Introduction

In this discussion, I will argue that much of modern science is abused in the debate against religion. I will further an objection to 'science in the pejorative sense,' or a body of thought consisting of scientists making unscientific, metaphysical projections from their data.

These 'scientific crusaders' step outside of the bounds of science, claiming still to use the 'scientific method' as they make unverifiable claims about the world (enter the 'atom'). Seeing religious explanation as their direct enemy, they rail against religious establishment in an attempt to thrust God and divine morality from the throne. What they seek: to replace him with the atom and natural law.

Regardless of the fact that their claims are as well unfounded, equally unverifiable and unscientific, they push these religious views as if they were confirmed objective truths. In this sense, they form a cult of their own. The rest of this discussion will be dedicated to an objection thereof.

Definitions

Science, what. Two things: in the pejorative sense, religion in the mask of rationality. In the constructive sense, an attempt at precise description of phenomenal reality, dealing in sense data and inductive hypotheses.

Religion, what. The belief in and worship of a highest power. The acknowledgment of a metaphysical entity that serves as a controlling power in the Universe.

Mechanism, what. Belief in matter as the sole substance, and an account of the world in terms of this metaphysical concept. A projection of the subject upon reality. Supposition of the 'atom' as the actor, the 'doer' of phenomena. Doctrine that the atom, the agent of nature follows 'natural laws,' and would have a measure of freedom in the case of a suspension of such. In short, the religious projection of physics -- science infected with moral residue.

The mechanist skeptic of religion, what. Another name for a priest, for an evangelist, and for a scientific (in the pejorative sense) skeptic of religion. The crusader of his religion versus the infidels of the other tribe. The one who wishes to convert others to his world view, to achieving changes and ends he deems as acceptable. A manipulator whose beliefs are built upon faith, a 'holy man' in every sense of the word.

The problem

Science as developed in early modern Europe was a birth from religious thought. From the earliest poisonings of philosophy, European thinkers were unable to get any project off of the ground without the undercurrents of religious and moral presupposition. From the concept of substance, or the ‘thing-in-itself’ presented to Europe by the Greeks, even an evaluation of the natural world could not escape the bondage of religious faith.

In these early stages, before ‘scientific method’ became the tool-of-choice and the centerpiece of atheist rhetoric, a moral objectivist worldview was worked into science without anybody noticing. It became natural under religious assumption to presume the atom, the subject of nature. It also became intuitive to posit that these subjects act in accordance with law.

However, what business does science have in metaphysics? What claim does mechanism have save for a religious one, a moral one? Surely in evaluating the plausibility of the asserted phenomena in religious texts is a worthy endeavor for science. In doing such, it surely has a legitimate claim against theistic views of nature and its occurrences.

However, mechanism itself? The level of foolishness, if such a thing could be said, of the mechanist is perhaps greater than that of the theist. The theist has an excuse to cling to his moral worldview, to his unscientific projections of the subject and the law. But does the mechanist, when using science as a means to justify it?

Conclusion

This brief discussion aims at shaking the ground beneath scientific dogmatists in an attempt to get them to awaken to a true scientific view, if they wish to claim true science as justification. Description of the phenomena should never suggest any unverifiable, unknowable conclusion in a scientific setting. In this light, the argument of atoms versus souls should be labeled under its proper heading: ‘religious debate.’ The combatants should be labeled under their proper job description: ‘the faithful.’

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : Formatting problems.]

12/1/2006 4:19:15 PM

who cares.

science is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge of things unknown.

religion is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge through something thats already been explained.

12/1/2006 4:28:07 PM

The point is -- scientists are beginning to corrupt their field through injecting their own religion. Their claim to objective metaphysical truth is evidence of this.

12/1/2006 4:29:31 PM

yeah i didnt read it but I agree with that

12/1/2006 4:32:33 PM

It's not even that long, and I took a lot of care to make sure it was worded clearly. You should probably read it if you're going to participate in the thread.

12/1/2006 4:33:33 PM

self-important much?

12/1/2006 4:40:57 PM

What's self-important about asking somebody to read the original post? I feel as if it's clearly worded. How is that self-important? Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Participate in the thread, already. It sucks to have spent some actual effort on a post, just to get a rain of anti-intellectual responses.

