Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1    markdohle

markdohle

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta area

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:44 PM




#2    danydandan

danydandan

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 953 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kildare Ireland

  • Deus iudex est meus

    super omnes familia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:13 AM

" evolution makes little sense " ? that's because he is an idiot
" and is supported by little evidence" okay I think there is loads of evidence for ,

Who is this guy
he said he was a Mathematician were did he study?
I know a lot about maths , I studied at trinity college in Dublin I have a degree in engineering ( someone got me thinking of doing a masters thanks K ) . My word holds more weight than this tool.  
this is the most bias thing I have ever watched

Edited by danydandan, 27 February 2012 - 12:15 AM.

"And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.So we shall flow a river forth to Thee
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti."

#3    markdohle

markdohle

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta area

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:14 AM

View Postdanydandan, on 27 February 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

" evolution makes little sense " ? that's because he is an idiot
" and is supported by little evidence" okay I think there is loads of evidence for ,

Who is this guy
he said he was a Mathematician were did he study?
I know a lot about maths , I studied at trinity college in Dublin I have a degree in engineering . My word holds more weight than this tool.  
this is the most bias thing I have ever watched

He is one of the great minds in mathematics, look him up.  It is an interesting presentation.


#4    Landry

Landry

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mid-Atlantic Coast U.S.A.

  • Skeptical of institutionalized pseudo-skepticism

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:25 AM

This is my first post on this forum. I'm gratified to see to that someone has posted a video featuring David Berlinski. If I believed in omens I would take that as a good omen. Berlinski is brilliant.

"The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible however."
Werner Heisenberg


#5    danydandan

danydandan

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 953 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kildare Ireland

  • Deus iudex est meus

    super omnes familia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:37 AM

View Postmarkdohle, on 27 February 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

He is one of the great minds in mathematics, look him up.  It is an interesting presentation.
warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives . that's great quote I read it him describing his feelings towards intelligent design . lol  :w00t:   .
well he has a pH.d , sohis word carries more weight than mine .

but he wrong about evolution . especially animal evolution.

and i do not like differential tapology .  I like differential geometry. Tapology is too vast if you know what I mean

woops I spelled topology wrong

Edited by danydandan, 27 February 2012 - 12:44 AM.

"And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.So we shall flow a river forth to Thee
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti."

#6    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,428 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:48 AM

I'm not seeing anything too remarkably interesting in this presentation beyond what we see on a daily basis on this forum.  He certainly is a great mind in mathematics, but being that he is not using mathematics to support any of his points, it is largely irrelevant.  In fact, within the first five minutes he directly warns people about not giving a person who is an authority in one field any sort of unwarranted authority in an unrelated field.

In all honesty, it is little more than an opinion piece, albeit a well-presented one.  His major complaint is that science is arrogant.  Okay.  I personally don't see it that way, and, like Mr. Berlinski, I could pick and choose public statements from scientist to support my position, but when all is said and done, it will still be nothing more than an opinion.

Neither his opinion nor mine is going to affect any scientific theory (no, not even evolutionary theory, which is inexplicably isolated from all other scientific theories despite meeting the exact same standards).  A theory stands by its own merits, regardless (and often, in spite of) how many people dislike it.  It is a truism that the final test of a theory is often that it outlives its detractors.  That Mr. Berlinski believes evolution makes little sense and has little support is more a statement regarding his ignorance on the subject than anything about evolution itself.

I have not read his book, and only listened to the highlights presented in this review of the book, however I am not seeing any reason why his dislike of what he perceives to be the arrogant attitudes of the scientific community (even if it were not merely his opinion, and even if it were factually correct) should be given any weight over anyone else's opinion, let alone that of people who actually work in the field.


#7    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:52 AM

If the clergy don't dance to the atheist tune…they have no credibility?


#8    danydandan

danydandan

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 953 posts
  • Joined:04 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kildare Ireland

  • Deus iudex est meus

    super omnes familia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:03 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 27 February 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

I'm not seeing anything too remarkably interesting in this presentation beyond what we see on a daily basis on this forum.  He certainly is a great mind in mathematics, but being that he is not using mathematics to support any of his points, it is largely irrelevant.  In fact, within the first five minutes he directly warns people about not giving a person who is an authority in one field any sort of unwarranted authority in an unrelated field.

In all honesty, it is little more than an opinion piece, albeit a well-presented one.  His major complaint is that science is arrogant.  Okay.  I personally don't see it that way, and, like Mr. Berlinski, I could pick and choose public statements from scientist to support my position, but when all is said and done, it will still be nothing more than an opinion.

Neither his opinion nor mine is going to affect any scientific theory (no, not even evolutionary theory, which is inexplicably isolated from all other scientific theories despite meeting the exact same standards).  A theory stands by its own merits, regardless (and often, in spite of) how many people dislike it.  It is a truism that the final test of a theory is often that it outlives its detractors.  That Mr. Berlinski believes evolution makes little sense and has little support is more a statement regarding his ignorance on the subject than anything about evolution itself.

