Rather appropriate video regarding religion and certain issues, especially now that the Singapore police have decided to subdue laughing at religion in Singapore.
Bill Hicks Proposes; But Stephen Colbert Disposes. The Solution to Creationism's Dinosaur Problem. For an in-depth look at Creationism
actually, you cannot "prove" dinosaurs existed as living animals, since all we can see are big bones that scientists think can be linked into complete skeletons (how do you know they linked the bones in the right way?）and they think the skeletons were covered by living flesh X millions years ago; people trained in science can see that these deductions are "most probably" correct; others can just dismiss it all by "God put all the evidence there to test our faith"
ReplyDeletethe two camps just dont share the same thinking methods and one can never persuade the other
are you seriously trying to argue that creationism is just as valid an understanding as science?
ReplyDeleteOne camp is evidence based and the other ignores the evidence. One camp is engaged in rational thought the other is 'faith' based.
If you feel ill would you want me to take you to a shamen - priest or a medically trained doctor?
i think the guy failed science.. these people can twist their words to create lies to justify their false beliefs. are they so insecure that nobody belives in their delusions?
ReplyDeleteprobably wasn't allowed to take science in the first place, maybe it countered his or her parents faith.
ReplyDeleteDawkins and others wonder why incorrect ideas like creationism and intelligent design haven't simply died out, since they have been comprehensively disproved.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it seems that, just like Parkinsons and other genetic disorders, their carriers live long enough to propagate their erroneous genes/ideas to the next generation. So the ideas/genes persist.
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060702.gif
Haha I found the first anonymous comment pretty funny.. obviously science and technology has escaped the poor commenter. It's like saying he couldn't have known for sure if his great-grand parents existed since all that probably remained of them are skeletons and no way is he able to tell if they were covered by flesh a few decades earlier since he's not trained in science!
ReplyDelete'Simple' carbon dating would reveal the age of an organic bone. And well, bones just have to be covered by flesh, eh?
elementary; science starts with axioms and rules of deduction which are assumed to be true; if you dont accept these, you dont accept science; we believe science because it delivers the goods, but there are people who prefer a purely abstract way of looking at it
ReplyDeleteI happen to be an NUS professor in a technology dept; try to answer the point I made, instead of attacking me; you guys are as bad as the creationists
Science, Proof and Faith http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-XIIfDzQobqO5oCYM9UTvZzgKHH4Org--?cq=1&p=24
ReplyDeleteIf science is basically 'axioms and rules of deduction which are ASSUMED to be true' based on the readings from textbooks from the past (let's face it, who has actually sent a kite into the air to experiment with electricity? But we all believe that Ben Franklin did this and trust in his outcome of the experiment), then if these assumptions are made and we make deductions based on these assumptions then, it is possible that the assumptions we have made are false or erronous, thus making the 'assumptions' and conclusions false.
ReplyDeleteSounds similiar to how the religious individuals have made 'rules of deduction which are assumed to be true' based on the readings of a book called the Bible (or any other religious writings that they believe in) and they have made assumptions that those are true (Like, who was around and actually drank the water that was turned to wine by Jesus in this day and age, but those religious people take it as fact).
So, in the end, you can say that science is easier to believe because it gives immediate results and short term answers, but religions could very well give answers to questions that are more long term that we are not going to see simply because we are so short lived in life.
One is an easy route, one is a harder route to follow and while religious people damn and have their little jokes on us science folks, isn't it permitted then for us science folks to have our fun and poke at the religious people? or, if the religious people let us science people live in complete ignorance to the real truth, then shouldn't us science folks give that common courtesy right back at the religious folks?
oh and yeah, loved the line in that clip when it said "doesn't it scare you that God is fucking with our heads????" *LOL* loved that line...