12/1/2006 4:43:26 PM

you're accusing dogmatists of being dogmatic. congratulations

12/1/2006 4:45:40 PM

No, I'm exposing people who believe in the validity of a method as not respecting that method in modern debate.

12/1/2006 4:47:37 PM

most of modern science doesn't come anywhere close to touching ANYTHING to do with metaphysics. have you ever looked at a scientific journal? most of it is so esoteric as to only really have any relevance to a very small group of scientists.

what scientists out there are fighting the "debate against religion"?

add:

i think you're confusing scientists with people who have nothing to do with science using it in debates

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 4:52:01 PM

Quote :

"science is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge of things unknown. Science is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge of things seen. religion is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge through something thats already been explained. Religion is the pursuit of understanding and knowledge of things unseen."

12/1/2006 5:00:23 PM

totally untrue.

gravity much

12/1/2006 5:04:10 PM

john we really must hang out more, i miss your comments. have another birthday will you!

12/1/2006 5:11:48 PM

Science is not necessarily about seeking "the Truth." It is simply about making the best possible model to try to understand the laws and mechanics of our universe. You claim that the concept of the atom is unverifiable, but the model or idea of the atom fits very well with all of the experimental data that has been compiled thus far. It may very well be that "atoms" do not exist, but until we find experimental data that cannot be reconciled by the atomic model, we have to operate under the assumption that atoms do exist. We simply have to work with what we have and then build from there. At least there's evidence for the existence of atoms. But what of the soul? So far no such evidence exists. All discussions about the soul are effectively only meta-physical or philosophical at this point. Until somebody can design a falsifiable, repeatable condition that determines the existence of the soul, souls remain outside the realm of science. To lump atoms in there with souls is ludicrous, to say the least.

And while science in general and religion can be said to share many qualities, there is one key difference between them; science asks you to observe the world around you and then attempt to draw conclusions from those observations, while religion asks you to simply "have faith" in a pre-determined conclusion, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Science can (currently) neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods, but it does ask you to assume that they exist. There may very well be a god, but all of our current working models of the universe do not necessitate the existence of one. Religion, on the other hand, tells you that you have to believe that this god exists no matter what. Not only that, religion asks you to do as this god says (whose will is conveniently conveyed through only a select few), or risk eternal damnation.

12/1/2006 6:24:01 PM

^
That's more or less correct. But hell, I can't tell who holds the position McDanger thinks he is arguing against.

12/1/2006 6:58:56 PM

Quote :

"I took a lot of care to make sure it was worded clearly."

Try again.

12/1/2006 7:18:39 PM

Quote :

"most of modern science doesn't come anywhere close to touching ANYTHING to do with metaphysics."

Did you even read the original post? I don't think you did. Please read it.

Quote :

" what scientists out there are fighting the "debate against religion"?"

Ever heard of Richard Dawkins?

Quote :

"totally untrue. gravity much"

Wrong -- we see the effects of gravity. It is a phenomenal event. However, 'action at a distance' is a problem that science has been trying to crack for a while now (by attempting to introduce the 'graviton' for instance).

Quote :

"That's more or less correct. But hell, I can't tell who holds the position McDanger thinks he is arguing against."

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm How about these people? Trumpeting science as justification for atheism (mind you, mechanistic atheism). Go back and read the first post. I can tell you skimmed through it.

Quote :

"Science is not necessarily about seeking "the Truth.""

Can we have scientific knowledge?

Quote :

"You claim that the concept of the atom is unverifiable, but the model or idea of the atom fits very well with all of the experimental data that has been compiled thus far."

A variety of concepts fit with the data remarkably well. Atoms still don't explain action at a distance. They also presume an actual, inaccessible 'actor' in the situation. How is this scientific?

Quote :

"It may very well be that "atoms" do not exist, but until we find experimental data that cannot be reconciled by the atomic model, we have to operate under the assumption that atoms do exist."

Gravity.

Quote :

"At least there's evidence for the existence of atoms."

There is none, just a circular definition of mass. Do you really think atoms are anything more than metaphysical conjecture, based on the language of our senses?

Quote :

"But what of the soul? So far no such evidence exists."

Our own experience points towards a soul, or an ego (read: subject). This is in fact the basis for the atom myth -- it is externalized and generalized. Seeing the atom in the world is no different than the religious seeing God everywhere they turn. Man sees himself in nature.

