|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Why can't science and God co-exist?
Posted on: May 18, 2007 - 5:37pm
  Offline
Why can't science and God co-exist?
I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist. Why not?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
And I was waiting for killer line that would debunk evolutionary ethics. instead you just proved it thanks
Would you care to debunk non belief ? you seem quite good at this
RIIIGHT.....lol
IT is NOT ethics . I proved only these animals can and do learn and behave without a sense of justice or ethics. How did you miss this?
Non-belief: to have it is not to claim it.
To claim it, is to assert a concept and affirm a position and thus a belief.
Revove the irrational zen and be a strong agnostic instead.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Hang on now you are trying to disprove what you just proved ? you're making me dizzy
You carefully pointed out Parasitic relationships gradually evolve into commensalistic relationships, which gradually evolve into mutualistic relationships ? what would be the next evolutionary step
To further back you up, Rev. From deludedgod (emphasis added):
Seems that we already know that other animals display a sense of ethics... altruistic tendencies are considered ethical. I'd like to do more research on this myself as it makes for interesting discussions.
There are two seasons in Canada, Hockey season and not-Hockey season.
Canada: 16% Atheist and growing.
For now it seems the rudimentary forms of what seems to be ethics and altruism can be explained as learned behaviors for group benefit separate from ABSTRACT THOUGHT. Abstract thought that leads to conclusion and action seems to be the clearest separation of these behaviors vs. human emotional reactions along with the mix of individual empathy and apathy.
Keep in mind this does not mean rudimentary behavior studies don’t have human applications. Indeed, the path of learned behavior and learning are deeply seated together. I guess this is what makes it so confusing.
Example I prick the finger of an ape and its hand moves away.
I prick a finger of a child and its hand moves away.
I take a toy from a baby chimp and it seems upset.
I take a toy from a baby human and it seems upset.
It might surprise the Rev. that I am actually pro-evolution and contend that on the pure logical design of likes being found near other likes in nature makes sense. From molecule to high function motor skills these breadcrumbs of discovery are on a pure probability scale, necessary.
I agree these things are interesting and I think most entertaining part of this animal ethics discussion is the basic to advance similarity correlation argument without much regard to the things that separate us completely from the animal world. Obviously there is a motivation behind this direction of discussion, where one side thinks any correlation of similar behaviors between humans and animal points to a concrete conclusion without regard to the process that created those apparently similar behaviors. When we get to language communication, abstract thought, self-propagated emotional triggers created from imagery, empathy and apathy by proxy created by abstract thought, (I learned about an upsetting event and was motivated….) we will separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
We expect to see eventual recidivism and degeneration of the relationship once mutulistic equlibriam is unbalanced.
The animals themselves are unable to correct this on collectively or consciously as a species. We humans however are able to though we don't always do it (for humanistic reasons) or in what some would say was a timely manner."I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
. . .on the misuses of the uncertainty principle.
The uncertainty principle does not mean that we cannot have definite answers. What it does mean is that some events are purely random or non-causal (depending on interpretation). The limit set by the speed of light does not maen that we will never touch most of the universe, only that you or I probably won't within our lifetimes. There is no plan in this, it's just that cards we drew and were forced to play out.
The odds a universe that can maintain life as we know it are astronomical. Similar odds exist for anything that happens. The odds of drawing a royal flush are very slim, but if you did then the odds of you having drawn a royal flush are infinitely in favor of it. You can't calculate the odds after something as massive as the universe has already happened.
No, because other universes obey the same axiomatic laws ours do. 2+2 still equals 4 in another universe. The basis of the idea is not an answer to the chances of our universe existing as it. It was coined as an answer to the causality of non-causal (from our perspective) events. Any event that is completely random actually takes place in all possible ways across the multiple universes, with each universe interfering with the others. This is useful in that we can use those parallel universes to do computations by knowing how they interfere. Read The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes-And Its Implications.
Nothing else exists by its lack of evidence. Even the multiverse interpretation of quantum phenomena is just a method of thinking about it, without which it would be very difficult to explain let alone try to use practically. It seems likely based on the phenomena we observe in physics labs, but there isn't solid evidence for it.
Maybe you should be more practical in your reasoning. Maybe nothing exists. However, acting as though nothing exists doesn't help anyone and is therefore one of the least moral things you can do.
On the whole your experiences are just as likely as anyone else's. I can say that with confidence knowing how statistics and probability really work. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean it won't happen, and there are a lot of human factors thrown in that change the odds.
It's fine if you want to believe in such things but it's still a lazy delusion preventing you from realising your full potential as a thinking being.
