Merlyn_LeRoy

Some would say, since man created both "science" and "religion", if knowledge of both were wiped out, they would both be created or reformulated to much like what we have today. Science would, eventually, come to the same conclusions. Religion would not.

Yah, but Merlyn, if yeh compare "science" from various parts of the world (defining science as how people describe and interpret natural phenomena), then it is also vastly different. That isn't what the term means. If, by "science", I define it as various kinds of bread, I'll find it varies greatly around the world, too. But using your definition, belief in a flat earth is "science", since some people think so. That kind of science, and that kind of definition of science, is useless. Beavah, are you really prepared to state that believing the earth is flat is a scientific belief?

Similarly, if civilization collapses and all religious knowledge is lost, building it back up would still result in da equivalent of the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and the notion of a monotheistic, personal God. I disagree. If you compare religions today from various parts of the world, they are still vastly different. Physics, not so much. That's the point. Do you really think a new civilization MUST come up with the same ten commandments? No graven images, really? Nothing about slavery? Exactly ten, even if they don't use base 10 for counting? For that matter, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants don't even agree on what the 10 commandments are today.

Beavah writes: But da current topic with packsaddle and Merlyn is whether science is just one branch of human rational thought, with characteristics very much the same as all other branches of human rational thought, or whether science is privileged, or to borrow a term, "sacred". It's not privileged, it just isn't arbitrary like you keep trying to say it is. If civilization collapses and all scientific knowledge is lost, building it back up would not result in e.g. F = MA^2 instead of F = MA. Scientists will still (eventually) realize that planets orbit the sun in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, even if there are idiot non-scientists who think the world is flat and the center of the universe. Again, using your absurd distortion of how science works, they could arrive at such nonsense conclusions, since your version of science is just a group vote by various people, and you might end up with a group of flat-earthers. But they won't come up with reproducible results that are consistent with a flat, unmoving earth because reality disagrees with that model. But reproducibility isn't even a factor in your absurd fantasy world.

Beavah writes, quoting me first: That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there. So what? It's still a belief system. No, it isn't.

Beavah writes: My only point is that if yeh let a community of human beings decide what does and doesn't constitute authentic [insert phrase here], then they will create a belief system that is more or less self-consistent. That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there. If you conclude that the earth is round by reading goat entrails, that isn't science, even if your results agree with science. On the other end, there are scientific theories that are mutually contradictory, but as long as these theories stay within the scientific method, it's not a problem even if they directly contradict each other. That actually indicates a good area of research.

Beavah writes: So Merlyn, da point yeh keep missing is that I'm just fine with sayin' auras and goat entrails aren't authentic science. But your problem is, you've got no justification to deny those who say auras and goat entrails ARE authentic science. To you, "science" appears to be a label anyone can slap on anything.

First, Merlyn LeRoy is a wizard from Fractured Fairy Tales; there isn't a regular wizard character. And you failed to point out that it's a pun name on Mervyn LeRoy, a film producer/director (Little Caesar, The Wizard of Oz, etc). Rocky and Bullwinkle had a lot of jokes in it that only adults would get. I'm not an actor, I'm a computer programmer. I've done (unpaid) radio work, and I've written for and performed with members of the Firesign Theatre. I don't see how you conclude I'm a "main poster" on atheist nexus, I've posted about 7 things back in 2009. Everyone probably already knew this. I'm just a bit slow on the uptake. Well, yes. I couldn't join the BSA if I wanted to, since I'm an atheist. I did, however, force the BSA to stop issuing charters to public schools and other government agencies. If you started reading from my first post, you would have seen my first post was on how public schools can't charter packs or troops.

Beavah, when you run your computer on goat entrails and base your medical treatments on your aura, you will start putting your money where your mouth is. So far, you're equivocating like the looniest crystal gazer.

No, seriously. Part of St. Nicholas' skeleton was destroyed (or just lost) when one of the towers collapsed and destroyed St. Nicholas' Greek Orthodox Church, which had bone fragment of his in a safe (a relic).

Trivia: part of St. Nick's skeleton was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.

