mooeypoo

First, drop the attitude. We're not here to laugh at people, especially with the abundance of misunderstanding in this thread. Second, I do hope you're not seriously suggesting Astrology is anything other than pure unadolterated bunk, and suggest it in a science forum no less, giving no proof, no evidence, no explanation and no reason why it doesn't fit anything we know about physics. Be careful what you laugh at, if that's the case. Feel free to start another thread about this to convince the scientific community that astrology is not mystical. Until you do, I suggest you drop the mocking attitude. PeterJ, you chose to post in a scientific forum, and you seem to ignore any and all methods science requires. It was semi-okay until now, since it seemed like it was a string of misunderstood statements. It's getting quite annoying now that you added the "ha ha"s. We're a discussion forum, not your personal soapbox or blog space. Knock it off. ~mooey

Time traveller, this seems to happen relatively often on your account. Please make sure to log out from your account properly when you're not near the computer. If this goes on, we are going to have a consistency problem. If there are other people wishing to debate on this forum, they should open their own account. It's free.

tar, this is your thread. You're not interfering by trying to steer it to the discussion you meant it to take.

Here's the problem: Knowledge claims that are substantiated must be testable. Otherwise, it's baseless claims of knowledge. "Invisible unicorns exist" is a knowledge claim. Until it's substantiated, it's not really knowledge, and if it's impossible to substantiate it's not science at all. If that's the case, we go back to debating religious knowledge that fit (or don't fit) science. Anyways, the way to move the debate back on track is to go back to the topic, so let's talk about those knowledge claims religion(s) make? ~mooey

Agreed. One small caviat, however: I am aware, constantly, that nothing is absolute. That is, I am skeptical of everything, as a humanist, a rationalist, a physicist and a skeptic. However, for practical issues, there is a difference between skepticism of different claims. That is, I am more skeptical of unsubstantiated claims about, say, the Yetti's existence, than I am about, say, String Theory. The reason is clear - one has zero substantiation, the other has very very advanced substantiation, even if not a completely full one. So, in practical terms, while I am being skeptical of things, I don't always walk around stating "that's not certain!". If a claim is substantiated with evidence, I consider it Nowtrue enough to be true for now, until further evidence is presented to make us adjust it. There are not 'definitive' claims, but you can't walk around stating *nothing* is certain at all, since that would be moot. The wall in front of me might be 99% space (from the space between nucleus to electron) but that doesn't mean I need to walk around doubting the existence or firmness of the wall and bang my head on it repeatedly. Skepticism is great, and hsould be applied as much as possible, but we should really separate between what is philosophically valid and what is valid in practical terms. We can't jump on anyone who says "X is true" as "axiomatic" when the statement is made in practical terms. GPS works, so Relativity is true. Does that mean I take relativity as axiomatic? No. I am quite certain it will be adjusted and tweaked as we go along looking for more information, as happens regularly in science. But in practical terms it is true, and I will say I am skeptical of it only when I speak philosophically. People should have an open mind, but not as open as to let their brains fall out. Do you see where I'm going with this? Now, that said, I still don't quite see what knowledge claims Religion(s) are making, and how they are substantiated in science. Seeing as this is the crux of the debate, I'd like to see if we can concentrate on that point a bit. Do you have examples to give us so we can analyze them? I can think of quite a few knowledge-claims that the Old Testament is making that are outright false -- so if you can give us examples of how religion claims knowledge that is substantiated, that might help me see what you mean with that statement.

