Things that don't make sense are probably wrong
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I think I’ve already done this. When any animal is hungry, it looks for food. Hunts for it. Once it finds food, eats and probably takes some home for their young.
Naturally, animals can’t say, “I’ll choose to eat this later in case I get hungry later.” Some do this out of necessity like when winter is near. Animals rely on instinct to survive.
Take a streetdog that finds food on a park bench. If it’s hungry, it will go for it. To survive it might bring it to a hidden place before eating it. A person, if hungry and seeing the same thing won’t eat it right away. He’ll do a double or even a triple take and probably look for another place to eat lunch.
You can't prove science with science. Not the way things work. I thought I made this clear, but obviously not. Proving the efficacy of the scientific method with itself is circular, making it invalid. The efficacy of the scientific method is proven logically.
And yes, I agree that scientists have performed SUBJECTIVELY unethical experiments. Nothing in or about ethics is objective because it hinges on arbitrary ideas and values. We say murder is wrong because we've placed an arbitrary value on human life. Who decides our value? We do, not nature. The difference with science is that nothing is arbitrary. Gravity isn't true just because we say so. It's true because it's testable and the experiments are repeatable, and the outcome is always the same.
At this point, talking to you feels like an exercise in futility.
“You can't prove science with science”
Then you cannot in fact say that “science is the best way to find objective truth” is an objective truth. At most, it’s a subjective truth.
The very definition of science means that it is objective. The action of proving something with itself is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is invalid reasoning, as it is a logical fallacy. Subjective implies opinion, arbitration, and inconsistency. None of these elements are present in science, whereas all three are present in other situations such as fashion, ethics, whether or not you like something.
Everything you have posted on this thread demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't understand the definition of either subjective or objective, you have no idea what a fact is, and you don't know how logic works. If any or all of these are untrue, then either you've simply not been reading any of my responses, or you're deliberately testing my patience with your bullshit. Either way, you're beyond help. Nothing I have said will penetrate your skull, and any effort to continue would be a needless spike in my blood pressure. So to you I say take your irrational and illogical quibble and shove it up your ass. May you fare well as you do so, and do remember to wash your hands afterward.
The very point of my response was to show you that your assertion necessarily involves a circular reasoning. To avoid this circular reasoning problem you have to admit to at least one of two things:
1.) The statement, "The scientific method is the only way to find objective truth." is objectively false. This means that the statement, "The scientific method is not the only way to find objective truth" is objectively true and thus allows for other ways to find objective truths.
2.)You're statement "The scientific method is the only way to find objective truth." is NOT an objective truth and therefore other people may disagree with you and still be completely logical.
You still haven't proven that first premise. You've yet to employ anything besides science to find objective truth. The second you do, I'll happily stand corrected. But until then you're just another person making unsubstantiated claims. And none of this ethics or morality crap, because that isn't objective. Find me a universal truth (true in all situations) without hypothesizing, experimenting, collecting data, comparing it to your hypothesis, and making a conclusion based on the data.
Okay. Some objective truths that cannot be derived from science:
1.) Julius Caesar existed. He was a Roman politician and general. He lived from about 100BC to 44BC. Of do you doubt this as well? There's no way to hypothesize what Julius Caesar was and did without simply going through historical records.
2.) Torturing children for fun is wrong. Whether you disagree or agree with this, this is always wrong, in any situation. For some reason you didn't accept my rape example so here's a torturing children example. We can't even test this theory out as testing it would mean actually torturing children for fun. Since it would be unethical, we can't do the experiment at all yet we know this is true. (Ethics)
3.) We either have free will or we don't. (A or not A) The truth value of this is well, true. Yet no experimenting, hypothesizing, collecting data is needed at all. It's just by the rules of logic that we see this is true. (Philosophy).