"It's missing reproducibility..." Go "experiment" for yourself. Have you? Reproducibility between different experimenters. People come to various, mutually exclusive results. "... and peer review..." I'd say there plenty of people who criticize this and who have commented on such things over the past few millenia. You may or may not believe yourself to be my peer. Well, if you want to call that peer review, then it does have peer review -- it fails it, but it has it. "...results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods." I can only report my own experience -- anything else in this regard is hearsay. I guess we can only say that the experiment, performed time and time again for thousands of years by various people, needs more looking into. I'd agree enough with that, though I'd just say the results are inconclusive. So Merlyn.. Can some atheists take the meaning of "Love" and say that it is a ruling and leading power in the universe and are grateful if Love favors and bless them during their life? I suppose some could, but you seem to be personifying "love"; I'd guess most atheists would say love is an emotion and doesn't rule, isn't a power, and doesn't favor or bless people in the literal sense. You can also turn the question around and ask how many people believe in a god that doesn't meet all these qualifications; I'm sure some deists, for example, would say their god doesn't "rule" or "favor or bless" people, since deism usually implies a god that doesn't interfere.

You've given no coherent reason why goat entrails aren't as good as science. Using your own bizarre methods, goat entrails are just as good as anything else, since all arguments boil down to 1) include people who agree, 2) exclude everyone else, to reach 3) unanimity. Works for goat entrails.

Well Beavah, you've convinced me that you're denser than Ed. Go ahead and continue believing that goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method.

It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable. Nonsense. In Christendom, there is all kinds of peer review, eh? No. Peer review with a predetermined answer isn't peer review. "In Christendom" implies that the "peers" all agree beforehand what the answer will be. Da fundamental flaw in your argument, Merlyn, is that yeh keep excommunicating people you disagree with from "science" You're an idiot. The earth wasn't deduced to be round by "excommunicating" people who thought it was flat.

From this point of view, it can be said that faith is like science. You start with the hypothesis that God is real, you experiment by continually praying, you see whether the hypothesis is validated and God is real or not. It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable. My magic 8-ball gives me answers 100% of the time. This doesn't mean the answers are scientific, because I didn't use scientific methods to get my answer. Same with praying for answers -- you might get an "answer", but you didn't use science to get there, so it isn't a scientific answer.

Beavah writes: Ah, Merlyn, sorry if I was movin' too fast for yeh. You aren't moving too fast, you just have a completely wrong concept of what science is. Science is a form of natural philosophy that grew up out of Western culture. Just because it is currently practiced all over the world doesn't mean it isn't western, You've been misusing it as if "western" science differs from some other flavors of science. That's not how science actually works. Western culture has some traits which you espouse whole-heartedly, eh? A belief in universal laws for one, which arises out of monotheism. Monotheism is not the beginning or the end of a belief in universal laws. Like a lot of religious defenders, if some number of your religion espoused X, you're quick to claim that your religion is responsible for X, even if X existed before your religion, if X is espoused by other religions or non-religious philosophies, and even if many members of your religion opposed X. And with a belief in universal laws comes a willingness to say that a belief contrary to those laws is wrong or out of bounds. Not at all. But you don't understand science. All laws of science are subject to review or change, and the universality of laws is explicitly acknowledged as an assumption. Newton's universal laws of motion are wrong, and it was science that questioned them. There is a canon of science in your mind; you dismiss alternate ways of understanding the world as "not science", Sorry, if can't make up crap and claim it's science if it doesn't follow the methodology of science. Of COURSE if someone doesn't follow the methodology of science, what they are doing is "not science." just as da early church fathers of Christendom dismissed alternate beliefs as "not Christian". If someone claimed that Christianity included the gods Zeus, Vishnu, and Quetzalcoatl, it would be quite proper to point out that these are not Christian gods and it's incorrect to ascribe them to Christianity. It would be utterly stupid to accept it as Christianity. So if you are going to restrict what you call "science" to such a narrow canon, then the proper comparison is to similarly restrict the meaning of "religion" to a similar canon, like Christianity. Nope. Science doesn't have a "canon". Religion is not restricted to your personal religion, either. But you don't understand what science is. If you can exclude someone who believes they're doin' science because it's not "real science" then yeh have to allow others to exclude someone who believes they are religious because it's not "real religion." Wrong. Someone else's religion is a "real religion," whether you agree with it or not. Someone can start a new religion tomorrow, and it's an actual religion. There's no peer review to say it isn't a religion, it's just a new religion. But science is a methodology, and if you don't follow it, you aren't doing science. Frauds who try to call non-science "science" are doing it to try to give their pseudoscientific claims the veneer of legitimacy that genuine science gives, because real science has to go through repeated observations, reproducibility, and peer review. There is consensus that there is only one God (among those who practice western religion), just as there is consensus on the shape of the Earth (among those who practice western science). Wrong. Neopagans generally aren't monotheists, and neopaganism originated in the west. And there's no "western" science, just like there's no "Jewish" science. Like I keep saying, you won't find a scientific statement claiming the earth is flat. The "consensus" happens only because you have excommunicated those who believe something else. WRONG. Science converges because they are discovering new facts about the universe. Science says the earth is not flat, because the earth REALLY IS not flat. And you REALLY DO not understand science.

