He is saying Science can provide answers that attach meaning and value to things. I'd like to see him demonstrate this.
Not at all, I'm saying that logic can determine that meaning and value are not intrinsic properties of any entity, and science can provide evidence that such concepts are a part of mental shorthand for human beings, not objective reflections of the world.
I do concede, as I said previously, that science can not tell you what you should do, as in, what meaning or value or purpose you should apply to something, however it can tell you about the nature of meaning and value and purpose themselves.
My major point is that religion makes these concepts objective truths, but scientific research into how we think and utilize these concepts tells us they are entirely subjective.
You're ignoring the idea that science can invalidate the concept of purpose itself in the manner in which you're using it. I would argue that things like purpose and intent do not and can not exist outside of human thought and that they are entirely constructed by humans as a form of heuristic, a shorthand that poorly explains reality but is useful in practical reasoning.
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
Um, no it doesn't. Science says it cannot empirically prove or disprove that something has intrinsic meaning. It is, literally, outside the realm of science. It's a question abou which science can say nothing.
"Meaning" is not some untouchable concept. You might wish to make it so by forcing it to be slippery and vague, but you can create a concrete definition of "meaning" and its related concepts and they can be logically handled. Any real scientist or philosopher saying otherwise is just too afraid of getting in arguments with humanities professors. We can formulate a working definition of things like meaning and purpose and intent and all these other abstract concepts and examine them logically. We can decide whether the capability of their existence in different settings makes any sense.
Please provide me with a reason why these things are necessarily outside the realm of science.
Why don't you then? Why don't you show me how these questions can possibly be answered scientificaly.
So does anyone have anything else to say about gays and religion?
Or are we done here?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Actually, I've been wondering if we're going to see yet more polarisation between the religious and the secular, with views on homosexuality as the catalyst.
I'm increasingly finding that I'm less and less sympathetic to religious views of morality now that organisations like the Catholic Church and the Mormons are attempting to actively interfere in the lives of people close to me. Another aspect of this would be things like the schism in the Anglican church between liberal clergy in Europe and the US and hardliners in Africa and South America.
Posts
Tell me, do you think that a universe where a god gave us purpose and meaning would be different than a universe without one?
On the black screen
Some things have no function or aim. Function and aim can only exist with living things. There is no purpose for the multitude of stars in the universe that we cannot see and there is no reason to believe there is a purpose for all of the stars other than the human belief that everything was made for them.
If I were to ask the average person why an asteroid hits a random planet that we will never even know exists billions of parsecs away from Earth, that person will probably just say that there is no reason for it.
By "we" you are talking about human existence. We can find many parellels for many facets of our existence all the way down the line of science, from sociology to biology to chemistry to physics. For example, something that makes us human is the fact that we are social. But we're not alone—social organization has evolved independently several times in the animal kingdom, and seems to be highly favored by natural selection. Don't you think that is meaningful and valuable? That the inherent structure of the universe (or, at the very least, Earth) seems to funnel life to act socially and evolve altruism?
Or the evolution of consciousness and intelligence, or of life itself. Science provides fascinating and deeply meaningful answers to how inert matter has become aware of itself and the universe. We are the universe "waking up." And we are currently manufacturing technology that seems to be going along the same "waking up" trajectory, only exponentially faster.
I certainly don't see how "a sky god molded us out of clay and breathed on us so we could be his slaves" adds any more meaning or value to the question than what I said.
But religion's answers to these questions are made-up nonsense.
I'm generally of the opinion that people turn to religion for an answer that they like.
I never said philosophy couldn't do it either. You'll notice their's 2 "some people"s in there.
Because science doesn't do that? Science never talks about meaning.
And what answers to questions of meaning AREN'T "made up nonsense" by your definition?
I mean, we could get into a semantic argument about what "meaning" means. I just don't see how you're getting that religious answers to such questions are intrinsically more meaningful.
Ones that aren't made up, for starters. Ones that are based on empirical evidence, and that provide an intelligible framework for observed facts.
Would philosophy count as a science? Either way, it is based on reason and logic and has given more useful results than religion. For example, logic is much more useful than anything that resulted from religion.
I never said they were. Like .... ever.
What are these ones that aren't made up? How do you empirically prove meaning?
Racists and radical homophobes can go suck a chode
I would argue that nothing has a purpose and everything "just is" and there's scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning to corroborate this. Purpose and intent are just assigned values, not intrinsic properties of things.
Religion is a poorly constructed pseudo-explanation that attempts to patch up the problems that arise when we realize that the way we think of things and the way they are don't mesh.
Except Scence can't say that. Science, as a form of reasoning, has nothing to say on the subject because meaning isn't something one can prove or disprove through empirical evidence or anything like that.