Quote :

"All discussions about the soul are effectively only meta-physical or philosophical at this point. Until somebody can design a falsifiable, repeatable condition that determines the existence of the soul, souls remain outside the realm of science. To lump atoms in there with souls is ludicrous, to say the least."

You have failed to demonstrate that lumping in one metaphysical, unverifiable concept with another is ludicrous. Even Berkeley's idealism (which posits that the stuff of the world is but ideas) is consistent with physics. Physics doesn't require the idea of actual atoms to even work.

Give me some evidence atoms truly exist. All you'll tell me is a bunch of stuff in physics that would lead people to draw the generalization that some underlying subject exists. This is the same process you undergo when you assume all of the dynamic, separate forces in your mind suggest there is some coherent subject.

Quote :

"And while science in general and religion can be said to share many qualities, there is one key difference between them; science asks you to observe the world around you and then attempt to draw conclusions from those observations, while religion asks you to simply "have faith" in a pre-determined conclusion, even in the face of contradictory evidence."

Science in the constructive sense. You'd have a lot more credibility in your reply if you didn't display flat-out ignorance of what I typed in my first post. Go back and reread. This isn't a critique of science, but what I call science in the pejorative sense.

Quote :

"Science can (currently) neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods, but it does ask you to assume that they exist."

No, and it shouldn't! But some scientists would tell me to believe in the atom, and science can neither prove nor disprove the actual reality of such a thing! This is my criticism, and this is the ridiculousness with some members of the scientific community. Science has incorporated too many hocus-pocus lines of reasoning from religion itself!

Again, if you hadn't flown through the thread to the 'post reply!' button, you would have had a better shot.

Quote :

"Try again."

Wow what a snarky little comment! I hope you realize that to anybody who actually read and understood the original post, you look ridiculous. Try and comprehend a position before you criticize it. The reason you gave such a short, snappy response is because you are probably incapable of formulating a cogent reply (I doubt you can even properly restate my position).

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 8:31:28 PM

i actually like this soap box thread

12/1/2006 8:44:42 PM

Goddamnit, I made a serious typo.

Quote :

"Science can (currently) neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or gods, but it does not ask you to assume that they exist.""

But hopefully you knew what I meant anyway.

Quote :

"science can neither prove nor disprove the actual reality of such a thing!"

It sounds to me like you've fallen into the trap of sollipsism (sp?). You're basically saying "how do I know that anything I see or experience is real? If I have to question what I experience, how do I know that you actually exist? And how do I know that your ideas are really valid, or that they're really mine? How can I truly 'know' anything?" Since nobody, not even yourself, can answer such a question, you assume that it must mean that anything goes. Any explanation is valid, and therefore for one group to claim that their way is the "truth" is wrong.

What you have to understand is that science ignores the sollipstic question entirely. It is a waste of time to ponder whether or not our experiences and our interactions are "real." What matters in science is that we look at these various interactions and see if they correllate somehow. So what if life is but a dream? It's pretty damn consistent one in terms of the universe's operating parameters, that's for sure. And there may be several interpretations for how these interactions correllate, but none of them are necessarily "right" or "wrong." Some interpretations just fit more observations and interactions together than others. Other times one interpretation may explain one set of phenomena, while the other interpretation may explain another related set, but neither does a good job of explaining both (eg Newtonian physics explains macroscopic behavior but fails at explaining nanoscopic behavior, while quantum mechanics is great at explaing nanoscopic behavior but utterly pointless for explaining macroscopic behavior).

You're falling into the trap of trying to classify explanations in terms of right and wrong, when really that's not how it works in science. There are no "wrong" explanations per se, just bad ones. You could come up with a really neatly planned-out explanation that unifies all the fundamental forces together, but if it ignores Conservation of Energy it will never be seriously accepted by anybody who is worth his/her credentials. It isn't a wrong explanation, but if it does not follow conservation of energy it would probably make predictions that would wildly differ from other explanations that have been tested over and over again and have failed to yield any significantly different result.

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 9:27 PM. Reason : blah]

12/1/2006 9:03:31 PM

Whoa whoa whoa slow down. I'm not taking the position of skepticism at all. I do assert that there is a real, external world. I suggest reading the original post again with a more careful eye -- I'm definitely not taking a skeptical position to the external world.