religion is culture dependent; science is universal; that's the real difference
ReplyDeletefor a person immersed in a particular faith based culture, it is certainly true that his/her religion is as "true" as science; people who believe in science should first understand this, in order to propagate science properly
Science is both a greatest strength and weakness. A great strength because it drives us to prove hypotheses and encourages a continual seeking of truth. We know historical experiments of electricity or gravity for instance are true because everything we know of modern science has been built on those fundamental theories derived from those observations. Science is like a stack of building blocks, and so much of modern technology would not exist if Coulomb's or Newton's Laws simply weren't true.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it's important to remember that laws, especially when roaming into the realm of astro/quantum physics, are constantly being discarded or modified based on new observations. Because science precludes absolute certainty, it is also a weakness. When I first saw a particular sci-fi film in 1999 that involved dodging bullets, it got me thinking seriously about how I viewed reality. Not about dodging bullets, but that isn't it possible that everything we know of the world and even the universe fallible? Putting it in more scientifically relevant terms, if one day we were able to travel faster than the speed of light or travel through the dimensions of space and time simultaneously, would that be as rediculous as saying that there is a God?
I believe that scientists can be fundamentalists too. And that is the irony because science is not suppose to be entirely cynical, but also embrace possibilities and seek to prove them. I believe there is still intellectual capacity to believe in a higher being. Before we redicule religion altogether, let's also remember the iconic scientists who possessed a seemingly unusual dichotomy of faith and science, such as Galileo, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Faraday, Planck and so on. Personally, I share my stand with one of my most respected scientist, Stephen Hawkings, an agnostic.
elementary; science starts with axioms and rules of deduction which are assumed to be true; if you dont accept these, you dont accept science; we believe science because it delivers the goods, but there are people who prefer a purely abstract way of looking at it
ReplyDeleteYou mean like, instead of gravity, how some people believe their God is pinning them to whatever they're on, thereby preventing them from floating away? How much more abstract can that get..
People who prefer a purely abstract way of looking at things belong in art, theology, or philosophy, not science. So there's really no argument. But remember..
There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it -- Cicero
sure stick to science: how do you prove dinosaurs existed as living creatures?
ReplyDeleteall those Discovery movies are just movies; scientific truth is a complex issue; "dinosaurs prove fundamentalists wrong" does not work
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp
ReplyDeletethe simple fact is: most people believe dinosaurs existed because scientists say so (or because they watched Discovery), which is no different from believing in God because priests tell you so; they are not equipped to judge whether a scientific argument is valid or not; the long discussion above is just gibblish
ReplyDeleteBTW, I dont believe in any religion, but I also dont think it is so easy to "prove" any religion wrong
If you are indeed a professor of a scientific discipline, I am slightly perplexed by the implications of your statements. Firstly and most obviously, your cynicism over the scientific community in general betrays the knowledge and scientific understanding that surely associates itself with the title of 'professor'.
ReplyDeleteA simplistic approach to comparing faith in science with faith in religion provides little or none in an intellectual rebuttal of Nathan's points. I don't believe that one necessarily has to be a scientist in order to deduce an argument true or false, depending on its complexity. Logical thinking is the core of scientific theory and is a skill that most are able to develop even outside scientific profession. The difference between science and religion is that most individuals possess the potential to understand a scientific concept based on logic, for which the same cannot be applied to say, the existence of God. The accessibility of science means that anyone is able to learn and attain the knowledge to understand science. The fact that a majority of the human population have chosen a profession other than a scientific one does nothing to discredit scientific discovery. A more productive attempt to undermine the existence of dinosaurs for instance, would be to either attack current findings, or bring new evidence and observations to the table. Of which you have done neither. Obviously, a faith-based creationist approach would invalidate the former, but clearly this is not your stand.
By equalising the faith in a scientist to that of a priest, it excludes all scientific logic and credibility of their community and to that of a religious man, and excuses ignorance at the expense of scientific credibility.
as a person trained in scientific methods, I find the smug thinking that science can "prove" religion wrong very unscientific; I happen to believe in no religion because that is my faith; others have different faiths; that choice has no connection with scientific methodology at all; it is simply not a scientific issue to say one faith is better than others, or no faith is better than them all
ReplyDeletefurther, for most people belief in science is not because they have been convinced of its correctness through proof; it is because those scientists seem to be very clever - they can make all those computers, aircons, medicines; in other words they take it on faith
because they are impressed by the people who tell them so; how is that different from obeying priests because of being impressed by their "godliness"?