I don't rules out the possibility of absolute knowledge, but I don't believe it's a strong option. The fact I keep the possibility of there being some "ultimate truth" open doesn't mean I can't also maintain the idea that it's unlikely, and therefore not believe in it. If stronger evidence is put forth for the existence of such ultimate truth, I am willing to change my mind. Until that happens, I believe it's unlikely. This is consistent with being skeptical. I'm skeptical of ultimate truth and find it unlikely. You seem to claim that it's inconsistent, and I'm not sure I see why. Also, you skipped both times that I raised the same issue. Please answer this point; skepticism is doubting things, I'm not sure I see how it's consistent with having an absolute truth that is undoubtedly true. ~mooey

Wait, what? Skepticism means being skeptical, which means there are no "absolutes" (since those are things we are not skeptical of). Non squitor. Maybe it's time you take a step back from forcing your own definition of skepticism on us and instead talk business. What is this "ultimate truth" you so cheerfully refer to that we rationalist non-skeptic-skeptics deny? I don't want your definition of skepticism in the answer, I want the ultimate truth you speak of, and the undeniable facts that support it to such extent that no one can possibly be skeptical of it. ~mooey

I'm asking that you repost what your original and ultimate claim is, regardless of agreement or disagreement from Phi or anyone else. Every time we ask you if A is what you claim, you either say no but don't tell us what your actual claim IS, or you say yes but then recant when someone counters it. A clear statement from you about what it is exactly that you're claiming will be a great step towards actually having a discussion here. Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to proceed.

I am completely lost here, PeterJ. Can you just write down what it is you're saying, without refering to Phi for All? You're so entrenched in pinning Phi against the wall, I don't think anyone understands what it is, exactly, that you're SAYING. I've had enough of this lover's quarrel. It's really annoying, and now it seems like it's COMPLETELY going nowhere. Let me know when you figured out what it is you're saying, and why we should spend time debating about it. Also, Phi's married. Move on. I'm out. ~mooey

And it's what you need to provide evidence for. You seem to claim that we are the ones who need to prove you wrong -- that's not the way science works, PeterJ. You're making a claim here, and you need to substantiate it. So let's start over. You claim that "knowledge you had from religion was empirically derived, that much of religion uses the same methodology as science" -- what religious knowledge was empirically derived? Note that the post you made explaining your view was about personal experience and interpretation. That's not empirical derivation, and therefore does not support your claim. That said, I find it somewhat offensive you seem to skip most posts and answer Phi's only. Beyond the fact this is very annoying to the other people who spend time posting here, it also makes it very difficult to get over the feeling that you're EXTREMELY biased against a particular person that posts on the thread. Can you answer claims rather than people?

Humans are subjective and emotional. The point of the scientific method is to reduce subjectivity as much as possible. The hope is to eliminate, but that is a bit naive. Why do we have peer review? Because scrutiny helps in finding potential methodology errors, experimental biases, selection bias, etc. Why do we demand proper Hypotheses, Null Hypotheses, etc? Because this helps us structure the inquiry in a way that reduces selection bias and goes by evidence rather than by fitting evidence to the goal. Why do we have demand for experimental results to be repeated? Because that shows that it wasn't bias on the side of the initial research group, it helps show that there was no equipment damage or error, and to show that the result is consistent, unbiased, and empirical. That goes for the rest of the scientific method. I'm not saying it's perfect -- it's far from it -- but the entire point of the method is to *reduce* the human tendency for biases. Source: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method It's not just about finding results, it's about finding empirical unbiased results. Isn't that the entire point of having the Scientific Method? Isn't that why it's a *method* ? ~mooey

But we're not "Arguing" about religion, we're debating about how much religion and science are compatible. That question is valid, and seeing as science is a methodology of dealing with empirical reality (mostly) it can be answered using the same conditions. Science rejects emotions and subjectivity. We can argue about how good it does it (in another thread) but that's its main purpose, so essentially we're discussing using empirical methods to "judge" the claims of religion. As I pointed out in a previous post, people have a right to believe whatever they want - but the moment they claim a belief has evidence, it's up to them to supply this evidence and show that it is scientific. If people don't want to risk "offending" their own subjective belief system, they shouldn't claim that the claims of that belief system are scientific - unless they are ready and willing to deal with peer review, criticism, demand for evidence, experimentation and, perhaps, the rejection of the claim in a scientific context. ~mooey

Or crash.

