Natural Order and Science

[robvalue]

It's like how the holy books were self correcting. If someone wrote that a guy had gone to talk to an angel for 20 years, and then someone pointed out that actually there's no evidence that happened at all, they'd have just corrected it. "Guy goes missing for 20 years. May have been hallucinating. Allah be praised."

[I_am_not_mafia]

You are talking about “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction” that mechanism is called conscience which is part of every person by nature.

Actually fuck knows what he's talking about ...

[robvalue]

He's trying to say everyone has a conscience, even though they don't.

Simplistic religious explanations can't account for nuance and variation. Instead, they ignore any contradiction or just say those "don't count".

If instead you look to actual real explanations, it becomes much clearer.

[I_am_not_mafia]

He's trying to say everyone has a conscience, even though they don't.

Simplistic religious explanations can't account for nuance and variation. Instead, it ignores any contradiction or just say those "don't count".

If instead you look to actual real explanations, it becomes much clearer.

You can understand religious-ese quite well. Have you ever considered becoming a professional translator? I am sure some secret government agency could make use of your skills.

[robvalue]

That would be a good new thread actually. Translations of common things theists say.

"God moves in mysterious ways": "I concede the argument, but somehow I still win"

"Science doesn't apply to everything": "I'm making claims with no evidence to back them up"

"God knows what is best": "God agrees with me"

"Morality is objective": "I don't know what morality or objective means"

[little_monkey]

The inbuilt mechanism comes from having empirical evidence supporting the theory. Any theory that is supported by empirical evidence means that anyone in the world can verify your theory if that evidence is objective, observable and based on experiments that are repeatable. Through this process, a theory can be corrected.

Sorry, I thought he was referring to some natural phenomenon having some kind of designed inbuilt mechanism of self correction.

If he's disputing that science is self correcting then he really does not understand what the scientific method is and really is quite ignorant.

 Harris believes that an individual's conscience is a substitute for how science can be corrected. But an individual's conscience can be stubborn and never open for any correction, in particular, for an individual who believes that his religion is inerrant. In that case, there is no way the individual can correct his beliefs... unless he totally abandons his inerrant beliefs, which happens very very rarely.

[Harris]

May I have your empirical evidence and jackpot theory on “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction?”

500 years of science.

What you are saying is before 500 years of science great nations were living without “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” Does not it sound weird?

Secondly, there is no precise empirical evidence neither any jackpot theory in your generalised response.

On the other hand, conscience is a common subjective experience in all humans except if someone has not corrupted it utterly. Like common human emotions and feelings, it can easily be verified through psychological methods and therefore, it is fit for an empirical evidence.

Science is not capable to explain subjective experiences therefore it can neither give a crackpot theory nor a jackpot theory for “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” This mechanism can only be explained either by religion or by philosophy.

[Harris]

Sorry, I thought he was referring to some natural phenomenon having some kind of designed inbuilt mechanism of self correction.

If he's disputing that science is self correcting then he really does not understand what the scientific method is and really is quite ignorant.

 Harris believes that an individual's conscience is a substitute for how science can be corrected. But an individual's conscience can be stubborn and never open for any correction, in particular, for an individual who believes that his religion is inerrant. In that case, there is no way the individual can correct his beliefs... unless he totally abandons his inerrant beliefs, which happens very very rarely.

It is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. Conscience is a common and original inner voice that is free from any contamination of human desires. However, one can supress this voice for the sake of accomplishing his desires. It is just like empathy which is an original inner quality that is common in all humans but one can overwhelm this intrinsic feature for the sake of his pleasure as Stalin, Hitler, … had done.

Every man in the world who is capable of beating woman or raping a child can commit such merciless crimes only by killing his conscience and empathy for the sake of his pleasure.

[little_monkey]

500 years of science.

What you are saying is before 500 years of science great nations were living without “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” Does not it sound weird?

No, that is the historical reality. There were two periods when the scientific method was discovered - first, the ancient Greeks (circa 300 BCE), and then the Muslims during the Golden Age of Islam (circa 900 CE). But in both cases, there was no continuity, no next generation to carry on that idea due to political turmoil, and so it died out. It was revived during the Renaissance that took place in Italy in the 16th century, and then spread out throughout Europe, then finally to the world. 

Secondly, there is no precise empirical evidence neither any jackpot theory in your generalised response.

Empirical method was clearly outlined in a previous post. It is a method to investigate evidence that is objective, observable and can be repeated by any other individual or team of people such as lab experiments. 

On the other hand, conscience is a common subjective experience in all humans except if someone has not corrupted it utterly. Like common human emotions and feelings, it can easily be verified through psychological methods and therefore, it is fit for an empirical evidence.

The terrorist who've just attacked in Brussels were also acting on their conscience. I think you are very unwise to think that conscience is the measure of all things, when it is the least that anyone should trust. You should heed the words of the great physicist Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science is not capable to explain subjective experiences therefore it can neither give a crackpot theory nor a jackpot theory for “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” This mechanism can only be explained either by religion or by philosophy.

Again, subjective experiences are the least thing you should trust. It leads to wars, rapes, massacres, atrocities -- the worst that we see in humanity.

It is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. Conscience is a common and original inner voice that is free from any contamination of human desires.

Total nonsense. Conscience is what you acquired from your parents, teachers, culture, etc. It is heavily influenced by the environment in which you grew up. And so your conscience is a reflection of what you have learned,what you have been exposed. And in some cases, your conscience can be a very dangerous thing. Ask the terrorists from ISIS what their conscience are telling them.

[robvalue]

Wrong again.

Some people are born without a conscience or the ability to develop a conscience. This isn't a matter of opinion. I know you have to convince yourself that they started with one and it was somehow broken, because of your religious beliefs. But you're simply wrong.