Fundamentalism and science

Relax wrote:..snip..

You do understand that your whole rant is a reflection of your own brand of fundamentalism which unerringly reduces complex topics to very simplified and dismissive "soundbites" so you can say that most people are stupid or wrong for believing x or y.

Joat42 wrote:

Relax wrote:..snip..

You do understand that your whole rant is a reflection of your own brand of fundamentalism which unerringly reduces complex topics to very simplified and dismissive "soundbites" so you can say that most people are stupid or wrong for believing x or y.

To make yourself feel better, you do understand that your own fundamentalism unerringly blinded you to even contemplate what someone wrote so you could dismissively make a throwaway punch line

I feel sorry for you. Does that help your emotional state since it would appear basic science is not helping?

See, labeling the other side as fundamentalist, is nothing but a strawman argument which technically is not name calling or slandering... when in fact it is.

Enjoy your own medicine? Your reply would say no.

gcomeau wrote:
Ok, yes if you presuppose your conclusion then you can apply logic given that presupposition and "logic out" things that are internally consistent with the presupposed conclusion. But you're just completely distorting the situation to act like the choices are "presuppose science" or "presuppose God" like those are two sides of a coin.

God is the conclusion religious believers want people to reach. Science is a time tested and demonstrated process for discovering knowledge. Those are not equivalent things.

The equivalent of "starting out with God" as the premise of a logical argument about God existing would be saying you're constructing a logical argument gravity exists and starting it off with "Ok, first assume gravity exists".

I mean from there you can construct any logical argument you want to "prove" that thing you adopted as a given as step 1.

And even if you're trying to say the alternatives are to assume science or assume god to explain other things about the world it still doesn't work. Because when you assume science that comes with rules. If science is assumed to be a valid way of investigating the world then there are things we expect to see if that is true and things we expect to see if that is false. So you can then test your scientific assumption. Which we have. For centuries. It keeps generating accurate verifiable information.

If you start with assuming God then *anything* can be claimed to be evidence that assumption is true and *nothing* counts as evidence that assumption is false. Absolutely any observation or result can be dealt with with "God works in mysterious ways" or "we cannot know the mind of God" or "God's powers are unfathomable and limitless" etc... making "God exists" absolutely and utterly useless as a premise if you want to explain anything about the world we live in. Because in explaining every possible thing with magic handwavium it explains literally nothing.

Which is why the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through science fills vast libraries and the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through religion is... literally zero. Ever.

Hi gcomeau,

Ah yes, the God of the gaps where the blank spots still left that science hasn't yet filled in, we substitute God...

Well I have good news for you... The God of the gaps was given his gold watch and sent into comfortable retirement a long time ago. Except among fundamentalists, no one with a mature theology uses God as a way to add to the knowledge of the universe. That is a scientific endeavor.

I will cheerfully concede your entire post about science. No problem with anything you have said on that regard.

But...

None of it has to do with either the existence or the non existance of God. You have demonstrated nothing.

For my part, I am willing to respect your right to your convictions. We share a common humanity. That makes us brothers, members of the same fammily. What I am seeking to do here is promote a mutually shared respect that allows us to dialogue without the heated arguments such arguments usually entail.

Don

-

Response to Relax, without pages of text.
Discussing our changing climate, and the many influences on it is really a whole different topic, that would require more space.
However, just to discuss (hopefully briefly) the core notion of your comment that those who agree that industrialised mankind's actions are a significant driver, tend to either be fundamentalists or cynically users of this to drive new technologies, I'll say.
I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels anyway, because of a dwindling supply, and the limitations of the technology. I can't see how Apollo 23 missiles could be powered by coal fired steam kettles, is one simplistic but true view. Another way to look at it is that my car uses less fuel than its predecessor but is faster, while my solar panels have meant no bills for 13 years. So new technology can benefit all of us.
On the other hand I also know that we have to address this problem, because it is serious, and real. Not a blindly fundamentalist view, but after careful consideration of all the research. Much of what you have listed is from fringe sites and has been disproved. It would take much more space than even you used to address this. While at University around 1970 we were already looking at this, and much real research has been done since. The quoted 2% temperature rise seems insignificant, however it is the amount of energy overall in the environment that will lead to problems.