Your entire post seems to misunderstand this point, so most of what you've typed is irrelevant. However, I'll respond to some of the pertinent stuff.

Quote :

"You're basically saying "how do I know that anything I see or experience is real?"

Incorrect. There is obviously apparent forces at play in the world. Why should I accept that it is matter, the subject that 'acts,' when it cannot be scientifically shown?

Quote :

"What you have to understand is that science ignores the sollipstic question entirely. It is a waste of time to ponder whether or not our experiences and our interactions are "real.""

This is the point I'm trying to make. Science should stick to the apparent world. In formulating the atom, it makes a metaphysical projection. The silliness of this is that it smacks of moral objectivism, and it then turns around to combat its intellectual forefather - religion (although only science in the pejorative sense does this).

Quote :

"You're falling into the trap of trying to classify explanations in terms of right and wrong, when really that's not how it works in science."

Am I? I'm simply suggesting that science stick to science (this is called science in the constructive sense in my post, if you bothered to read it closely enough).

12/1/2006 10:21:41 PM

scientists are more like mechanics than philosophers

you complete waste of intellectual space

12/1/2006 11:01:43 PM

a. After reading that I really don't get what the argument is exactly.

b. We have nuclear reactors and bombs, we have particle accelerators and all kinds of other shit. Are you saying it's all just bullshit? That's definitely what it seems like..

c.

Quote :

"Atoms still don't explain action at a distance. They also presume an actual, inaccessible 'actor' in the situation. How is this scientific?"

Maybe I'm just retarded, but what in the hell does this mean? I can't even make sense of it.

12/1/2006 11:06:27 PM

he's an idiot

he has NO fucking clue about what he's talking about

much of the modern world, the awesome technology that we love, is here because of significant advances in quantum theory over the last hundred years

he wouldn't even be able type this nonsense out if it wasn't for the understanding how how systems interact on the quantum level

12/1/2006 11:09:37 PM

Quote :

"scientists are more like mechanics than philosophers you complete waste of intellectual space"

This sounds like a great excuse for scientists being ignorant of the scientific method.

Quote :

"b. We have nuclear reactors and bombs, we have particle accelerators and all kinds of other shit. Are you saying it's all just bullshit? That's definitely what it seems like.."

I'm saying that there are obviously apparent forces at work. The projection of these into the unverifiable is unwarranted. The true nature of the substance is a metaphysical question.

Quote :

"Maybe I'm just retarded, but what in the hell does this mean? I can't even make sense of it."

Action at a distance is stuff like gravity. What it means is that just because there is an action, it doesn't mean there has to be some metaphysical 'doer.'

Quote :

"he's an idiot he has NO fucking clue about what he's talking about"

Well I sure did piss you off, didn't I, sunshine?

Quote :

"much of the modern world, the awesome technology that we love, is here because of significant advances in quantum theory over the last hundred years"

Quantum theory balances without presupposing matter. What we call the apparent forces that have been assumed to be subjects doesn't matter. Making unfounded assertions about them does.

Quote :

"he wouldn't even be able type this nonsense out if it wasn't for the understanding how how systems interact on the quantum level"

Nonsense in what way? You further no argument to even begin to suggest that this argument is wrong. Instead you act smug, misinterpret, insult, and make a general ass out of yourself. I doubt you carefully read the original post, and if you did, I seriously doubt you could simply restate my position.

I don't deny the predictions and calculations of the apparent forces. Stop acting like I do.

12/1/2006 11:20:57 PM

mcdanger do you believe there is life on other planets?

[Edited on December 1, 2006 at 11:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2006 11:23:55 PM

I don't see how that's relevant to this thread.

12/1/2006 11:39:08 PM

sorry...i was just kinda wondering if like there is life on another planet(cause common sense would lead one to believe there is), like are those beings covered by the same god or what

what do religious peoples say about life on other planets

12/2/2006 12:13:00 AM

Quote :

"Try and comprehend a position before you criticize it. The reason you gave such a short, snappy response is because you are probably incapable of formulating a cogent reply (I doubt you can even properly restate my position)."

I wouldn't be surprised since, as I said, it was poorly worded. Seriously, the whole thing looks like an overblown attempt to appear scholarly.

Anyways, what's the gripe? Scientists don't know why some things happen so they make up shit like gravitrons and luminiferous aether (200 years ago) to explain them? That's unfortunate, but I wouldn't call it religion.