I have not read his book, and only listened to the highlights presented in this review of the book, however I am not seeing any reason why his dislike of what he perceives to be the arrogant attitudes of the scientific community (even if it were not merely his opinion, and even if it were factually correct) should be given any weight over anyone else's opinion, let alone that of people who actually work in the field.
it seems its to show that all scientists are not believers in evolution , and therefore to those who cant understand evolution , that evolution must be wrong if a REAL LIFE SCIENTIST does not support it.
And lunatic religious nut jobs will eat this crap for breakfast .
Its also trying to show that intelligent design , or the creator theory has some credit if a man with a pH.d supports it

"And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.So we shall flow a river forth to Thee
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti."

#9    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,428 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:54 AM

View PostLion6969, on 27 February 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

If the clergy don't dance to the atheist tune…they have no credibility?

:huh:

Not sure what you mean (or even if you actually intend to have a reasonable discussion on the matter), but...yes and no.

Clergy, mathematicians, heck, even scientists, all of them, need to present scientific arguments in the correct scientific format in order to be considered, at a minimum, credible.  It is similar to the way that anyone, grad student or doctorate, submitting a paper for review needs to meet APA standards.  Simply put, the standards are there so that an impartial review of the article can be done quickly and efficiently, and everyone knows where the relevant information is.  That is really nothing more than basic manners, when you get down to it; any culture is going to consider you a bit more credible if you take the time to learn their customs and practices.

But that is mostly social credibility.  Basically, it gives people a reason to take you seriously instead of politely stepping back and looking to engage someone else in conversation.  In terms of actual scientific influence, credibility and validity are powerful, powerful support for a given scientific theory.  Now, don't confuse "credibility" with "authority".  Authority is a social influence.  Credibility is a logical influence.  Clergy, in the strict sense of being clergy, do not have much authority or credibility in terms of scientific influence.  Doctorates, be it in math, biology, or Religious Study, all have authority, but only have credibility in their specific fields (assuming they didn't do anything to mess it up).  

So, could clergy produce a scientific theory?  Of course.  They would, however, have to make an extra effort to be socially credible (as they are already considered outsiders) by following the "etiquette" of the scientific community.  And, of course, whatever they presented would have to meet all the standards of scientific methodology, but that is not singular to them.  After all, every single theory in existence, past or present, must meet the prerequisites of scientific methodology prior to being considered scientific.


#10    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:08 AM

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it.

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it and present and construct your argument against it.


#11    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:10 AM

View Postdanydandan, on 27 February 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

it seems its to show that all scientists are not believers in evolution , and therefore to those who cant understand evolution , that evolution must be wrong if a REAL LIFE SCIENTIST does not support it.
And lunatic religious nut jobs will eat this crap for breakfast .
Its also trying to show that intelligent design , or the creator theory has some credit if a man with a pH.d supports it

What the video boils down evolution to is an atheist creation myth. I liked that phrase, but in saying so he gave his reasons why.


#12    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:44 AM

Hah, well, I was with him when he said that scientists are no authorities on philosophy or theology. So, while they may be experts in their particular fields, their atheism is a personal opinion which reflects a lack of faith, rather than certainty and authority resulting from knowledge.

However, the author being interviewed then turns around and proves himself a hypocrite by saying that evolution makes little sense, even though he himself is not speaking from an authoritative, or perhaps even sufficiently-informed  position. He is a mathematician, philosopher, and author, not a biologist.

Edited by Cybele, 27 February 2012 - 02:48 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#13    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:50 AM

View PostLion6969, on 27 February 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

What the video boils down evolution to is an atheist creation myth. I liked that phrase, but in saying so he gave his reasons why.

I saw a very casual and insufficiently explained dismissal of evolution. I hope that the discussion of the subject in his book is a lot more thorough and a little less embarrassing.

Edited by Cybele, 27 February 2012 - 02:55 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#14    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,428 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:27 AM

View PostLion6969, on 27 February 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

I see...

Basically, you are just trying to get a sly dig in at the scientist, right?  Implying that scientists and clergy are both one and the same, which, by extension would indicate that the clerical study of religious history, behaviour, and tradition should be considered the logical equivalent of scientific methodology and formal presentation for critical review, which would, of course, imply that both scientists and clergy are not really thinkers so much as dancers on a stage, being commanded to and fro by...atheists...

Guess I don't really see it.  Does sound like you are just randomly sniping at everyone involved, though.

Quote

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it.

I did.  I pointed out that I believe his foundational argument is flawed.  I also pointed out a certain hypocrisy in his first five minutes of the presentation.  And I noted how his primary means of supporting his argument is with individual examples, and how I could do the same with a similarly constructed opinion piece.

I even addressed the part where, even if he was correct in regards to his claims, it still would not affect the validation of theories regardless.



What did you do?

Quote

When I say clergy I refer to scientific experts, if they dance to the atheist tunes they are credible, if they don't, well you know what I mean.

Did you watch the video? If so it's not about scientific methodology it's about philosophy of science, how it's determined which theories to propagate, in this process those who dance to atheist tunes get a head. Not based on data, but rather based on philosophical and political reasons. He constructs and argument, you should deconstruct it and present and construct your argument against it.



#15    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,131 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:52 AM

View PostLandry, on 27 February 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

This is my first post on this forum. I'm gratified to see to that someone has posted a video featuring David Berlinski. If I believed in omens I would take that as a good omen. Berlinski is brilliant.
Not that brilliant if he's fooled by Discovery Institute's pseudoscience.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users