If the faith requires no 'evidence' to verify it, then surely it also requires no 'evidence' to prove it completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteBlind faith in anything is the story of 'disaster' and genocide. Discenting voices are essential and therefore so is the right to vilify any belief system based on 'faith and faith alone'.
Science is not a 'belief system' built on faith - religion is. To support a scientific claim the speaker refers to evidence they and others have verified, but for a speaker to support a religious belief they turn to faith and the belief in a 'religious text'.
Faith is the key. Faith in ideas that are abhorrant to many and laughable to some should be consigned to the dark ages. Faith has some people believing in incredible ideas.
One being that a man, who was sent here by god was killed, pronounced dead and then on the third day rose again, came back to life, defeated death and every Sunday they eat his body and drink his blood.
In contemporary urban myth such a man would have been labelled a zombie and had guest appearances on late night television.
Other faiths have convinced many that their life and the lives of others have no special meaning and that this 'life' is merely a waiting room for the 'real' world or heaven. Therefore justifiying illigitimate acts of attrocity.
Faith...
you are moving too far from the original topic, whether dinasours disprove religion; I say people who say so dont really understand science
ReplyDeleteHow, might I ask, are the scientists and engineers of technology comparable in any way to priests?? Yes, engineers bring us marvellous inventions that constantly improve our lifestyles. A priest on the other hand does not profess to perform miracles nor bring anything of physical form that we might appreciate. He/she is merely a servant of God to help spread His word. This then, is only but literature of which can be interpreted in many ways and is evident in the diverse number of Christian denominations for instance. And as far as Christianity is concerned, worshippers draw their beliefs from the scriptures and not from a man who was born the same as everyone else but chose to dedicate his life to his God. He is no more and no less capable of interpreting God's word as any other person. Serving God does not make one more knowledgeable about God. What we have is only but an ancient document of biblical events written but a handful of men.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, dinosaurs do not disprove the existence of God, or any number of higher beings. But neither does it take one to be well versed in paleontology to believe that the existence of dinosaurs was very likely. If you insist that people inevitably require a faith-based approach to science, then I say that faith in science is much more well deserved than that of religion. 'Why should we disbelieve scientists' is far more difficult to objectively answer without providing strong critique of the actual scientific concepts compared to 'why should we disbelieve in religion'. Attempting to provide priests and holy scriptures the same credibility as scientists is a fallacy because they simply do not share the same historical and fundamental principles of providing evidence, making observations and deducing logical conclusions based on evidence alone, which is further corroborated by scientific communities elsewhere in the world.
It is important to realise that if you play by the rigorous rules of science, the bible is considered unsubstantial evidence. But if you play by the rules of faith alone, then it doesn't really matter what science tells you.
Sry for the digression but I simply must take part in the debate.
ReplyDeleteI see Nathan is a popperian.
Howver, Science is based on induction, and the problem of induction is we can never use the past to predict the future. We rely on habit. There is no rational for science as it is based on experiments that only tells us what has already occured and not what will occur. You can never verify a claim, that it would happen in the future.
"Truths" or "facts" are seen through science as truths but they are not constant and change over time. Take for example, newtonian physics. Einstein came up with relativity and changed the "truth". However, how would we know that Einstein did not make an error? Did he really disprove newtonian physics? The "truth" now is that he is rite. But we would never know if that would change.
Point to make, falsification does not really avoid the problem of induction. Given a certain phenomenon. There are many possible hypothesis that can be formed. Just as scientists selects what to observe there is a selection criteria of the choice of hypothesis. On selection you would be committing the problem of induction. Falsification do not avoid the problem of induction.
Science is made up of a culture of assumptions. It is not possible to verify or falsify a claim in isolation. Take for example, an apple is dropped. Naturally, we would think that it would hit the ground. But suppose we do the experiment, and now the apple floats. Do you immediately conclude that the hypothesis is false?
Religion cannot be falsified. But not all scientific principles falsifiable.
Example a Darwinian principle: the species that survive in the course of evolution are those that are best adapted to their environment. To falsify this principle, we need to search of a species that has survived inspite of the environment. But the very fact that the species has survived means that it has adapted to the environment.