12/2/2006 12:17:08 AM

Quote :

"I wouldn't be surprised since, as I said, it was poorly worded."

How so?

Quote :

"Seriously, the whole thing looks like an overblown attempt to appear scholarly."

It surely would to those who rushed through it and failed to comprehend.

Quote :

"Anyways, what's the gripe? Scientists don't know why some things happen so they make up shit like gravitrons and luminiferous aether (200 years ago) to explain them? That's unfortunate, but I wouldn't call it religion."

It surely isn't science, and it supposes metaphysical entities that cannot be confirmed or denied. It does so with the religious frame of mind, the frame of mind that projects a 'doer' and a 'law.'

Go back and read it again. You did not understand it. I worded it clearly, it's not my fault that you can't sit yourself down and read it seriously.

12/2/2006 12:21:23 AM

I think McDanger is the dumbest smart-guy I've ever encountered on TWW. Basically, he has no common sense. He thinks if he uses obscure language and inflated vocabulary that it will make up for his total lack of coherent thought.

12/2/2006 1:08:03 AM

a lot of useless people do that

and he doesn't come off as particularly intelligent

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 1:23:21 AM

as far as gravity

plenty of people have seen Gods work

12/2/2006 1:28:16 AM

as far as gravity

there's an interesting guy named Einstein who came up with a really nice theory about it in 1915 called General Relativity

if you want to understand it better, why don't you go study that

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 1:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 1:30:16 AM

Quote :

"I think McDanger is the dumbest smart-guy I've ever encountered on TWW. Basically, he has no common sense. He thinks if he uses obscure language and inflated vocabulary that it will make up for his total lack of coherent thought."

That's helpful. However, you still seem unable to add to the discourse. The thoughts are quite coherent. Nowhere do I use vocabulary inflated beyond the lowest possible needs. If you think any words I used in that article were inflated, I feel bad for you. If you also think that any of my arguments are hard to understand, why not ask for clarification of those points? Yet another complete idiot who refuses to attempt to understand my position, yet feels entitled to criticize it/me. Religious indignation.

How many posters will post their opinions in this thread while simultaneously being unable to even restate my position properly?

Quote :

"as far as gravity there's an interesting guy named Einstein who came up with a really nice theory about it in 1915 called General Relativity if you want to understand it better, why don't you go study that"

There's also a problem reconciling this with quantum theory -- a unified theory would be better to evaluate along these terms. However, how exactly would this solve the problem of what lies beneath the phenemona, exactly?

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 1:35:45 AM

wow, thanks for stating the obvious

geez, you just want to sit there and stare at your navel forever huh

UHH, WHAT'S THE UNDERLYING CAUSE FOR EXISTENCE ANYWAYS... DUHHHHHHHHHHHH

give me a break

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 1:39 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 1:37:55 AM

Quote :

"wow, thanks for stating the obvious"

Is it so obvious, seeing as how many people have assumed a solution?

Quote :

"geez, you just want to sit there and stare at your navel forever huh UHH, WHAT'S THE UNDERLYING CAUSE FOR EXISTENCE ANYWAYS... DUHHHHHHHHHHHH give me a break"

Quite a lot of intellectual tradition has been dedicated trying to figure out just exactly what the world is. The current consensus is as much a fraud as anything else. Does this change anything about the reliability of physics? Of course it doesn't.

Does it change everyday life? Of course it doesn't. However, it's important to understand these issues, because when people go too far in their supposed knowledge, they start to make silly assumptions. Why is it that you're okay with religious, superstitious guesses being made under the guise of 'science'?

12/2/2006 1:45:26 AM

you're not even saying anything

it's like BLAH BLAH BLAH

why don't you take this effort you put towards convincing everyone that you know whats going on and actually go STUDY the things that people have done

you roll up in here explaining how you know how to calculate Feynman diagrams or become an expert in Riemannian geometry, and then maybe you'll be able to actually impress someone

12/2/2006 1:49:51 AM

Quote :

"you're not even saying anything it's like BLAH BLAH BLAH "

Your inability to understand what I'm saying is your fault, not mine.

Quote :

"why don't you take this effort you put towards convincing everyone that you know whats going on and actually go STUDY the things that people have done"

I have, and am doing so. These are mostly copied from the notes I'm preparing for a paper -- a paper I received a grant to write.