You're still not answering any points related to your arguments that are beyond the narrow scope of Skeptics, Phi for All and your own perception of it. Are you going to start participating in this debate without nitpicking your own subject or not? It's getting ridiculous, PeterJ. Moontanman and myself made points about religion and science. Answer those, please.

We're going to have to ignore any and all references you make about Phi's state of mind. You have other points to relate to, this is circular, contributes NOTHING to the thread and will, at least on my part, be ignored. Can you please answer the actual POINTS we made, or are just here to be all-out against Phi_for_All ?

Stop generalizing. Which religion "does not require that we must change our minds about this" ?? I can give you quite a number of examples of religions that *DO* require you change your mind. In fact, the whole political battle that's still raging in the US educational system about Creationism vs Evolution (Or the so called "Intelligent Design" which is remarkably similar to creationism without the mention of a specific 'god') is a good example. The Evangelical Creationism museum is another example. That said, there's also the issue of WHAT it is you speak of when you ask about religion. If you talk about specific individual beliefs, maybe you're right. If you speak of the bible, the quran and the old testament, you'll be absolutely wrong. The old testament has absolute claims that are contradictory to reality, from the idea that tens of thousands of species can fit into a small boat in the flood, to the idea that the earth is flat, etc. The only way to fit those to reality is re-interpret them -- which is possible, but creates secondary problems. But then we also move into the question o what, exactly, it is that the RELIGION claims -- is it what's in the book, or what's in the people's minds, or one part of the religious group, etc. Hence, the danger of generalization. Some do, some don't, which is why you should start following your own "pedantic" advice and stop generalizing. Everything is possible if you really really try to. I'm going to ignore the next paragraph because it's an irrelevant attempt on your part to insist Phi thinks something he is telling you he doesn't think. Move on from this, PeterJ. If you are, then stop generalizing and stop assuming you know what people mean before they explain it. If you are unsure of something, ask. People respond and clarify. Stop assuming, it's getting very distracting from the ACTUAL points that are made in the thread. Also, as Moontanman pointed out, a few other questions were raised in this thread and you conveniently skipped them. I raised a few points too in my posts. Can we move on from the irrelevant points about what you assume Phi's inner world looks like and go on to the actual points made? ~mooey

PeterJ, you're not seriously suggesting that "Skeptics" mean ridiculing religion? Maybe you know a skeptic that does that, but not all do, that's absolutely far from being the default position of skeptics, and you are again strawmanning. You're not being pedantic, you're being unfair, and you're strawmanning Phi's position -- and, it seems, skeptics in general. I consider myself a skeptic too. And yet, I am far from hating or ridiculing religion(s). My local "Skeptics in the Pub" group has a few people who are, in fact, non atheists, and we have some that are full blown religious. Skepticism does not equal combative anti religionism. I will answer the rest of your claims when I get back from work.

I would say you do even if you claim you didn't. The greatness of selective logic. You know, I think we're comparing two completely different things here. Science is a set of methodologies for analyzing reality as objectively as possible. Religion is (usually) a set of answers. Science is about "what do we do to get an answer to X". Religion is about "what is the answer to X". I tend to separate "spirituality" (some sort of belief in a higher power, a god, etc) and religion (which is more organized). I think we might want to be more specific when we discuss religion in general in this thread too. Are we referring to the "system" that is religion, or are we talking about personal beliefs that might be more flexible? It's an important distinction. ~mooey

Sure, but "science" doesn't define just our "rational side", it's a methodology meant to reduce the amount of emotional/illogical/irrational/subjective effects while examining reality empirically. That's the point of peer-review, of substantiating claims empirically, of experimentation, etc.