1. I'll give you that one. We accept historical documentation as mostly, if not completely factual in any case. However, this is simply research. One does not discover this, and it surely isn't something that can be built upon with further analysis to improve any aspect of human life. While Julius Caesar did exist, and this fact is objective, it wasn't a discovery made by any method. It's just a factoid that has been on record since Julius Caesar reached prominence. Now if we're discussing the existence of a person that predates written records of population, then we reach into science. Say, a skeleton of an Anglo-Saxon from present -day England. Using anthropology, we could deduce how he died, his approximate age, if he had any ailments, etc.
2. Since you stated in the claim that we can't experiment with torturing children for fun, that of course rules out science. You're on the right track. The problem arises because it's still not objective. Any sick fuck can disagree with you because they reject our generally accepted ethics and morals. There's no way to prove him wrong though. Even though just about everyone would agree that torturing children for fun is wrong, it's still a claim based solely on an arbitrary value we place on human life. This value doesn't exist outside of humanity. Even within humanity, there are some who don't share the value. A good portion of nihilists don't value human life, or any life. Because the claim is arbitrary, it is subjective. As much as I wish you were right here, and that torturing children for fun is objectively bad, it simply isn't.
3. The claim is true, that we either have free will or we don't, but its truth lies in that it's a vacuous claim. Either there's a fried egg on the moon or there isn't. This claim is just as true as yours. But its truth value amounts to nothing because it isn't proving anything. If, however, one were to find evidence for or against the existence of free will, that would be science. But simply broadening an assertion to make it self destructive in event of being disproved is pointless. Let me put it to you this way. You're sick. You go to the doctor and she says, "Either you have diabetes or you don't." The claim is 100% true because it covers one specific option, and blankets the countless others under a refutation of the first option. So when this doctor then gives you insulin and you die, you can rest easy knowing she still wasn't wrong. On the other hand, if she were to use diagnostic science and actually find out what's ailing you, I think it's safe to say your odds of surviving another check up are much higher.
I hope these explanations are satisfactory. This will probably be the last I post here, so if you're still not satisfied, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers.
The trouble with history is history is written by the victors and therefore subjective. Take Richard III of England as an example. He was King of the house of York during the war of the roses. He lost at the battle of Bosworth to Henry VII of the house Lancaster. (Forgive the history lesson but I have no idea where in the wprld you are and I assume that if ypu are abroad, you wouldn't know about English history.)
Any for 500 years, Richard III was depicted as a disfigured, henched back of man. That was until Richard III remains were found in Leicester under a supermarket car park and it was discovered that he was a normal shaped man.
Now if you're talking about archaeology, I hate to burst you bubble but that uses the scientific method to devise the truth.
“That was until Richard III remains were found in Leicester under a supermarket car park and it was discovered that he was a normal shaped man.”
I don’t think they found he was normally shaped. That skeleton showed a severe spinal curvature.
Well slap my arse and call me Judy! I could have sworn I heard on the news at the time that he wasn't deformed. I must have misheard. I stand corrected. Cheer CyberLN, you've totally invalidated the point. I suppose he wasn't a hunchback but had a disfigured spine, the elemt of truth the legend was based on. The point is, history is subjective.
I do agree, AP, that historical records are very frequently subjective.
But why on earth would I call you Judy if I slapped your ass?
A similar point could be made about Napoleon Bonaparte. Despite the common myth, he was actually above average height at his time. His shortness was a rumor begun by an English officer to boost morale. Nevertheless, history is flawed.
History is flawed. That still doesn't prove that no objective facts can be deduced about Napoleon. What was he? What did he do? How did he die? His height might not be accurate but we still have a bunch of information about him. If you throw all of history because some history is flawed, that seems irresponsible.
Like if you throw away science because people used to think of alchemy as a science before.
1. Alchemy was ultimately discredited through the use of the scientific method. All false things eventually are.
2. The parts of history we know to be true are because of archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics, and forensics. All science. History isn't even a method of finding knowledge, it's a body of collected knowledge.
Oh, and by the way, Napoleon died of stomach cancer in the prison on St. Helena. We know this because of science, not historical reporting, which initially explained his death to be at the hands of his caretakers. But because of the scientific method, we now know of the toxic chemicals in the wallpaper of his quarters that slowly gave him cancer.