Now, you can believe that there is no meaning. You can say "Because science has nothing to say on the subject, I refuse to believe in it". But it's not a scientifically provable assertation that "nothing has meaning".
Yes, it can. Science can describe the states of things and a supposed state of something is that it has "meaning" or "purpose". If we can logically deduce that things like meaning or purpose can't exist outside of human assignment we can establish strong evidence against the idea that such a thing as an intrinsic meaning or purpose can even exist. It's not that science has nothing to say on the subject, it's that science is literally saying "there can not be a intrinsic meaning to something", and as that's a description of something, it's within the realm of science to say.
You're confusing that with the idea of science telling you what you "should" do. There's no way that science can tell you what "should" be done, it can only describe how things are. It can tell you what you must do if you want some end, but it can not decide what end you want. What end you want is ultimately completely arbitrary.
Religion attempts to tie some facts of reality with what you "should" do, as though there can possibly be a universal "should". Science tells us that a universal "should" is impossible. Ultimately it's up to everyone to decide their own "should", which I suppose lands more comfortably in the realm of philosophy.
Maybe I should rephrase it like this: there are two realms; science and philosophy, science gives you the description of the universe, and philosophy gives you the end goal that you should reach for. Religion tries to be both, telling you a description of the universe and telling you an end goal to reach for, but it does both without addressing logic.
Um, no it doesn't. Science says it cannot empirically prove or disprove that something has intrinsic meaning. It is, literally, outside the realm of science. It's a question abou which science can say nothing.
Uuuh what? Lack of any objective evidence is more than enough to create reasonable doubt in any dichotomy and at the very least shift the burden of proof to the side making the assertion. You should re-read your burden of proof manuals. Saying something can not be disproved does not equate equal plausibility, nor does it mean there is no correct position according to the scientific method.
I honestly can't be bothered to read what the exact definition of "meaning" in this thread is, but I'd hazard a guess it falls straight into the regular theological argument about existence/non-existence.
Except this isn't about lack of evidence, it's about the inability to ever gain evidence.
You don't believe, in say, the orbiting teapot because there's no evidence of it.
For "intrinsic meaning", evidence CAN'T exist.
That's not because science is inadequate for explanations, it's because you've created standards for which nothing could ever reach reasonable conclusions.
So there's another way?
Science has no opinion on intrinsic meaning or purpose because it's not a scientific question. It's a philisophical one.
You do realize "inability to ever gain evidence" implies lack of evidence, right? And that in the cases where it doesn't, we use another very pretty word to describe those arguments - pseudoscience.
Please provide me with a reason why these things are necessarily outside the realm of science.
They aren't.
Going OT:
My personal opinion is that a main reason for the lack of scientific consensus on the "existence of god" are the still associated stigma in many parts of the world with making that claim, the basic need of most humans to avoid conflict and the ability of some very bright individuals to hold onto a belief shifting it from religious to philosophical, but lying to themselves that it's still a religion.
Edit: What the guy above said too.
I acknowledge this is an atheistic perspective. :P
I always saw it as more of a system of control, at least in history, when it was wielded about like a bludgeon to threaten, intimidate, extort and provide justification for absolute power.
Those two explanations aren't mutually exclusive, religion has been extensively used for both of those purposes.
Many people just use religion as a way to deal with their fears, while others use religion as a way to network for various means. Some people just have overactive imaginations.
Unlike, say, guns, which can be be harmless, accidentally harmful, or intentionally harmful, religion has no harmless mode, because it requires ignorance.
However, some of the subtler religions have relatively harmless levels of ignorance. Your typical American practitioner of Buddhism is suffering rather minimally and may easily get enough benefit from their faith that it easily compensates for what they lose by having arbitrary and unsupportable beliefs, if they don't mind falling into the "ignorance is bliss" notion.
Why don't you then? Why don't you show me how these questions can possibly be answered scientificaly.
What's that got to do with what we're talking about?
He is saying Science can provide answers that attach meaning and value to things. I'd like to see him demonstrate this.
Not at all, I'm saying that logic can determine that meaning and value are not intrinsic properties of any entity, and science can provide evidence that such concepts are a part of mental shorthand for human beings, not objective reflections of the world.
I do concede, as I said previously, that science can not tell you what you should do, as in, what meaning or value or purpose you should apply to something, however it can tell you about the nature of meaning and value and purpose themselves.
My major point is that religion makes these concepts objective truths, but scientific research into how we think and utilize these concepts tells us they are entirely subjective.
The Science of Good and Evil
Evolutionary psychology as an explanation of morality as evolved.
Or are we done here?
I'm increasingly finding that I'm less and less sympathetic to religious views of morality now that organisations like the Catholic Church and the Mormons are attempting to actively interfere in the lives of people close to me. Another aspect of this would be things like the schism in the Anglican church between liberal clergy in Europe and the US and hardliners in Africa and South America.