Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Science is not based on repeating the same thing twice (a classic tautology). It's based on a continual accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing.

As stated earlier science is more often based on the most plausible fictional story explaining the observed phenomena. Over time that story is refined to better and better stories. But the simple fact and limiting principle of science is it does not determine actual or causality. Regardless of our explanation of what is happening (which may be actually what is happening or may not be but describes what we observe) what is truly happening will continue to do so as it always has. Admittedly the story is continuously tested and revised with a better story should one come along, but do not be mistaken in asserting that story necessarily describes what is actually happening when in truth if it does it is really just a coincidence. This is not to say the story is not useful or that we do not endeavor to intertwine stories across multiple fields.

As it happens I am an advocate of the correspondence theory of truth. At the same time I must recognize what Kant states:

"(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object. The ancients called such a circle in explanation a diallelon. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. (...)"

While Kant is stating truth may not be given in terms of the correspondence of knowledge to the object. I am of the view the base level of truth must be able to give explanation to the rudimentary knowledge of the object which flows directly from perception of it. But that is a long argument for another thread or time.

At one time, I was (as many atheists were) somewhat religious. My family background is both protestant and catholic, so I have experience with both. Overall, not bad experiences, although I've never found religion particularly useful. Some may, and it may have utility, but that's different than debating the veracity of its claims.

Quite frankly, if we had the sort of society that produced good critical thinkers, the utility that religion may have right now, would probably evaporate.

I don't need myths to compel me to behave myself, treat others kindly, etc. Maybe some people do ... and in those cases, they (along with society) probably do benefit to some degree from religion. But anyway, as I've said, I'm not really interested in battling religion. I am interested in a more egalitarian and intelligent society that uses an evidence based approach to formulating public policy. What people do on Sunday's is their business.

As far as religion goes I have not argued much of it. I have argued mainly in lines with realist philosophy. I recognize religion is useful to some and not to others and fully expect those who find it useful to use it and those who do not to discard it (though they may pick it up again when they think it will be useful. I believe the saying is every man finds faith at the end of the game!).

Hmm. If you have been following this thread it may turn out in the end you do need myths and imaginary friends to behave yourself and be nice to people. Let us see where this thread goes . Since you have made no argument to the means by which you act morally I may either say it is likely along the same lines of Benny and Nestor (in which case imaginary friends abound) or it is in some manner which I have yet to hear or conceive of where imaginary friends are not required. Feel free to share.

In regards to the society of egalitarian intellectuals. I do not think this society would be as ideal in truth as it is in fiction. Take for example the very subject of mercy/compassion. The truth is mercy is an injustice. It is to give more to the one without mercy (the merciless?) than they deserve. From an intellectual standpoint it is foolish to give to more than is deserved to that which is undeserving of it. It is smarter to eliminate the needy from society than to endeavor to make them productive. It is far more logical to compel their productivity than to hope for it. In short a state of intellectuals is quick to utility and slow to humanity. History has shown as much in the various atheistic communist societies which have and do presently exist.

And I also don't dispute the contention that science has been wrong, it's been abused, etc. The good news is, when we discover mistakes, we fix them, because we have no boogeyman who we think we'll anger by going against its fictitious doctrines. Unlike religion, we don't live by words like "immutable" in science, for precisely this reason. Basically, you're basing an attack on science on precisely the feature that makes it so awesome, which with all due respect, is sort of ridiculous (especially for someone who has a science background). As far as how science is used by industry or governments or whatever, this isn't really a scientific problem, this is a social problem. My personal philosophy is based on anti-authoritarianism. And under that construct, I agree with most of what you said, I just think your grievance is misdirected. Unfortunately, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. We depend on the society we live in for funding and eventual application of our work. But then, looking at the destructive creations of science, it's a very long conversation. Just think about the creation of the atom bomb. We were fighting the Nazi's on one hand and imperial Japan (who bombed Pearl Harbor) on the other. For all intents and purposes, it was basically the US (and tiny Britain) against the world. We did what we had to do. It wasn't pretty ... some may argue (post hoc) that some of the things we did wasn't necessary, but to expect perfection under such circumstances, is just absurd. So I would defend science on that count.

For clarification I have no grievance. I am a fan of science (I would not have studied it otherwise) and I am well aware that misappropriation of humans to their own ends is not a reflection of science anymore than it is a reflection of a religion. My point was to show that when one focuses on the negative aspects and argues to discard the whole thing because of it there is far more justification in discarding science As previously said. Defense will be made by blaming something other than science. I would expect the same treatment of misappropriation of religion. Misapplication is not a religion problem it is a social problem.

Regarding anti-authoritarianism there is a lesson I learned a long time ago. My father bought me a cool glass figurine that I wanted of a dragon (I was like 10). However, he would not give it to me until I had researched and study the history of glass making, artistry, and the labor and time it takes to make that figurine. After I had done so he gave it to me under one condition that I would do what he said with it next. Naturally I agreed and he told me to smash it. Then he asked me what I had learned. I told him nothing. He told me, "What you have learned is that it takes years if not centuries of effort, study, and skill to make something so beautiful and valuable. And any idiot can just come along and smash it. So do not be so quick to smash things. First understand how and why it was made. Then you are more likely to appreciate it for all its flaws than to render it utterly useless by smashing it."

With regard to transcendent experiences or whatever, sure, maybe you can have a great experience (toss in some Gregorian chants and a little incense, I can see where one would feel like they're having a spiritual experience). Obviously this can be easily explained with conventional psychology and neuroscience, but nonetheless, if people enjoy these experiences, then they should enjoy them (and they have every right to do so). I enjoy an occasional jog (and if you run long enough, you do get a nice endorphin rush, which sort of feels transcendent .... if you want to phrase it that way).

Ha ha. I am not talking about the warm and fuzzies. In which case eat a lot of chocolate. I am talking the transcendental nature of reason itself (which I know you know is more than just warm fuzzies; but I enjoy the caricature). I believe the quote is as follows:

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." - Oliver Wendel holmes