Science doesn't rule the universe, the universe rules science. Probability doesn't even enter into it. Science is based on the way the universe really works. So if you don't like it, too bad. It's reality, and the space for God is shrinking.
learn:
Mimic:
as a verb
as an adjective
Do you see the difference? Learning is not mimicry, though it may begin with mimicry. Human ethics are no different from animal ethics in that
1. They are mimiced.
2. Then they are learned.
However, it is our simulatory prefrontal cortex which allows us to predict what would be or not be ethical. Animals can't make predictions like we do. Damage to the forebrain creates this state. Ethics do not come from God, they are learned and then reproduced as a prediction.
Well, you're assuming that any such study into ethics in animals is rudimentary. That it does nothing else than test a simplistic hypothesis and is considered done. At the same time, you're offering up an hypothesis of your own without much to support it. You're presenting nothing more than intellectual meanderings on the subject. Can you give us anything more concrete? Without evidence you seem to be painting yourself into a corner.
I'm definitely going to look more into this animal ethics issue, especially as it relates to primates. Deludedgod piqued my interest in the subject with his postings. Personall, I won't be assuming the sophistication of the studies one way or another until I've read and understood them.
Cheers
There are two seasons in Canada, Hockey season and not-Hockey season.
Canada: 16% Atheist and growing.
This more in favor of my point then against. The most basic forms of behavior are learned behavior and but not truly ethical unless you want to call it ethical behavior just for fun. True ethics as humans apply it requires abstract thought and consideration before action and prediction. Animals are not great predictors as you have stated, and cannot make a moralistic choice of self sacrifice based on its own abstract thoughts.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
As you venture forth into your studies you may want to keep in mind that from a behavioral perspective it only makes sense that animals do share many behavior qualities with humans. The things that stick in my mind are not these similarities but the differences that separate us as well as the mental processes and paths that cause the emotions, predictions and decision making.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Ladakh. It is known for its distraction display, which it uses to distract a predator such as a fox or human who approaches its nest. To protect its eggs or chicks the Plover pretends to be injured and holding a wing as if it were broken, attracts the attention of the threatening predator and leads it away, only to fly away at the last moment, after its sure its chicks are safe.
http://www.kashmirhub.com/wildlife-of-kashmir/birds-of-ladakh.html
Cause and effect of natural selection of innate maternal behavior.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Cause and effect of natural selection of innate maternal behavior.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
From personal experience alone, I lean towards the notion that the differences are fewer than the similarities with higher order animals. Example, training a dog. While there is probably a lot out there on dog behaviour beyond Pavlov, I haven't read it, so please keep in mind my position is only from personal observation. Much like yours is. We both come in with our own personal "baggage" and particular notions of outcomes because we are not conducting experiments. As a result, our data is skewed.
From this, the only reasonable thing for either of us to do is delve further into the subject by reading the published papers of those who have done the appropriate research. As state, I'll be doing this. You've merely given me a warning as to what I should find or keep in mind. I have a feeling I'll come out of this with some good knowledge on the subject but I'll be unlikely to enter into a constructive debate with you, as I had hoped.
Oh well. I'll be richer for the knowledge.
There are two seasons in Canada, Hockey season and not-Hockey season.
Canada: 16% Atheist and growing.
I am not sure what you hope for me to say. I don't dispute general behavior studies or their application on animals or human. Operant conditioning works on both for example. My contention is the separation of how we dissect information and use this information vs. animals with their clearly limited scope of cognitive ability.
If not from me then perhaps another perspective.
As a philosopher of biology and cognitive science, Dr. Colin Allen studies the mental worlds of animals, exploring what cognitive capacities they may possess.
"The way ethicists have relied on science has typically not been adequate," he says. "It hasn't shown sufficient sensitivity to good scientific questions about what can be inferred from behavior and physiology and so on." - Dr. Allen - Indiana University
I simply agree and say more cognitive studies are needed. Over all much of the behavior found in nature can be explained without need or use anthropomorphic views.
Now, if we want to find what separates us from a biology stand point we at least have some new research and insight in this area.
Scientist ( Svante Paabo of the Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany & Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego) have found five times as many changes in gene expression -- actual activity by the genes -- in the human brain than would be predicted by evolution.
The researchers at the Max-Planck-Institute took a look at messenger RNA, which is what translates the genetic recipe found in DNA into a final product -- a protein. Every cell contains a full complement of DNA, but what makes one cell become a liver cell and another function as a brain cell depends on what genes are expressed.
GRAY MATTER SHOWS GENETIC DIFFERENCES
Another interesting find was, humans differed more from one another than chimps differ from one another, they found. As experts predicted, it seems that humans mix and match their proteins, so that while there are only 30,000 genes, there are an estimated 250,000 different human proteins.
No one knows why...
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis