If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism

[Tart]

I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...

And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...

I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)

But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...

Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...

To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....

So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...

(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 105 by Tired of the Nonsense]

When a believer declares that God exists, and has existed eternally, THAT is theism. When an atheist claims that matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and that the universe, including humans, are composed matter/energy, THAT is scientific observation. Notice the difference between the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by theists, and empirical observation employed by science (and many atheists). If that isn't clear enough, try using your cell phone to inquire whether or not Jesus has returned from the dead yet (working technology based on empirical scientific observations, versus make it up and declare it to be true). Notice that the phone, at least, works as promised.

Of course one does not have to be an atheist to observe and comprehend the implications of E=MC² -- the law of conservation of energy-- quantum mechanics. But scientific observation and atheism have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to go hand in hand. The 2,000 year old empty claims of theists demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to be the result of blind faith and abject unwavering gullibility.

When a believer declares that the universe was created by a spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism, which has existed eternally, THAT is atheism. When an theist claims that matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and that the universe, including humans, are composed matter/energy, THAT is scientific observation. Notice the difference between the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by atheists, and empirical observation employed by science (and many theists). If that isn't clear enough, try using your cell phone to inquire whether or not the multiverse exists (working technology based on empirical scientific observations, versus make it up and declare it to be true). Notice that the phone, at least, works as promised.

Of course one does not have to be an theist to observe and comprehend the implications of E=MC² -- the law of conservation of energy-- quantum mechanics. But scientific observation and theism have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to go hand in hand. The 10,000 year old empty assumptions of naturalists demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to be the result of blind faith and abject unwavering gullibility.

see, works as well both ways doesn't it? although I would not chose to include all the derogatory ad hominem parts. I think atheists are perfectly intelligent & capable of critical thought, I certainly like to think I was as an atheist for many decades.

The actual substance of this point is that the universe is balanced on a vast array of very finely tuned mathematical constants and algorithms, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws+ lots of time and space to randomly bump around in as once believed. And that all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it, had a specific beginning that presents a very interesting question, not 'eternal - so don't even ask how it was created'

Whether this was an accidental creation of the flying spaghetti multiverse, or simply designed that way is a good question, that's why we are all here- no insults required- that only concedes the emotional component behind either position

Christians have declared that not only is evolution false, but that scientists themselves have largely given up on the idea.

Ken Hamm has depicted dinosaurs in his "Ark Experience" as existing alongside humans, collected by Noah and family as instructed and taken onboard the ark.



Some Christian groups are going even further, by declaring that the existence of dinosaurs in an ancient past that never existed are nothing more than a fabrication; a conspiracy concocted by God hating scientists.

CHRISTIANS AGAINST DINOSAURS
Ban them from school books: Christian groups says dinosaurs a lie

A woman who posted an anti-dinosaur rant on social media said she wants to see the U.S. school system stop teaching children about dinosaurs. She, and a group she's part of, don't think they ever existed and believe teaching about them is harming kids.
By CADbot -December 22, 2016
https://www.christiansagainstdinosaurs. ... saurs-lie/

Believers are undertaking a concerted effort to repudiate modern science. Why? Because modern science so often undermines religious beliefs. It is not the intention of science to undermine ANYONE's beliefs of course. Science is simply trying to understand how things work through detailed observation. It is the detailed observations that are at fault. Because detailed observation overwhelmingly tends to undermine religious assertions.

Faced with an avalanche of scientific observations that undermine religious assertions, the response by the religious has been to declare that anything they choose not to believe has been faked. It's all a conspiracy to undermine their beliefs organized (somehow for some reason) by atheist scientists with a unified agenda, in a concerted effort to distort the truth and undermine religion.

Meanwhile, these same religious scientific doubters enthusiastically avail themselves of the latest technological advancement science has to offer, while at the same time disparaging the very science, which they generally do not understand anyway, that allows the technology to work.

The result has been an erosion of the acceptance of Christian beliefs in modern society. The US has dropped from being 90% Christian in 1997, to about 70% today. A change of 20% in just twenty years. At the current rate of change the US will be predominantly composed of the non religious by the middle of this century. Much of Europe is already at or above the 50% secular mark already.

So, believers are feeling squeezed, and are lashing back in the only way they know how. By denying the truth of that which they do not understand. But the wave they are facing is unstoppable. Because supernatural explanations were always nonsense, and the more extensive, and sophisticated, our knowledge becomes, the more obvious it becomes that superstition was little more than make believe all along. The more we understand about the workings of the universe, the more that stories of a giant floating zoo, hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves... and a flying reanimated corpse... seem little more realistic than stories of flying reindeer.

Believers commonly declare that their religion will never die. But history is littered with "dead" religious beliefs. Because when believers die, they take their beliefs with them. But well founded scientific observations remain constant.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 111 by Tired of the Nonsense]

We are all fans of science, the problems arise more with the opinions of scientists- these are often diametrically opposed to each other.

Remember arguably the greatest scientific observation of all time, that the universe did in fact have a beginning, very much undermined atheist beliefs at the time. As do many of 21st C observations that are taking us beyond outdated 19th C Darwinian assumptions- I would argue

doubters enthusiastically avail themselves of the latest technological advancement science has to offer, while at the same time disparaging the very science, which they generally do not understand anyway, that allows the technology to work.

The amazing technology we are using now depends on breakthroughs like electricity, powered flight, computer technology..

Thomas Edison was home schooled, The Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Bill Gates flunked college... nobody called them 'scientists' they were too busy actually employing the method to be attaining mere academic authoritative labels..

many 'scientists' meanwhile were pushing human evolution based on piltdown man, phrenology, Eugenics, global cooling- what did these contribute to modern technology? What does the ToE contribute to the lives of theists or atheists?

Here is a very stark example for you.

100 years ago Russian farmers used observation, repeated experiment, careful measurement, application of hypothesis to feed much of Europe. The word 'science' or 'scientist' was never applied... until Stalin came along, replacing farming practices with 'scientific ones' MILLIONS starved to death in the following years , more than every religious conflict in the entire history of humanity combined.. all in a very short space of very recent history.

We all know and love the scientific method, but science the political/academic authority is something entirely different and very much needs kept in check by free thinking people.

I don't agree with Richard Dawkins or Ken Hamm, most of us are somewhere in the middle of both extremes- any extreme belief can be dangerous- especially when we forget they are merely 'beliefs'

believers are feeling squeezed

believers in what?

Again belief in Darwinian evolution stands at about 19% in the US according to Gallup, as part of the 81% skeptical of this minority belief, I can't say I feel particularly 'squeezed' !

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 112 by Guy Threepwood]

Again belief in Darwinian evolution stands at about 19% in the US according to Gallup, as part of the 81% skeptical of this minority belief, I can't say I feel particularly 'squeezed' !

You're referencing a 2014 Gallup poll:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/bel ... igins.aspx

and stating only one number from it. Here is a more complete description:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... onism.html

which also references the same Gallup poll. And Wikipedia also have an article on this issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution

Look at the first figure in this Wikipedia article which shows acceptance of evolution by different religious groups in the U.S.

The U.S. is largely a Christian country and in Europe there is far less belief in creation stories and religion in general. Muslim countries are another exception and I expect many of those residents blindly accept whatever is in the Quran. But one point made in the first link above is that your 19% number in 2014 was just 9% in 1999, and younger people are far more likely to accept evolution than older people. The trend is clear, and more people are accepting scientific explanations with evidence to support them, such as evolution, and less the supernatural being explanations.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 113 by DrNoGods]

The U.S. is largely a Christian country and in Europe there is far less belief in creation stories and religion in genera

Well of course, many fled Europe for religious freedom in America.

Which also quickly became the world leader in practically every scientific field you can think of

coincidence?

on age, yes I believed in Darwinian evolution when I was taught it in high school also, along with global cooling and that oil was going to run out by 1999. I'm old enough that my physics teacher still didn't accept the Big Bang either.

And young people are more likely to pick Justin Bieber over Paul McCartney, so that tells you all you need to know about their judgement

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 111 by Tired of the Nonsense]

We are all fans of science, the problems arise more with the opinions of scientists- these are often diametrically opposed to each other.

Remember arguably the greatest scientific observation of all time, that the universe did in fact have a beginning, very much undermined atheist beliefs at the time. As do many of 21st C observations that are taking us beyond outdated 19th C Darwinian assumptions- I would argue

doubters enthusiastically avail themselves of the latest technological advancement science has to offer, while at the same time disparaging the very science, which they generally do not understand anyway, that allows the technology to work.

The amazing technology we are using now depends on breakthroughs like electricity, powered flight, computer technology..

Thomas Edison was home schooled, The Wright brothers were high school dropouts, Bill Gates flunked college... nobody called them 'scientists' they were too busy actually employing the method to be attaining mere academic authoritative labels..

many 'scientists' meanwhile were pushing human evolution based on piltdown man, phrenology, Eugenics, global cooling- what did these contribute to modern technology? What does the ToE contribute to the lives of theists or atheists?

Here is a very stark example for you.

100 years ago Russian farmers used observation, repeated experiment, careful measurement, application of hypothesis to feed much of Europe. The word 'science' or 'scientist' was never applied... until Stalin came along, replacing farming practices with 'scientific ones' MILLIONS starved to death in the following years , more than every religious conflict in the entire history of humanity combined.. all in a very short space of very recent history.

We all know and love the scientific method, but science the political/academic authority is something entirely different and very much needs kept in check by free thinking people.

