Elton John: ban organised religion

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
One more try. I agree that Occam's Razor is an important tool that is sometimes used to add insight as part of the reasoning used in the scientific process. However, it is not always right, it is not always used, and it is not a substitute for experimentation and observation.

I agree! However I say in cases where empirical evidence is equal it is okay to apply Occam's Razor. This includes the special case of no empirical evidence where Occam's Razor says that the absence of explanation works equally as well.

[Jon Miller]

You still aren't understanding. I give up. I clearly write what I mean, you quote it, and say something completely opposite (While saying you agree).

peace,
Jon Miller

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How is this at all relevant?

It's an illustration of when it is useful to use Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Err, you are really not understanding. I recommend you read some books about the history of science and basic logic, maybe I will discuss things with you again sometime.

I've read a little bit but admit that when it comes to logical analysis and the history of science I am no expert. Care to reccomend certain works?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You still aren't understanding. I give up. I clearly write what I mean, you quote it, and say something completely opposite (While saying you agree).

I think I under understand what you mean. Occam's razor does not override experimentation and observation which we both agree. My point is that when experimentation and observation produce results of equal validity Occam's razor can be used as a sort of intellectual tie-breaker.

[Elok]

It can be, but a victory by default ain't much of a victory. Like a bill which only passed by the VP's tiebreaker vote. Nor do I consider it adequate to counter my own experience with the divine, unscientific though it is...

[Jon Miller]

The thing is that you wish to use Occam's Razor when no experimentation or observation has occured, and call that scientific. A simple history of modern physics would show that has being foolish.

Sorry I don't have any books on hand, I would have to try to remember one..

Jon Miller
( I have lots and lots of physics books, which contain some history in them, but they are mostly physics books..)

[Jon Miller]

I am fine with you arguing (from a philosophical point of view) that you use Occam's Razor, and remove God's existence. I disagree, but that is another discussion.

When you say that it is scientific, or somehow more scientific. Then I have a problem with your statements.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok
It can be, but a victory by default ain't much of a victory.

Well, it's not a war. What I look for in science (and what I think science itself looks for) is to maximize explanitory power and minimize uneccesary theory I find that concepts of God are merely uneccesary theory and choose to ignroe them.

Originally posted by Elok
Nor do I consider it adequate to counter my own experience with the divine, unscientific though it is...

Trancendant experience is an emotionally charged irrational thing. To find the most intellectually honest model of reality you'll have to dispense with your irrational view. Most people simply can't do that.

[DaShi]

Occam's Razor is a good example of why I write aetheist.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The thing is that you wish to use Occam's Razor when no experimentation or observation has occured, and call that scientific. A simple history of modern physics would show that has being foolish.

I know a few things on modern physics, any concepts in particular.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
( I have lots and lots of physics books, which contain some history in them, but they are mostly physics books..)

Well, I got quite a few physics books too.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am fine with you arguing (from a philosophical point of view) that you use Occam's Razor, and remove God's existence. I disagree, but that is another discussion.

Let's for the moment discuss the philosphical usage of Occam's Razor, becuase certainly we have to agree that philosophical efficacy is required for scientific efficacy.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
Well, it's not a war. What I look for in science (and what I think science itself looks for) is to maximize explanitory power and minimize uneccesary theory I find that concepts of God are merely uneccesary theory and choose to ignroe them.

Trancendant experience is an emotionally charged irrational thing. To find the most intellectually honest model of reality you'll have to dispense with your irrational view. Most people simply can't do that.

If it comes to "intellectual honesty," would you like me to run you through the ol' basis-of-morality treadmill I've put everyone else through? You could be the first atheist (other than Kuci, who admitted it was fairly arbitrary IIRC) to give a consistent answer...

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok


If it comes to "intellectual honesty," would you like me to run you through the ol' basis-of-morality treadmill I've put everyone else through? You could be the first atheist (other than Kuci, who admitted it was fairly arbitrary IIRC) to give a consistent answer...

I'll admit it is quite arbitrary, as well.

Morality seems to come through this inborn altruistic desire in conjunction with societal pressure. People seem to want to do good just for the sake of doing good, and societal pressure reinforces this idea.

When it comes to pactical application it really comes down to a partially irrational comparison of set of ideas holding them up to arbitrary moral standards.

Lucky for us though, humans share a fair amount of moral standards so we can get along decently most of the time.

[Flip McWho]

Sometimes it sucks living in this time zone.

So to sum up again:

I pretty much concur with Jon Miller.

Science is inherently about the natural world. If God is supernatural than science can say nothing about the existence or non existence of God.

Science can however be used to verify or not claims made about God.

Note, I don't believe in the existence of a God at this moment given my current understanding.

[Flip McWho]

To expand.

If I posited the existence of a Being that was omnipotent, omniscient and non-interventionist, could science say anything about this God at all? Afterall, everything would appear as it is and non of those claims about the nature of God are refutable with science.

Some claims made about God are, such as God is the God presented in the story of genesis. Genesis is false, and science has proven this, thus the God as depicted in genesis is false too.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
If I posited the existence of a Being that was omnipotent, omniscient and non-interventionist, could science say anything about this God at all?

I'd say yes, it would say that as a thoery it is useless and thus should be dismissed.