As for proof it works, it's self producing. The whole concept of scientific proof comes from the scientific method. We know what we find by its rules is true because of repeatability of experimentation and observation. We know that light dims over distance because of repeated observation of light, calculations of distances, and repeating of experimentation. All this leads us to the Inverse Square Law, every single time. To deny the efficacy of the Scientific method is to deny the definition of science as we know it.
You still haven’t proven that the scientific method is the only way to find objective truths. I agree agree with you with everything else. I’m a science geek myself but I acknowledge that science cannot and will not be the source for all truth. There are other tools we can use. Science for example can’t prove that rape is wrong. Or that using college students for a social experiment is unethical.
@JoC: "Science for example can’t prove that rape is wrong."
That's because its not an objective truth. It's a shared subjective truth that we collectively form and learn in our societies and families. You certainly won't find a commandment against rape in the bible.
However, you could use science to prove that rape and other forms of violence have a negative effect on various indicators of social well-being, as well as economic costs.
You said that that there were "other tools" for finding the truth. Can you name any of them? If you're talking about objective truth, I think the scientific method is the only way.
The Bible does say that rape is bad, but it also says that rape victims should be stoned to death. If you're are saying that the Bible is a moral compass, then you have read what it actually says. To me, the Bible is a horrendous place to seek your morals.
Considering the discoveries and advancements made by science/empiricism, one could easily state that this method has no rival.
The fact you are even able to read this and reply is down to the scientific method.
Everything you know to have tasted, touched, interacted with is essentially all down to empiricle evidence and stringent testing...
The only other more popular option is to throw your hands up, shrug and say "God did it" or "it's magic"...
Note how the former and later are functionally identical.
No JoC it isn't the only way, it is just the best and most accurate.
But if you want to prescribe to proof required by law the god theory doesn't pass muster either. Any way you look at it god doesn't make sense.
Now you can go outside logic, science, common sense, sanity, and I am sure you can make a case for a god.
Look at every argument for a god.
1) At some point, there is a gap that you believers just leap ignoring reason.
2) Every pro-god argument is ALWAYS speculative, never solid never absolute!
Let's not talk about anything but the theory of a god. That way we won't get off subject.
There is no proof of a christian god outside the bible. The bible is not self-evident therefore it must be corroborated to be factual. Now we can find certain things that can be corroborated like geography, but not one single event is corroborated. Every so-called historical account of a biblical event only alludes remarks of folklore. Tacitus wrote in Nero's time, not Tiberius. If christ was real it happened under Tiberius. Tacitus only had second or third accounts, and they weren't even Roman accounts. They were verbal and unreliable. Josephus wrote 'The Antiquities of the Jews' over 90 years after the events he describes. He wrote from folklore, not fact. So there is no account of jesus outside the bible.
Even the bible doesn't account for jesus in reality. The old testament doesn't know who the "messiah" will be. And there is the glaring fact that there was no letter "J" before the 2nd century. This means that the bible and its accounts have to have been written after the 2nd century. You might ask what about Josephus he lived before 200 ADE. Well, his name was really Yoseph. So you see that everytime you read any bible with character's whose names start with "J" you are reading a modified version. And "jesus" is never referred to as "Yahweh".
So for many reasons, the bible cannot and must not be used in any form as a historical reference.
So what is left? Well, nothing. There is nothing left that even remotely or accurately tells about jesus unless it uses the christian bible as the source.
It's kinda like a murder trial where it is discovered that the eyewitness wasn't able to have been an eyewitness but rather was just repeating rumors or made it all up.
which brings us back to the point. There is nothing that directly proves a god. There is always a doubt a missing detail vital for the evidence of fact.
Can you prove using the scientific method that the scientific method is the best and mpst accurate way we have of finding facts?
That's easy if you study what was perhaps the first time that the modern scientific method was used.