I don't agree with Richard Dawkins or Ken Hamm, most of us are somewhere in the middle of both extremes- any extreme belief can be dangerous- especially when we forget they are merely 'beliefs'

believers are feeling squeezed

believers in what?

Again belief in Darwinian evolution stands at about 19% in the US according to Gallup, as part of the 81% skeptical of this minority belief, I can't say I feel particularly 'squeezed' !

Believers are feeling squeezed, and threatened, by the unprecedented rapid rise in non believers. As well they should. When I first reach the conclusion, in 1961, that the Bible was too silly to be taken seriously, and that I was an atheist by default, I had never met another openly avowed atheist. As it turned out, I was simply ahead of the curve. Fifty plus years later, and non belief is now increasing by just about 1% per year in the US. Religious belief is experiencing an erosion that amounts to a free fall in the world's best educated countries. And that is largely because scientific observation (modern knowledge) is rapidly dispelling the old superstitious make believe of our ancestors. It's an unstoppable wave.

When I was a boy (early nineteen fifties) my mother and I enjoyed sitting out in the yard and looking at the stars on warm summer nights. It was possible to actually see the milky way back then. My grandmother would refused to join us because she believed that those occasional streaks in the sky (commonly referred to as "falling stars) were the flaming remains of souls cast out of heaven, and down to hell, for some heavenly infraction, and the sight upset her. That's what she thought was occuring because that is what she was programed to believe when she was a young girl in Arkansas. My mother explained that "falling" or "shooting stars" were actually bits of rock and debris burning up in the Earth's atmosphere. But my grandmother wasn't buying the notion of space debris. She had her beliefs, and she wasn't about to change them.

Because ignorance is a natural state. But as we grow up, and knowledge becomes more widely disseminated, ignorance should necessarily fade. At least for those for whom ignorance is an anathema. Some people actually prefer to hold on to their old childlike notions of reality, however.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 114 by Guy Threepwood]

Well of course, many fled Europe for religious freedom in America.

Which also quickly became the world leader in practically every scientific field you can think of

coincidence?

Are you trying to suggest that the scientific advances seen in the U.S. are due to the concentrations of Christians that are here? That is ridiculous, and certainly would indeed be a massive coincidence. Our government is a secular one (despite Eisenhower and other presidents adding religious phrases to our money and other things), and we have made advances in just about every subject you can mention including science. It has everything to do with our freedoms, the university systems we've built, the capitalist system which provides incentive, and all of that, and nothing to do with what religion people may practice. More Jews have won noble prizes than any other religious group I believe, and their worldwide numbers are miniscule (about 0.2% of the population, compared to 20-25% muslim and 30-35% Christian).

on age, yes I believed in Darwinian evolution when I was taught it in high school also, along with global cooling and that oil was going to run out by 1999. I'm old enough that my physics teacher still didn't accept the Big Bang either.

How does the state of knowledge whenever you were in high school, or what your teachers believed, have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Of course we know more now than we did then, and will know more in 30 years than we do now. Isn't that exactly what you'd expect?

And young people are more likely to pick Justin Bieber over Paul McCartney, so that tells you all you need to know about their judgement.

You're assuming that (and I happen to agree) that Paul McCartney is a far more accomplished musician and songwriter than Justin Bieber, and made far better music to listen to, but that is just an opinion. I never liked the Doors or the Who very much, but was/am a big fan of ZZ Top and Led Zepplin who my Dad thought created pure rubbish (he was a Sinatra fan). The McCartney/Bieber comparison is not at all relevant. The point was that younger people, who got their education more recently, accept evolution more so than older people, with the terms "younger" and "older" being relative.

I don't think the survey I referenced was referring to 12 year girls who may be Justin Bieber fans, but was describing the general trend that younger generations are accepting evolution at a greater rate than older generations, with "younger" referring to people in their 20s and 30s who are adults. It is this group who will be the "older" group in 20-30 years hence, and if they maintain their position your 19% number will be considerably higher. The trend is clearly moving in that direction, fortunately, as people see how silly and unlikely things like creation stories are, or magical gods operating in the background making things happen. Hopefully societies will outgrow these bronze age myths sooner rather than later.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 115 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Believers are feeling squeezed, and threatened, by the unprecedented rapid rise in non believers. As well they should. When I first reach the conclusion, in 1961, that the Bible was too silly to be taken seriously, and that I was an atheist by default, I had never met another openly avowed atheist. As it turned out, I was simply ahead of the curve. Fifty plus years later, and non belief is now increasing by just about 1% per year in the US. Religious belief is experiencing an erosion that amounts to a free fall in the world's best educated countries. And that is largely because scientific observation (modern knowledge) is rapidly dispelling the old superstitious make believe of our ancestors. It's an unstoppable wave.