Relax wrote:Why? Most people do not enjoy naval gazing as 1) their naval is often ugly and 2) do not have the time to devote towards determining perfect truth on which to base everything. So instead wave a hand at things they truly do not want to discuss. Note, I said WANT.

I dunno, I quite enjoy naval gazing. The Kiel Week is quite the spectacle.

Atheists believe with fundamental unwavering conviction that everything came from nothing and that every order we see today came from chaos... even though science tells us the opposite is true. Naturally, they believe science is their foundation... even though their foundation tells them they are wrong. Go figure.

Let me stop you right there and ask for a citation. "Atheists believe ... that everything came from nothing"? Where do you get that from?
I, even as an atheist, can't speak for all atheists, but I don't believe that. I believe that our current scientific understanding of the early universe isn't deep enough to make any firm statements about what the universe was like pre-Big Bang, but that's explicitly not a belief that "everything came from nothing" - Rather, it's a shrug, meaning that we don't know now and may not ever know what precisely happened back then.

As for "every order came from chaos": You don't understand what chaos means.
Like, flat out. What you mean by "chaos" is a big tangled heap of randomness, whereas what that actually is is a big tangled heap of intermixed systems interacting with each other based on unknown initial states.
The universe, at least in large scales, is deterministic: If you know all the starting conditions, you can apply known rules and extrapolate future states - the problem is that we can't nail down those starting conditions with the required precision, so it looks like randomness to us.

So, naturally, the first thing that happened after the balloon testing was done is the AGW's Fundamentalists changed the name from AGW to climate change. Why? AGW clearly cannot be proven by science and claiming so makes you look like an illiterate science denier as the evidence shows a null. So instead we will call it "climate change"... Which has no definition and that way we can ALWAYS be right even as we throw out the thermometer data in rural areas and keep city data even though we know city island heating effect increases with increasing population, increasing urbanization, and increasing power consumption per capita. Sure, lets keep that data, that way we can manipulate it to our hearts content and call it "corrections" as if someone in the 1880's cannot read a thermometer to within 0.2C let alone 1C. Oh right, once we grab the reigns of funding, due to politicians being closer to realists instead of Utopians, as the end of oil/ng is nigh and we need a new source of power(True), we can then quietly change the definition of climate change to mean --> AGW which was resoundingly deflated by their own predictions. We just won't bring up that very basic SCIENTIFIC fundamental fact anymore... But hey, while we are at it, lets label everyone else anti science denialists... Oh the Hypocrisy is ripe.

Do you expect Science to get everything right the first time? It seems like you do. It seems like you're expecting scientists to never change their understanding after coming to initial conclusions, as if they were some sort of religious cult.

You don't understand science, friend.

How did the AGW's fundamentalists gain political power? Simple, there is no opposition to speak of as the opposition is not on a religious crusade, but rather a pragmatic one which sees the fact that Oil/NG/coal are running out and geopolitics for your way of life dictate you need Energy to survive.

Hmm, yes, climate change activists have political power greater than the combined might of the world's energy companies of various stripes.

Yeah, that definitely is the world we live in. Poor Koch brothers, so feeble, none of their money can buy any influence these days, look at them being reduced to crying themselves to sleep in their beds made of money that they can't spend on anything.
Look at them tremble, as those Scientists at those Universities that control everything laugh in their faces.

