Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree with you on all points. However, if you delve into scientitic concepts of extreme complexity such as quantum mechanics, the interpretation of the evidence presented leads to extremely complicated disagreements on the fundamental mechanics of the theory. For instance, quantum mechanics has over 25 different interpretations, including: "many worlds interpretation", "Copenhagen interpretation", "quantum information theories" and the list goes on. For theories, in which empirical evidence is observable at the macroscopic scale (in fields such as evolutionary biology, for example), it is much easier for scientists to interpret the evidence in a relatively similar manner. This is obviously not the case in fields like quantum mechanics.

There is no "however". There have been dozens of failed hypothesis in every area of science, that there is uncertainty at the fringe is hardly surprising, and hardly any sort of critique of the method (or description of it's limits). I feel that I'm going to have to mention that I'm a bit of a positivist - at times- and while I see post after post assigning limits to this or that I haven't seen you make any case for whatever alternative you prefer for whatever subject. No amount of "but -a- can't do so-and-so will ever make -b- a viable option. That's work you'll have to do yourself (and I'm willing to bet you'll use reason - and back up your proposition with tangibles and evidence...such as above).

I can't think of a single moral question(let alone an important moral question) that has already been answered to my satisfaction, btw. Feeling "not knowing, feeling, try not to confuse the two) deep down that you -should- do such and such does not even begin to offer an explanation for whether or not you -actually- should do such and such, or why you should do such and such. I think that a more solid conceptualization of these things would be as far from superfluous as knowledge could possibly be.....given that any -you should do this- is only as strong as the -because- that follows it. It would seem to me that in morality, as in science, it isn't only the answer that counts - but the method in which one arrives.

"You shouldn't slap your brother because pixies cry when you do it"
-There are no fucking pixies you shitwit - proceeds to slap the brother who tried to sell him the pixie story-

"I really feel that I've done nothing wrong"
-Duly noted, we the jury find you guilty on all charges and remand you to the custody of the state-

I could go on and on.