Tar, I personally think that religion is most relevant to the fields above, mostly so in psychological aspects. While I can't generalize to say that "all religion" or "all religions" or "all aspects of religion" go against reality, I think that there are quite a number of aspects of religion that do go against reality. My personal belief aside, I think that we need to be honest with ourselves. If what we hold as true is due to scientific methodology, or if what we hold as true is due to belief regardless of scientific methodology. My problem is not with neither of those, my problem is people who decide to force scientific methodologies to beliefs that don't fit them ("The world was created 6000 years ago" is an example). If one wants to hold a belief that is against what we know empirically of reality, that's their business; I don't see it as any obligation to convince them otherwise unless they explicitly invite me to do so. However, If one insists on abusing scientific methodology to reinforce dogmas that are against what the evidence show us, I feel it's not only my right to argue back, but it's my obligation as a budding scientist to set the record straight. Science isn't a belief, it's a methodology, and if someone chooses to use it, they'll have to use it consistently, including having their claims questioned, their evidence scrutinized and their premises shaken and peer-reviewed. If certain religious people don't want to do that to their religious beliefs, they should stay away from claiming ownership on scientific methodology. Going 'half way' doesn't cut it. ~mooey

No. I just see that you dismiss the knowledge claims of religion. You keep doing it, and saying you're not doing it doesn't make much sense when your posts are still there to read. You mean you ASSUME he wants to dismiss the knowledge claims of religion? For a person that seems to insist on conciseness to the (almost aburd) extreme, you don't seem to follow your own advice. Phi doesn't claim what you say he claims. Further, he keeps telling you are wrong when you say he thinks religion is nonsense. This is a very simple matter here; you can claim it seems like he thinks religion is nonsense, which will lead him to either agree or correct you (or correct himself and rephrase if needed). You cannot, however, say he thinks that, since you don't know what he thinks. You are not in his mind. I think much of this repetitive strawmanning in this thread stems out of that fact. Perhaps if you take your own advice and phrase your own claim better, you will actually get somewhere rather than try to trip Phi with his own words with disregard to his actual meaning. It's quite clear you already decided what Phi thinks, and it seems you are not quite willing to review this no matter what he says. You show that no matter how many times he tells you "That's not what Ithink", instead of trying to weigh his argument, you go on a subjective rant reinterpreting every syllable to come out with the pre-conceived conclusion of what you think he thinks. With due respect, that's not how a civil debate should be done. You keep saying things that religion would dispute, so what can I do but assume you don't take it seriously? What else can I assume? Maybe we're having a miscommunication, but your words seem clear enough. You don't need to assume anything, Peter. You can ask, Phi is right here and answers you. Same here: Not arrogant. You mke claims and don't appear to know they are inconsistent with many of those made in religion, so I just reached the natural conclusion. Your comments apply to specific religions, and not all of them. If they applied to all of them I wouldn't be nitpicking. Let me save you the trouble: Phi, can you repeat, please, the things that you said that are disputed by religion? Peter, can you give a few actual example of claims Phi made about religion that are disputed? We can start talking practicalities and stop with this whole miscommunication battle. We're here to discuss, not win. Yes. This is what I objected to. You seem to think religion is all about supernatural deities. I therefore assume you have not taken much interest in it. I wasn't being rude, just drawing a reasonable conclusion. Peter, you're doing it again. Phi said the scientific method is about observing the natural world, and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity. You claim he said that religion is "all about" supernatural deities. That is a strawman. Whatever you assume after that is based on that strawman, and is irrelevant. Phi spoke about science, not about religion. It seems to me that you are the one with the preconceived notion about a rather strong relationship between science and religion and you insist to correlate Phi's perception to fit yours, which is when you misinterpret him. He made no such correlation. Yes of course. So why do you state that absolute truth is impossible? Claim: "I prefer not riding horses when I'm tired." Counter claim: "How can you say riding horses is impossible?!" Strawman, in the making. That said, I too believe "absolute truth" is unattainable. Notice, please that I don't use "impossible" because that word is irrelevant to 'truth', as it's not something that is or isn't possible, it just is. I do think, however, that our past and current experience in both science and religion (and arts, spirituality, language, and most everything else) shows us that our "ultimate truth" changes slightly. That's how we tend to define "progress". Well, it still seems that it reflects reality to me. I'm only reading what you write. Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position on religion, so I don't keep making these mistakes. Which one do you feel is most plausible? It reflects reality to you because you force it to. Stop assuming what Phi means. Check out the next quote, this brings the entire things way over the cliff on your part, PeterJ: There you go. This says it all. This is the epicentre of our dispute. If you don't know that religion claims to be about reality and to deal in absolute truths, while the natural sciences claim to be about the relative world and to deal only with relative truths, (hence the permanent need for scepticism) then it is because you don't take religion seriously enough to look into it. You do not even acknowledge that much of religion requires the same methodology as science. One claim of religion is that the truth about the world, our existence, etc, can be known with certainty by human beings. You dismiss this claim. Ergo you believe that religion is nonsense. If Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-tsu etc. did not know the truth about reality then they are charletons and liars, and this appears to be what you are suggesting. Or would this this be another misunderstanding? Do you believe it possible for someone to know the truth about God? If not, then you are dismissing any religion that teaches otherwise. It would mean that all religious teachings are unverifiable dogma. I'm not sure if I should even do much of an answering here. Phi said A, you said something like "There you go, B, hence C, hance D." First problem is that he didn't say B. Second problem is that "B hence C" is not as obvious as you seem to make it. That is, even if your initial premise of what he said was right, your follow up claims and conclusion -- about what another person THINKS despite the fact he keeps telling you he does NOt think that -- is a non sequitor. It doesn't follow, PeterJ. You're using weird chain of logical premises to come to a conclusion you want to come, not the one that was presented. Risking treading in mud here, I have to say I disagree with the above, but that's my own opinion. I see religion and science as two different methodologies. Not necessarily all-exclusive, and not necessarily against one anotehr, but they are completely different. As such, they deal with different types of questions, and go at answering those questions in different ways. I think religion can be pursued scientifically, and it is in a neurological, biological, evolutionary and psychological sense. In those aspects it makes a lot of sense. There are, however, aspects of some religions (see how I do my best not to generalize here, since generalizations bring about most of the miscommunication imho in this thread) that are NOT following reality. That is, science deals with these aspects and found those aspects to be either flawed, inconsistent, or outright false. That doesn't mean "religion is bunk". It might mean SOME aspects of religion are bunk, though even that is disputable when you raise the issue of the need to have belief. A particular aspect might be "bunk" in rigid scientific terms but still have value as a form of belief. There's no harm there. They're not necessarily mutually exlusive. I think we should really back track here. There's no point in arguing with anyone about what exists in their own mind. I can be absolutely certain that Phi thinks I'm the awesomest person on Earth, but it won't do anything if he tells me that's not wht he thinks. Claiming he doesn't know what he thinks in his own mind is condescending, and isn't conducive to a civil debate. You both should take a step back and start over. For the past few posts it's more about "I don't think X" "YES YOU DO!" rather than actually discussing the topic of the thread. Maybe we should all just go back on topic, and start *asking* one another what we mean when we say X rather than insist we know they meant what they insist they don't. ~mooey

Despite the bombastically pop-sci marketing-oriented article title, there's not much there about IQ, just how fast the brain recognizes the image. That might be a factor in IQ, but is far from being IQ in itself. However, I do support this notion enough to conduct a lot of experimentation on it with female volunteers, though I would prefer not being blindfolded. I volunteer. It's okay, I'll cover for his blindedness, you can count on me.

Well, they seem to not control for the sexual preferences variable, which would make it hard to make any sort of conclusion on it. Can we conclude that the difference is due to the sexual preference, or just coincidental correlation? It's never good to add a correlation after-the-fact.