So, where are most fundamentalists located in power? Ivory towers(higher education centers) across the globe as they do not have to actually produce a viable product valuable to everyone else in everyday life,

Yes, fundamental research with no immediate productization attached has literally never helped anyone. There's no need for new research, the patent offices are closed, noone's going to make any breakthroughs worth anything, just shut it all down.
So sayeth Relax, a person who just doesn't understand what science is.

but here this is not quite true as scientists/engineers all see oil/ng/coal running out and want funding for new projects be it private or public so neither side will complain about funding such projects. But where do more fundamentalists reside on a national basis? Europe, who has run out of Coal, oil, gas before anyone else and wish to preserve their way of life. Europe who sees this gigantic energy IMPORT bill come due every day of every month of every year and know damned well that this import bill effectively makes them serfs for those who have said energy and NO ONE likes being a serf/slave/beggar. This also coincided with the USA's own gigantic import bill of energy until VERY recently(shale oil) so most in the USA were more than willing to go along with the ruse.

Hmm, seems to me we should be looking at alternative energy sources and usage paths. Like renewable energy, electric cars, more public transit to reduce public energy use, more nuclear plants to serve baseload needs, stuff like that.

Funny how we're doing most of that, instead of insisting that our lives must remain the same, regardless of environmental concerns.

The rest of the world on this issue? DO not give a damn, they just want refrigeration and a car. Spoiled food and walking are getting droll. If temps rise 2C, they do not give a damn if it means they do not have to walk the 2m up to higher ground and they get better food and do not have to walk that short distance uphill while the rich boys at tidewater have to move.

"The rest of the world" means "Just the US". Not even, it's "Just the parts of the US that don't think climate change is real".

Relax wrote:To make yourself feel better, you do understand that your own fundamentalism unerringly blinded you to even contemplate what someone wrote so you could dismissively make a throwaway punch line

I feel sorry for you. Does that help your emotional state since it would appear basic science is not helping?

See, labeling the other side as fundamentalist, is nothing but a strawman argument which technically is not name calling or slandering... when in fact it is.

Enjoy your own medicine? Your reply would say no.

Why should I contemplate what you wrote? It was basically a rant saying "you are all wrong and I'm right!" with no room for debate since you reduced all other viewpoints to simplistic caricatures so you could ridicule them.

You set the tone, so be an adult and deal with being dismissed because of it.

n7axw wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Ok, yes if you presuppose your conclusion then you can apply logic given that presupposition and "logic out" things that are internally consistent with the presupposed conclusion. But you're just completely distorting the situation to act like the choices are "presuppose science" or "presuppose God" like those are two sides of a coin.

God is the conclusion religious believers want people to reach. Science is a time tested and demonstrated process for discovering knowledge. Those are not equivalent things.

The equivalent of "starting out with God" as the premise of a logical argument about God existing would be saying you're constructing a logical argument gravity exists and starting it off with "Ok, first assume gravity exists".

I mean from there you can construct any logical argument you want to "prove" that thing you adopted as a given as step 1.

And even if you're trying to say the alternatives are to assume science or assume god to explain other things about the world it still doesn't work. Because when you assume science that comes with rules. If science is assumed to be a valid way of investigating the world then there are things we expect to see if that is true and things we expect to see if that is false. So you can then test your scientific assumption. Which we have. For centuries. It keeps generating accurate verifiable information.

If you start with assuming God then *anything* can be claimed to be evidence that assumption is true and *nothing* counts as evidence that assumption is false. Absolutely any observation or result can be dealt with with "God works in mysterious ways" or "we cannot know the mind of God" or "God's powers are unfathomable and limitless" etc... making "God exists" absolutely and utterly useless as a premise if you want to explain anything about the world we live in. Because in explaining every possible thing with magic handwavium it explains literally nothing.

Which is why the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through science fills vast libraries and the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through religion is... literally zero. Ever.

Hi gcomeau,

Ah yes, the God of the gaps where the blank spots still left that science hasn't yet filled in, we substitute God...

Yes... that is the God of the Gaps.

No, I wasn't really talking about that.

None of it has to do with either the existence or the non existance of God. You have demonstrated nothing.

I wasn't trying to demonstrate anything about the existence or non existence of God. As clearly stated "god exists" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and thus even discussing it as a proposition is pointless.

