Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Mister Agenda]

Nope, it's not. Forming a theory about a subject without firm evidence is exactly what we're doing. Not impossible at all.

Since we're talking about science, it's a bit confusing to use the word 'theory' in the colloquial sense of 'educated guess' instead of in the scientific sense of 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation'.

---

"according to a 2003 Cornell survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of god, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution directed toward “ultimate purpose.”

What is fascinating is that these are supposed to be the people who are in "the know", the most brilliant scientific minds on the planet. Why do you think those numbers are not 100% for all?

Because, humans.

---

I think science will continue, just as it always has, to change our opinions of reality based on the findings/evidence.

Sure it will. The question is why should we think it will change our opinions along the lines you predict?

---

People have asked, so I have shared my opinions. What I have gathered is that many here have seen no evidence of ID based on their experiences, wherefore they assume anyone who claims to have experiences otherwise is full of shit.

What IS your personal evidence for ID? Sorry if I missed it, a post number will do. I have trouble imagining what would constitute personal evidence for ID, unless you witnessed someone doing it, but that could easily be a lack on my part. But I can't think of anything you've said that constitutes even personal evidence of ID, just vague 'I've done a lot of research' statements.

I suspect you really meant personal conclusions. Your personal experiences are your personal experiences, they're only bullshit if you fabricate them. Your interpretation of them can be discussed critically, of course.

---

I would refer you back to what you seemed to get regarding QP and say that the results of those experiments sway me toward neutral monism. Also gene expression studies and psychoneuroimmunology studies make me think that assuming mind and matter are seperate is not going to lead us to a comprehensive understanding of either.

I don't think anyone here who isn't a theist thinks mind and matter are separate, let alone assumes it. We tend not to be dualists, though we also tend not to discount that it may be possible.

[downbeatplumb]

I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

Ah the old "scientists have been wrong in the past" argument. Gotta love a classic.
Science changes as the body of evidence grows but it is only reasonable to believe the best evidence available at the time.

How long till "scientists lie, what about Piltdown man" comes out to play?
Which was uncovered by scientists checking the facts by the way.

[Surgenator]

How long till "scientists lie, what about Piltdown man" comes out to play?
Which was uncovered by scientists checking the facts by the way.

Her arguments are not the typical creationist variety but closer to new age flavor. So I don't expect any Piltdown man arguments from her. I expect more of 'quantum mechanics spookiness leads to universal consciousness' type of argument. However, I have been wrong before.

[Mr Greene]

Ok, so I'm going to try to respond to much of your posts at once...

First, I never claimed to have expert knowledge of any of these fields of inquiry, only that I've done my share of reading. In fact, if you read the article I posted "The Truth", you will see I admitted that I'm not omniscient, wherefore I'm humbly ignorant regarding "the truth".

I do believe that many of you probably have more expertise in these fields than I do, which is helpful, but does not convince me that any of you are any less ignorant of "the truth" than I am.

The way I see it, we have learned a bit about the stuff that makes our reality. We have learned through experiments in classical physics, chemistry and biology that things are correlated and we have made predictions based on this that have been reliably accurate when looking at those things in that context. But, the way I see it, this is metaphorically like knowing what's written in the first section of a book. I may have only memorized what's written on the first few pages while you may have memorized the first chapter. Neither of us can claim we know the whole of the book. We also don't know if what we've concluded based on the first section is going to be an accurate conclusion once we've read chapter 3 or 4.

That's the way I feel about the topic we're referring to. Claims that I don't understand physics are silly, because really, if we're generalizing all of physics, neither do you. Quantum physics, astrophysics, all those unknowns... Simply skimming the beginning of the metaphorical 'chapter 2' is leading me to assume there is a lot more, a lot, lot more that we have yet to experience and learn. And yes, I do think that "consciousness" is going to be a big part of this.

The focus of my studies has always been "consciousness" and the role it plays in our existence. When I refer to the concept of ID, that is all I'm referring to is the role consciousness plays and yes, I do believe we have, and will find more evidence of it's role through experiments using the scientific method....

So, saying that you have found no convincing evidence that consciousness/"intelligence" plays an important role in the functioning of our existence implies to me that you've explored all of what science has revealed to date and have formed your opinions as such.

So, what do you know about consciousness? What have you concluded regarding it's origins, it's influence, the role it plays? What about those 'chapter 2' revelations confirms what you previously assumed?

And again with the Deepak Chopra style "Quantum Mechanics" & "Consciousness" woo...
As stated this rings all sorts of alarm bells being well known 'Argumentum ad bullshitum"...



Essentially all data processing goes through the nervous system which first began to evolve in the Jellyfish about 580,000,000 years ago.
If you don't think the brain can handle the data processing for consciousness you have woefully underestimated the brain's capabilities.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've been trying to think of a succinct way, SS, to encapsulate my thoughts on your position - and our now communal metaphor. In response to the argument of "what if the unknown unknown"-

That would require that some here-to-for unobserved effect - which rubs against what we do know of how such effects are or could be achieved be discovered. Further, that some arrangement allowing for that effect (with all of it;s ported problems) be discovered - as we've never seen consciousness "create" a brick wall under it's own steam - and we aren't exactly at a loss as to explain why we haven't seen that. Then, finally, if we weren't already scaling the cliff - we'd have to observe a consciousness entirely unlike any consciousness we've ever had any experience with, not in any way bound by or subject to the quirks that -every single example of consciousness- is bound by and subject to. And then, finally, after finding all of that -just to make it possible- we'd have to show, somehow, that it was not just something that said consciousness could do - but that it -did do-.

Now, back to our metaphor. You think that "chapter 2" is going to contain all of that (and I could probably imagine alot more qualifiers if I spent any time at it - but that's all you get for now) -at the least-.......when chapter 1 says "Nope to all of the above -even in principle-" ? To me, that sounds like a hell of a longshot. We'd have to be utterly wrong about...well...just about everything, before we even approached a place where your position was "sort-of" right. If we had a dollar to bet, we could make trillions - but I think we'd just lose our dollar. None of this, mind you, irks me. You;re free to wonder such things. Claiming that anything in our body of scientific knowledge supports even the loosest reading of your position - however, is aggravating. It doesn't - and you haven't even begun to make that argument - which you've been repeatedly asked to make. You've made a claim of -if not knowledge, damn near knowledge - and when we turn over the rock....there's nothing there.

Is my position a little more clear in your mind after that?

[Whateverist]

Why don't you let Rhythm respond for himself? The "we" is misused in this statement. Unless you and Rhythm share a mind? Now that would be interesting...

We are the Borg. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

As convenient as such a reading may be, I'm afraid that other posters have already bled the stone for all it's worth.

Jesus .. now you've done it. You've bled a man's stones. Hope you're satisfied with yourself, dogmatic agnostic bully.