Posts: 145
Threads: 11
Joined: September 16, 2012
Reputation:
6
When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am
It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.
If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.
To think that your own thoughts really are true is irrational.
Ex:
If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:
a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design
If I assume (a) then it is rational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks really is true since an intelligence placed them there. It is rational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.
However, if I assume (b) it is irrational to believe that the message spelled out by the rocks is true. They just happen to look like a message, but they really aren't a message. It would be irrational to believe that I really am entering Orlando.
Given atheism, if your own cognitive abilities have evolved, they have evolved with the aim of survival. On this system calling your conclusions "true" seems arbitrary and irrational....an act of blind faith.
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: February 13, 2012
Reputation:
16
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 7:06 am
Oh god.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 7:07 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 7:10 am by Faith No More.)
Umm...no. One of the main reasons I am an atheist is that I am well aware of the unreliability of my cognitive abilities. Any notion that I have experienced the divine would be dismissed as a result of that unreliability. It is theists that rely too heavily on their mental faculties thinking they can determine the difference between errors in the brain and feeling the presence of god.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1298
Threads: 42
Joined: January 2, 2012
Reputation:
32
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 7:07 am
Your example is awful. The logic that applies to an obviously man made grouping of rocks (the creation of which is very probably documented) does not apply to the universe.
Atheism is not about thinking your own thoughts are true - it's not believing the claims of others regarding supreme beings. Most atheists (the ones on here at least) won't claim explicitly that the universe is as it is due to unguided processes, just that this explanation is the best one science has.
What you've done here is create a strawman for atheism as a whole.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 7:35 am
See, this is where you should apologize: for the strawman you just made of atheists. Get tis straight, we don't need science to disbelief the claims made by religionists, Its your perrogative to demonstrate and give evidence towards your god.
Posts: 19646
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 8:03 am
At first, I thought you were going for a brain in the vat argument, but then you took a left and crashed right into a strawman.... a not a very well made one at that...
Try to keep your eyes on the road!
Posts: 67453
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 8:50 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 9:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Yes Jeff, the word "true" is an arbitrary grouping of letters cobbled together by human beings -to describe a concept-. One could impeach our senses (the apparatus we use to assess things and assign this descriptive word) from multiple angles all day long and would still be no closer to an argument against atheism (or for god) than they were when they began. Amusingly, if you're going to argue against the reliability (in any measure, any amount) of our senses you are not arguing against atheism but all of human experience - including any god that humans may believe they have experienced. You are also in the unfortunate position of arguing against logic (how do you think we do the whole logic bit - in the absence of our senses?) by means of logic.
The bit about the rocks is meh, you should have stuck with
"but if, instead, we were intelligently designed to be able to distinguish what is true - blah blah blah"
Not that this would have helped you, because you'd still be stuck demonstrating that we were, in fact, intelligently designed. You might also want to provide some explanation as to why you feel that being able to ascertain what is "true" does not confer a survival advantage (assuming that our senses evolved for survival that does't preclude them from being able to ascertain what is "true", even if they aren't perfectly suited for doing so- something we are already well aware of), and as per all of the above, you might want to explain why (if our senses were designed as opposed to evolved, and they were designed with the purpose of ascertaining what is "true") we seem to be so horribly inept on that count in so many areas. We aren't in a very flattering position with regards to a design or designer and "truth" (and yes, I know we like to think of ourselves as some sort of pinnacle of this or that, but having better sensory apparatus than a slug does not qualify as "quality design").
Then, at the end of all of this, you do realize that "assume intelligent design" followed by a a knockdown demonstration of said design (which has never been presented..not by you...not by anyone), does not lead to "therefore god". All this design shit is an exercise in extreme futility.
(I have no idea why you didn't just link this argument and then weigh in with your own personal thoughts on the matter - I'm cutting you some slack, I don't always get a clean chord progression when I play my guitar either - this was a performance...right?)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6300
Threads: 78
Joined: May 14, 2011
Reputation:
82
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 8:55 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 8:55 am by Kayenneh.)
(September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: If I am driving down the road wanting to get to Orlando, FL and I see rocks on a hill near the road that spell out "Welcome to Orlando" I can either assume:
a.) the rocks were placed there by intelligent design
b.) the rocks rolled there by unguided processes and just have the appearance of design
Or you assume nothing and c) get a map and a GPS. Problem solved. 
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 9:05 am
(September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Given atheism, if your own cognitive abilities have evolved, they have evolved with the aim of survival. On this system calling your conclusions "true" seems arbitrary and irrational....an act of blind faith.
By your own logic such cognition as have caused you to think there is "something" in christianity is arbitrary and irrational, as is your pathetic attempt to defend it.
Now fuck off.
Posts: 2658
Threads: 121
Joined: March 19, 2012
Reputation:
27
RE: When Faith and Science Clash
September 20, 2012 at 9:15 am
You're right in saying evolution only cares about survival and not the truth. It reminds me of a 'scandal' that just happened at my church actually. Two friends of mine (guy and girl. The guy is a Biblical bookworm who preaches and quotes after the relevant verse off his head. The girl is a missions trip veteran) started going out and only a week later the guy proposed to her. A month later, us close friends found out that they actually had sex and the guy freaked out (you know.. hell and all that) so he proposed. That's the beauty of evolution for you right there.
The concept of 'god' lead them to having sex because they subconsciously saw each other as the perfect mate for passing on genes. You could say they were both 'Biblically fit' and 'spiritually healthy'. So the concept of 'god' played a role in the true reality of evolution. I always think that story is an anecdotal nail in the coffin for 'god'.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
|