Beavah writes, quoting me first: Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus. Yah, Merlyn, this is really hysterical, eh? Uh, no. Neopaganism started in western europe. It's western. On the one hand, you're only willing to accept Western, canonical science as real science, and dismiss anything else as "fraud". Wrong. There is no such thing as "Western, canonical science", just like there's no "Jewish science" that the third Reich railed against. Science is a methodology, it isn't tied to a culture. It's done all over the world. But then yeh want to compare it to da worldwide potpourri of spirituality. Many of those modern neopagans yeh refer to believe in da healing power of crystals or similar nonsense as "science", eh? Belief doesn't make something "science". However, belief IS sufficient to make something a religion. So if you're goin' to lump 'em in with religion, I only insist that yeh also lump 'em in with science. In which case, there is no consensus on anything. Wrong. There is a scientific consensus on the shape of the earth. You CANNOT find any scientific statement that says the earth is flat. You CAN find ignorant people who fraudulently make claims, but that's "fraud". But if yeh compare Western canonical science and da Western canonical religion from which it grew, that's a more fair comparison. Both are willing, as you are, to dismiss some notions as just wrong-headed. In that case, there is consensus on most things, within both science & religion. Includin' many of the things that they consider "frauds", like modern neopaganism. Wrong again. Science doesn't consider neopaganism a "fraud", it's a religion. You really don't understand what science is.

Beavah writes (quoting me first): Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are. Oh, don't be silly. Make a fair comparison. Western science agrees on a lot of statements. Show me any non-western science (that really IS science) that concludes the earth is a different shape. Just as Western religion agrees that there is One God. Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus. Once yeh open things up to cultures in da developing world, "science" starts to include things like psychic surgery and chakra channeling, Nope, those are what are called "frauds" and superstitions. Apply the same scientific reasoning to them and they don't measure up. They are not scientific. and religion has its equivalents. By contrast, religion is almost entirely made up of unverifiable statements, like what kinds of god(s) exist, what those god(s) expect from humans, and what happens after death. NONE of these are testable, scientific statements. That's not to say that there might not be some underlying truths in native medicines or faiths, of course. After all, Christian monasticism shares a lot in common with eastern monastic practice, and some drugs have been developed from efficacious tribal herbology. But it's a bit more muddled than a Western thinker like you or I can accept. No, it's that you are trying to include non-scientific statements and claiming it's "science". Until psychic surgery and chakra channeling appear in peer-reviewed science journals, it ain't science. [quoting me again first] No, subatomic particles aren't "myths" Sure they are, by your somewhat broad use of da term. No, they aren't, not by MY use of the term. Using your use, I think you'd qualify as a myth, since I've never seen you in real life or anything, I only have indirect evidence of your existence.

Words are interpreted for what is really meant.. I find it vastly more understandable to use two different words for two different concepts like "self" and "mankind" That is why everyone can read the Bible and pull out totally different meanings and interpretations. And then discuss, ponder and debate a simple passage for a whole evening. Sounds to me like the author failed to get his or her point across, then. For word games, I prefer cryptic crosswords.