Look up the story of Ignaz Semmelweis. He was a doctor working in free maternity clinics in Vienna in the mid-19th century. He worked at two clinics and observed that mortality from puerperal fever was much higher in one clinic than at the other. He also noted that mortality was lower among women who had their babies on the street. He first checked the backgrounds of the women, including religion, but found they were all similar. Then he looked at the people working in the clinic. The first one was run by medical students and the second by midwives. Then he looked at the work practices and found the medical students (and doctors) frequently attended childbirths after working on cadavers. His hypothesis was that disease was being transferred on the hands of physicians, so he introduced hand-washing (nobody had thought of that before!). Mortality went down from 10% to 1%.
That was the scientific method. Observe, Hypothesize. Experiment. It was also very radical in the mid-19th century.
The medical establishment at the time rejected his findings. They didn't know about bacteria, and doctors were insulted at the suggestion that they had dirty hands. So Semmelweis was fired and mortality went back up. When he protested they had him committed to a mental hospital where he was beaten by attendants and died.
The truth of his method was later confirmed by Louis Pasteur. The method used by those who opposed Semmelweis was reliance on "common sense" and "accepted wisdom." Minds were closed.
The scientific method is above all a framework for forcing people to approach questions with an open mind. That's why it's the best method for finding the truth.
With all due respect, JoC, you seem to be missing the point. Consider the time periods during which the bible was written. Society then did not have the technology nor the scientific knowledge humanity has developed since that time. On top of that, a majority of people during those days were illiterate and functioned on superstition beliefs because they were unable to understand basic acts of nature and such simple things that we now take for granted. Therefore, they made up gods as an explanation for things that were beyond their comprehension. Thanks to science and the technological advancements we have today, we know - for example - it is a bit ridiculous to dance around a fire and chant and sing to plead to the gods for rain. As kids, most of us grew up being told Santa Clause was real. Eventually, however, we grew up and learned the truth. Basically, it was just a fun and relatively harmless way for parents to keep the kiddies behaving. *chuckle* No harm done, right? Religion is pretty much a more elaborate version of Santa Clause, but with one minor difference.... Religion (Well, many religions, at least) is potentially dangerous. And, just as Jared and others have said, there is no concrete reason to believe in them. And even IF the God in the bible is somehow real (really BIG "if", by the way), there is no way I would ever bow down to him/(it) and worship him/(it) anyway. Considering his track record for condoning genocide, rape, slavery, incest, and the slaughtering of innocent women and children, it is amazing to me why ANYBODY would want to support something like that. I worked a majority of my life risking my life chasing down and putting people in jail for some of the very things the God in the bible promotes as "holy and just." No offense, dude, but it is simply perplexing to me.
With all due respect but you actually are the one who missed the point. The OP didn’t even mention the Bible and it’s inefficiencies when it comes to science.
The OP was simply saying that the scientific method is the only reliable way of obtaining objective truths. I say this is incorrect. There are numerous ways other than science.
Ethics deals with right and wrong
Philosophy deals with ideas the the supernatural
Science deals with the natural
History deals with the past
There may be more. I simply can’t think of more right now.
Ethics and philosophy aren't objective. They're subjective, and therefore not actually verifiable. They're opinions.
Ethics is subjective. It's really morality applied to specific activities, such as medicine, the law, and business. The details of ethics vary according to the field, the society, and the era.
Philosophy is a system for thinking about the world. Science is a subset of philosophy specializing in the phenomena of the natural world. Philosophy has nothing to do with the supernatural. The supernatural is nonsense. It's predicated on the suspension of logic and causality. Once you do that, philosophy becomes useless.
History is subjective if we base it solely on stories handed down orally or in written form. The real search for historical truth begins when the scientific method is used to introduce objectivity.
Yep. Ethics and Philosophy are definitely subjective. They vary from society to society all the way down to the individual person. What may be morally right and fine with one person can be totally insulting and repugnant to another depending on countless variables. By the way, I am new to this site. Just started today. So I've got some catching up to do, to say the least. With that in mind, for the sake of my trying not to make assumptions, may I ask which side of the "religion fence" you are on, JoC? Good to meet you, by the way. Howdy do?
Clicking on screen names will show a profile that includes religious identification, ffr