Quote :

"you roll up in here explaining how you know how to calculate Feynman diagrams or become an expert in Riemannian geometry, and then maybe you'll be able to actually impress someone"

First of all, I'm not seeking to impress anybody on these boards. This is simply a chance to discuss some of these topics -- I merely raised the issue. Your painful ignorance, combined with your inability and your predisposition against learning anything about this issue has set you off into shitting on this thread. It's truly hard to comprehend being on your side of stupid.

Your childish tirade only serves to demonstrate your absolute lack of comprehension. Read the original post and participate or waste your time somewhere else.

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 1:57:26 AM

don't dodge the fact that you don't want to spend your time on anything HARD

fine, please continue spewing intellectual diarrhea, pseudo-intellectual

it's no skin off my back

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2006 2:00:15 AM

Quote :

"don't dodge the fact that you don't want to spend your time on anything HARD"

This stuff isn't hard? What does that say about your intellectual ability, then, seeing as how it's completely beyond your comprehension?

Quote :

"fine, please continue spewing intellectually diarrhea, pseudo-intellectual"

All intellectuals appear pseudo-intellectual to the envious anti-intellectual.

12/2/2006 2:02:21 AM

i'm sorry dude

you're not an intellectual

the sooner you get that notion out of your head, the closer to "reality" you'll be

12/2/2006 2:03:46 AM

How am I not? I'm working on contemporary issues in philosophy. Just because it's not something you like means nothing. By all means, continue to make an ass out of yourself. Ignorance is 'cool.'

12/2/2006 2:05:56 AM

ahahahahah

i'm just being an asshole

but you do sound silly

but whatever, unless you're one of the great ones, most people talking about philosophy sound silly

12/2/2006 2:07:00 AM

Quote :

"i'm just being an asshole"

No shit you are. This kind of shit should be fucking bannable in the soap box. Way to shit on what could have been a good conversation -- I would have thought an older member like you would know better. It's like this place demands good discourse, but then cannot fucking stop itself from shooting each opportunity in the ass.

Quote :

"but you do sound silly"

All things sound silly to the person unwilling to listen, unwilling to learn, unwilling to comprehend. If anything in this thread sounds silly its your repeated attempts to derail it.

Quote :

"but whatever, unless you're one of the great ones, most people talking about philosophy sound silly"

All great philosophers start somewhere -- and many of the great ones sound silly. I'm sure you wouldn't know this though, because you more than likely haven't read much of it.

12/2/2006 2:15:54 AM

le sigh

oh well...

12/2/2006 2:17:09 AM

Well thanks for your insightful, helpful contributions to this thread.

12/2/2006 2:23:03 AM

Don't feed the troll. Well, here are my problems with the wording and content:

-The opening purpose to say that "modern science is abused in the debate against religion" isn't clear.
-I see scientists as people explaining the universe the best they can, not as crusaders trying to purposefully supplant conventional religion for their own half-baked ideas.
-I didn't think an intro and conclusion was necessary since the body was one section with four short paragraphs.

-All defined terms end with ", what" for some reason.
-You give two definitions for "science".
-I don't know the meaning of the sentence fragment "A projection of the subject upon reality."
-Talking about atoms doing things and having freedom is confusing.
-Concerning "science infected with moral residue", what part of guessing at natural laws involves morality?
-I'm not sure what a "skeptic of religion" is, or why a priest is one.

-If science was so affected by religion, why didn't scientists just explain everything with "God did it"?
-I don't see how even the most harebrained explanations for natural laws involves religion. Making up gravitrons or whatever doesn't involve a higher power or worshipping an entity; it's simply a postulation about about the properties of the natural universe.

-What sort of "true science" do you propose to explain gravity, 'action at a distance', etc.?
-Where did "atoms versus souls" come from?
-If you think atoms are fanciful, what are we made of?

[Edited on December 2, 2006 at 2:47 AM. Reason : --------]

12/2/2006 2:46:29 AM

Quote :

"-The opening purpose to say that "modern science is abused in the debate against religion" isn't clear. "

Isn't it qualified once I gave a critique of science in the pejorative sense?

