Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In relation to Pascal's Wager: you think God plays dice, Kracklite? Is it morally acceptable (or even possible) to believe in something because you're being threatened?
-
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to JacksonP,
Hey, great series
+1 Fascinating!
-
Those who think science is just another religion might wish to look at some of the other people who think this. Or these. Do you really want to be on that side?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Faith can be so tested. Not for all believers, sure, there are still those who cling stubbornly to mediaeval nonsense. But some do put their faith to these tests and do update it.
Can you give an example?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Faith is something that’s only irrational once there’s actually evidence against. Until then, it’s just one choice amongst unknowns.
No, it isn't. The rational thing is to believe what is most probably true, not to pick something at random to believe in. Rational belief is justified by evidence .
Of course, aside from cosmology, religious faith can give emotional comfort and build community. It can also justify inequity, oppression, war and genocide.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to DexterX,
Everything evolves.
Yes, but that's not the point : with science challenge and change is integral to the process. I think I've said this enough times in enough ways. You're free to disagree.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
That’s not at all the same as a blind guess
…
It’s the best we know at this time.
Which can be almost nothing. The two ideas are not incompatible. Even if we have searched a lot, if the space left to search is still much bigger (in the case of algorithms, it’s practically infinite), we don’t really have any way of quantifying how far into the search we’ve got. We can’t put put any rigorous level of certainty on it at all.
But even if that's true, my point is that scientific knowledge is continually challenged, refined and updated in the light of the evidence. Faith isn't.
-
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to JacksonP,
But was it angel parking in a parallel universe?
And I was thinking it was just a very posh parking warden ;-)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to BenWilson,
Can you see that even though the likelihood is that P=NP is false, it’s still a stab in the dark?
No, I can't. It's a contingent belief . As is all scientific knowledge. It's the best we know at this time. That's not at all the same as a blind guess.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
if one day science does rule one way or another on god/s, then we’ve all come to a happy compromise – well, assuming everybody accepts that ruling.
How can science rule on god any more than it rules on fairies at the bottom of the garden, or giant spaghetti monsters in space? If there were any evidence for any of these things, scientists could examine and test it. But there isn't.