Elton John: ban organised religion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
science has nothing to do with god. scientific theorems exist only because they have not yet been disproved. as long as newton's laws have not been disproved, they are seen as fact. god cannot be proved or disproved, therefore its not science.

Exactly.

People like Perfection worry me, as a scientist, because it shows that many of those who claim to be intellectuals, don't actually know what science is.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Umm, can you come up with a scientific experiment about gods existence? I can tell you that none has been developed as of this time.

No, and that is a big reason why I don't believe (all others having to do with scientific epistimology as well). Since it is not good as a theory in the realm of science it is not good at all. I contend that scientific reasoning is the only useful epistimology and since God fails tests of science it therefore should be discarded.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Scientific reasoning that isn't based on science is worse than useless. Science works, what you can scientific reasoning, where it isn't based on science, doesn't always. And is prone to errors of the worst sort (like the whole africans being inferior thing from 100 years ago).

Scientific reasoning that isn't based on science doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Creationists at least don't claim science. People like yourself do, and I think are the ones most likely to disrupt science... and ****** it's practice.

Well, the creationists I've met certainly claim science. As for myself I don't see how using scientific reasoning as the sole epistemology is detrimental to science.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Perfection

No, and that is a big reason why I don't believe (all others having to do with scientific epistimology as well). Since it is not good as a theory in the realm of science it is not good at all. I contend that scientific reasoning is the only useful epistimology and since God fails tests of science it therefore should be discarded.

Note: I'm just talking out of my arse here, and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Is it possible that under the proof system of the scientific method, God is neither provable nor disprovable?

[Jon Miller]

Quarks weren't a good theory in science a hundred years ago.. the ether was a popular theory.

Just because there is no experimental evidence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Similiar is true of String Theory now, many physicists beleive it is true, despite no experiment that can currently be formulated to prove or disprove it.

You are claiming things in your posts as being 'scientific reasoning' but you aren't basing them on science. This is what pisses me off. It delutes what something being scientific means. Then someone can say something, and claim it to be scientific, but not have it based upon experiment or obsersavation/etc.

Then you have things like skull shape denoting personality, or rockets being shaped the way they are because of scientists mostly being men.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Perfection

Scientific reasoning that isn't based on science doesn't exist.

But you have been claiming things based upon scientific reasoning that isn't based on science.

Which goes with my claim. Which is what you are claiming is a misuse of the words, and a misuse of science.

Many creationists view it as creationism versus science..

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
People like Perfection worry me, as a scientist, because it shows that many of those who claim to be intellectuals, don't actually know what science is.

I am aware that giving scientific reasoning the property of being the universal epistemology does not fit well with the idea of science being one thing here and religion being this seperate thing over there, however, I do consider it to be a valid notion. I can see how one is worried because it appears to blur the line between religion and science that has existed since science was formed in the way we see it today, however I think by holding this view the major consequences are not particularly disruptive on science (except possibly through religious backlash) but instead is extremely damaging to religion which would lose all credibility.

[Jon Miller]

Huh? Did you even read and understand what I have written?

I explained it multiple times, maybe I need to again?

First, please read and reread what I have written.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Note: I'm just talking out of my arse here, and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Is it possible that under the proof system of the scientific method, God is neither provable nor disprovable?

Most definitely (and I would say that it currently is), however under such a scheme it renders the notion of God useless.

[Jon Miller]

To give you a hint, the posts that have flown completely over your head are these:

13-11-2006 00:27 (note that this one doesn't even mention god)
12-11-2006 23:45
12-11-2006 23:44

JM

[Winston]

Hmm, why don't you try arguing the point whether love exists or not, under the same premise that Perfection seems to be so fond of.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Quarks weren't a good theory in science a hundred years ago.. the ether was a popular theory.

Quarks wasn't a theory in science a hundred years ago. One could not say "Quarks don't exist" because there was no concept of quarks. This is important, theories should follow evidence not the other way around. Notions of God differ because they are now evidence-less theories.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Just because there is no experimental evidence, doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Similiar is true of String Theory now, many physicists beleive it is true, despite no experiment that can currently be formulated to prove or disprove it.

Experimental evidence isn't the only currency in science. String theory has some credence because it is an analysis of the patterns of certain physical laws. God on the other hand does not have this limited credence.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You are claiming things in your posts as being 'scientific reasoning' but you aren't basing them on science. This is what pisses me off. It delutes what something being scientific means. Then someone can say something, and claim it to be scientific, but not have it based upon experiment or obsersavation/etc.

That is the exact opposite of my message. What I am saying is that if someones says something, and claims it to be true, but it is not based upon experiment or obsersavation/etc then such a claim should be dismissed as erroneous. It's merely an extension of the results of scientific analysis.

[Flip McWho]

Science is fundamentally tied to the natural universe, that universe of energy and matter. If God is supernatural, then science can have nothing to say about God.

[Jon Miller]

I agree Flip.

Originally posted by Perfection
Experimental evidence isn't the only currency in science.

It is what makes it science. If you get away from observation and experiment, you get into logic games and philosophy (and theology). Which is not science. You get things like: africans being genetically inferior to caucasions, skull shape determining personality, and even the earth being flat.

All these things seemed logical (the proper name for what you call scientific reasoning) to some people at some point in time. None of these things was ever scientific.

And in logic, most everything is wide open to speculation and discussion. Including god(s) existence (yes, even the Christian God). Go and argue there if you will, claiming that your conclusions are in any way scientific is a bold faced lie.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But you have been claiming things based upon scientific reasoning that isn't based on science.

I have been claiming things that are basd on science and scientific reasoning, it just goes against a currently accepted limitation of science that I view does not exist (that is that science can dismiss unevidenced nondisprovable claims as false).

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Many creationists view it as creationism versus science..

True, but many don't.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Perfection
Most definitely (and I would say that it currently is), however under such a scheme it renders the notion of God useless.

But then, by the incompleteness theorem (note again that I don't understand it, I'm still talking out of my arse), if he is neither provable nor unprovable, then he is existent and true!