It can make for an entertaining fictional narrative, but it will never rise above that. No matter how emotionally invested a great many people get in the primary character of the story.

Relax wrote:I find the "fundamentalism" debate rather droll, humorous.

Fundamentalism is alive and well in All faiths, be it Atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

I'm curious. As atheism is defined only by a single proposition... not possessing the belief a deity exists... and it has no doctrines or teachings... how exactly does one adopt "fundamentalist" atheism?

Science(logic) is a tool; nothing more. It is a method for determining how things work. It does not create said things to begin with. [

Atheists believe with fundamental unwavering conviction that everything came from nothing and that every order we see today came from chaos...

The kind of absurd over simplified strawman I usually see from religious fundamentalists discussing atheism. But surely that is not you... oh he who who is here to mock fundamentalism?

Look no further than the AGW theory for fundamentalism.

Oh for cripes sake... I'm going to snip a lot of this silliness.

So, naturally, the first thing that happened after the balloon testing was done is the AGW's Fundamentalists changed the name from AGW to climate change. Why?

Mostly because idiots thought "global warming" meant if anywhere on earth wasn't getting warmer it wasn't happening.

Most certainly not because of the silly claim it can't be proven to be happening since global average temperatures have been steadily increasing and this is easily measurable.

As for the rest of your rant, labeling physics supported by the MASSIVE majority of all subject matter scientific experts "fundamentalism" is just... wow.

gcomeau wrote:

Relax wrote:I find the "fundamentalism" debate rather droll, humorous.

Fundamentalism is alive and well in All faiths, be it Atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

I'm curious. As atheism is defined only by a single proposition... not possessing the belief a deity exists... and it has no doctrines or teachings... how exactly does one adopt "fundamentalist" atheism?

Ah, but Atheism does have doctrines and teachings. Atheists just deny that they do. It is Atheist base doctrine to refuse to acknowledge they exist as that is one of their fundamental doctrines and beliefs. Atheists pretend there is not an organization which has a book of their teachings... But there is an organization(s) that does.

1) Atheist doctrine: They define what is right/wrong
2) How then can Atheists square creating a society without complete anarchy if everyone is God? Tyranny of the 51% majority as proscribed by governmental power.
3) Leads to, Atheists creating their organization of doctirnal teachings in Government. No such thing as individualism.
4) Therefore Atheists(vast majority of them) always vote to increase government as it makes them feel "safer" of their doctrines. If it feels good do it baby, you only life once.
5) If Atheists did not have such core doctrines etc, then they would be all for private education using public tax dollars as the money is for the children. But they don't. Not one single Atheist is for this.

5a) Why? Because government is the pantheon of Atheism and it must teach their children. And surely since they are right and everyone else is wrong, then they must religiously crusade to convert eveyrone's children.

5B) Why? Atheists go into government, Christians do not for the most part as base doctrine of the two religions creates very different results.

5C) Atheists love spreading their religion just like any other religion, the difference is since they tend towards government jobs, they also see the need to push it there as well.

5D) End result: No Atheist will allow government funds to go to non Aethist organizations, it would dilute their preachings of dogma where they congregate and hold the power.

6) End result, Atheists take over government and push their principles, doctrines, beliefs, all the while pretending, they do not have doctrines, dogma, preachers, as they all in unison shout they are not an organized religion as their 2nd commandment, where their first commandment is no one can tell me what to do.... other than the 51% tyranny of the majority... but only if the 51% are Aethists of course...

Daryl wrote:On the other hand I also know that we have to address this problem, because it is serious, and real. Not a blindly fundamentalist view, but after careful consideration of all the research. Much of what you have listed is from fringe sites and has been disproved. It would take much more space than even you used to address this. While at University around 1970 we were already looking at this, and much real research has been done since. The quoted 2% temperature rise seems insignificant, however it is the amount of energy overall in the environment that will lead to problems.

Are you seriously going to play make believe that heat from the tropics is not pushed to the poles and this is actual science? Uh... every single climate scientists disagrees with you...