Quote :

"-I see scientists as people explaining the universe the best they can, not as crusaders trying to purposefully supplant conventional religion for their own half-baked ideas. "

This takes a bit of tracing the root of the mistake. I'm supposing that the need to suppose a subject behind an action supplants apparent reality with a sketch.

Quote :

"-I didn't think an intro and conclusion was necessary since the body was one section with four short paragraphs."

Stylistic choice, I suppose -- I felt like though it was short, I wanted to provide a clear structure for the reader.

Quote :

"-All defined terms end with ", what" for some reason. "

Borrowed a philosophical convention I like.

Quote :

"-You give two definitions for "science". "

Science in the pejorative sense and science in the constructive sense. I split up science into science 'done right,' and the science abused in propping up somebody's preferred metaphysics.

Quote :

"-I don't know the meaning of the sentence fragment "A projection of the subject upon reality.""

When a subject views reality, he projects the idea of a coherent subject, or agent, behind the apparent forces he perceives.

Quote :

"-Talking about atoms doing things and having freedom is confusing. "

The concept is -- if there are truly natural laws, then the suspension of these laws would allow the atoms to act freely (i.e., not in accordance with those laws).

Quote :

"-Concerning "science infected with moral residue", what part of guessing at natural laws involves morality? "

The part where agents follow a law. The concept of natural laws, which reality 'conforms' to.

Quote :

"-I'm not sure what a "skeptic of religion" is, or why a priest is one."

A catholic priest would be an islamic skeptic.

Quote :

"-If science was so affected by religion, why didn't scientists just explain everything with "God did it"?"

Because this is a bad explanation, and provides little in the realm of accurate predictions (something science is expected to give).

Quote :

"-I don't see how even the most harebrained explanations for natural laws involves religion. Making up gravitrons or whatever doesn't involve a higher power or worshipping an entity; it's simply a postulation about about the properties of the natural universe."

It's a metaphysical notion. It's using the apparent forces in play, and then supposing from these apparent forces some sort of metaphysical, inaccessible substance.

Quote :

"-What sort of "true science" do you propose to explain gravity, 'action at a distance', etc.?"

There are great phenomenalist explanations of gravity, even the Newtonian account is great in the sense that it gets a lot of predictions right. When the atom is brought into play, that system of metaphysics seems unable to explain it.

Quote :

"-Where did "atoms versus souls" come from?"

A symbol of mechanism versus theism in modern debate. Atheists versus theists, in many senses.

Quote :

" -If you think atoms are fanciful, what are we made of?"

What I can tell you is that we consist of apparent forces. I see no real reason to explain myself in a coherent notion, in the sense that I have some metaphysical being that acts as a subject.

12/2/2006 3:44:39 AM

Quote :

"What you have to understand is that science ignores the sollipstic question entirely. It is a waste of time to ponder whether or not our experiences and our interactions are "real." This is the point I'm trying to make. Science should stick to the apparent world. In formulating the atom, it makes a metaphysical projection. The silliness of this is that it smacks of moral objectivism, and it then turns around to combat its intellectual forefather - religion (although only science in the pejorative sense does this)."

Then your point is rather.....pointless. Even IF you are right (and I do not believe that you are) and concepts such as the atom are "metaphysical projections," so what? They are helpful models that we use to explain the behaviors of the universe that we happen to witness. Are you saying that the concept of an atom is metaphysical because we cannot see it with the naked eye alone? Are you saying that gravitational fields do not exist simply we cannot see the fields?

THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THESE MODELS. We can't see these things unaided, we have to observe/measure them indirectly. Even then, all we're really measuring is their effects, which may or may not be visible to our naked senses (you can't see a gravitational field, but you see that mass is attracted to other mass). So what if things such as the atom or "forces acting at a distance" are self-imposed illusions? They are illusions that help our limited minds comprehend how things really work. They are just like the old mythological tales of how the gods first created the world, except that they are backed up by evidence.

That's about as far as I can argue, because I'm honestly not 100% sure what you're getting at. I think you're saying that scientists shouldn't try to come up with explanations for stuff if it isn't immediately perceivable or even immediately intuitive. But that's a pretty stupid point to argue from because science is all about trying to model and explain the unseen. And honestly, I am starting to get the impression that this thread really is one big philosophical circle-jerk.

12/2/2006 8:02:26 AM

if any thread could be an analogy to masturbation.....this is it

12/2/2006 9:23:51 AM