When I was a boy (early nineteen fifties) my mother and I enjoyed sitting out in the yard and looking at the stars on warm summer nights. It was possible to actually see the milky way back then. My grandmother would refused to join us because she believed that those occasional streaks in the sky (commonly referred to as "falling stars) were the flaming remains of souls cast out of heaven, and down to hell, for some heavenly infraction, and the sight upset her. That's what she thought was occuring because that is what she was programed to believe when she was a young girl in Arkansas. My mother explained that "falling" or "shooting stars" were actually bits of rock and debris burning up in the Earth's atmosphere. But my grandmother wasn't buying the notion of space debris. She had her beliefs, and she wasn't about to change them.

Because ignorance is a natural state. But as we grow up, and knowledge becomes more widely disseminated, ignorance should necessarily fade. At least for those for whom ignorance is an anathema. Some people actually prefer to hold on to their old childlike notions of reality, however.

Thanks for sharing, seriously- that's not meant to be sarcastic!

It's intersting because I really had the opposite experience, you have a couple of decades on me so I will grant you that advantage!

But I was raised a staunch atheist, anything but strict materialism was verboten, I was as much a fire and brimstone atheist as Dawkins for many decades. I was likewise pretty rude and patronizing to people who did not share my 'intellectually superior' views- nothing like you fine folks here!

I am lucky to live where I did actually observe the Milky Way, stretching from one horizon to the other last night from my deck, with Andromeda clearly visible, I contemplated getting my telescope out for a quick peek at the 'pillars of creation' in the Eagle nebula.

My father and some teachers at school were still doubtful of the Big Bang as 'religious pseudoscience' . Many others firmly believed as Hawking once did, the the entire universe would go into reverse, and we would all crawl back into the womb- is that any more bizarre than your grandmother's beliefs? I dunno

Anyway even if being a theist is to feel 'squeezed' that does not change the evidence as I see it- yes it was pretty comfortable to be an atheist, & the alternative did seem fairly daunting at first- but what have all these feelings got to do with reality ultimately?

As I said, we all believe in something, and having changed my mind once already- I can prove just one thing:
My opinion on this is entirely unreliable!

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 116 by DrNoGods]

Well I am flabbergasted, I don't think there is any way to reconcile our opinions here, some positions are just too far apart to find common ground on-

I mean Led Zepplin?? Your father was right- you have to start listening to some Sinatra before it's too late

..but seriously I will respond to the rest of your thoughtful post, must run for now- I appreciate the debate..

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 118 by Guy Threepwood]

Are you trying to suggest that the scientific advances seen in the U.S. are due to the concentrations of Christians that are here? That is ridiculous, and certainly would indeed be a massive coincidence. Our government is a secular one (despite Eisenhower and other presidents adding religious phrases to our money and other things), and we have made advances in just about every subject you can mention including science. It has everything to do with our freedoms, the university systems we've built, the capitalist system which provides incentive, and all of that, and nothing to do with what religion people may practice. More Jews have won noble prizes than any other religious group I believe, and their worldwide numbers are miniscule (about 0.2% of the population, compared to 20-25% muslim and 30-35% Christian).

More due to the lack of atheists What I mean is that religious freedom goes hand in hand with freedom of thought, we have separation of church and state, to keep politicians out of religion, USSR did not have this and they got state enforced atheism, along with many other restrictions

How does the state of knowledge whenever you were in high school, or what your teachers believed, have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Of course we know more now than we did then, and will know more in 30 years than we do now. Isn't that exactly what you'd expect?

point being that of course more kids believe in evolution- that's what they are taught. go a little younger and you will find a strong consensus on Santa Claus also- that does not necessarily portent a tidal wave of adults still believing in Santa or Darwinism 30 years from now

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 119 by Guy Threepwood]

point being that of course more kids believe in evolution- that's what they are taught. go a little younger and you will find a strong consensus on Santa Claus also- that does not necessarily portent a tidal wave of adults still believing in Santa or Darwinism 30 years from now.

Well, I just turned 60 and was taught about evolution in high school (and told by everyone around me at home and by extended family to ignore it as it was all bunk ... I was surrounded by devout Christians, and the ones that are still alive, still are). And I believe evolution was taught in schools long before the 1970s when I was in high school. So I think it is safe to say that older people of today were exposed to the ToE when they were younger, just as the young people of today are, although there are (thankfully) more laws against things like school prayer now than when I was a youngster.

In any case, my prediction is that more people will accept evolution as the correct description of how life diversified on this planet going forward, to continue the current trends, simply because it is supported by overwhelming and consistent evidence. This evidence keeps coming, especially in the genetics realm, and there is no alternative theory that is seriously threatening to knock ToE off of its perch. Old religious ideas are fading away, as they should be, as more people become scientifically literate and see these myths for what they really are.