Beavah writes: Didn't miss da press reports at all, Merlyn. I was explicitly referring to 'em. Then what did you mean by "without yet any observation"? There have been quite a few. But yeh know, while they've been pursuing their quest for just one of their myths, No, subatomic particles aren't "myths", you are again confused by religion. me and my co-religionists have been contributing many, many times more than $9B to da care of the poor and needy Well, there's a red herring out of left field. Science rigorously tests and re-tests its theories. Theology doesn't. Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are. (By the way moosetracker, I use the word "self" to refer to self, and "mankind" to refer to mankind.)

Beavah writes: Had a lot of superstrings in da laboratory lately, have we? Missed all the press about the Higgs boson? Spending about $9,000,000,000 to test hypotheses is a big difference between science and theology. There's a whole made-up literature spun out of that hope and faith without yet any observation. Wrong. I guess you DID miss all the press. And that's different than theology? Very. It hasn't been "officially" sighted yet, because the confidence level is only around 99%, and that's not good enough for science. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

moosetracker writes: So Merlyn.. Have your victory.. "Humanity" wins.. ...IF... You truely belief that it is superior to self, to the point of defending it, when I say.. Fiddle-Faddle.. ...IF... In your heart of hearts this is truely something greater then self, and not something you pulled out of the air for the sake of arguement.. You're actually pulling requirements out of the air; the BSA doesn't use the phrase "greater than self". BSA is looking for a belief in God, not god.. Again, clear as mud. So Merlyn if you truely believe in humanity as 'greater then self' can you accept the fact that BSA does not think you are an atheist???? I doubt that (and that would be due to the BSA's weird definition of "atheist", if so). In any case, the BSA requirement is to subscribe to the DRP, which I do not. (Now packsaddle about this rock I would love to know where you heard this from.. Who argued and won on his theroy of a rock being his God?) It's from the BSA in 1991: http://listserv.tcu.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind9711&L=scouts-l&D=0&P=34070&F=P

moosetracker writes: Merlyn stated.. Does this "greater than" thing HAVE to be a god now? Or are non-gods still in the running? Again Merlyn, not god.. but God.. which can be a non-god as you put it. Clear as mud, as usual. As packsaddle pointed out, the BSA has explicitly said that a rock qualifies (also a tree or a stream, in a 1991 Q&A), so how could the earth itself be unacceptable? It's a superset.

moosetracker writes: Sorry Merlyn, so what other entities or concepts do you find more superior then humanity? Somewhere in there maybe something that will work.. Does this mean you're abandoning the "Belief in something greater then yourself" standard? And what metric are you using for "superior"? The earth is larger, heavier, and older than humanity, but does that qualify as "superior"? Humans can think, but the earth cannot. Are humans superior? Humanity may be greater (as in bigger) then you, but bigger is not always better. But you didn't SAY "better" or "superior" before, you said "greater than yourself"! If you're going to use vague descriptions, you shouldn't be surprised if someone else interprets them very differently from yourself. A set is ALWAYS greater than a proper subset of itself. I'm a proper subset of humanity, mammals, living things on earth, earth (as including the life on earth), the solar system, the milky way galaxy, and the universe. All of these are greater than myself, because I'm only a small part of each. If you choose to, you can choose to be a better person then the collective herd.. But that's a different kind of comparison; your "collective herd" sounds like your taking some sort of average, and saying you can be better than average. A member of humanity will always be strictly less than the sum total of humanity, since there will always be other people who are "better" than you in many ways, even if you are the best human on earth in other ways. Which means there are a few exception people out there that rise above humanity.. Still I would not label them a God, though they may be instrumental in raising the score of humanity up a notch or two.. Well, you started with a fairly workable (if largely subjective) standard with "Belief in something greater then yourself," but now it's a hopeless muddle. Does this "greater than" thing HAVE to be a god now? Or are non-gods still in the running? I sure can't tell what you mean. And how do you "rise above humanity"? Are such people no longer part of humanity?