« Previous entries · Next entries »
June 21, 2007
Posted at 12:39 am by Richard and tagged atheism, creationism, mathematics, proof, science, truth, university. Popularity: 10% [?]
Creationists (how we love them) might suggest that we can’t “prove” that evolution is true, not 100% anyway. About Atheism just posted a nice succinct response (written by a forum member) to that argument, which I wanted to share.
Creationist: You can’t prove evolution is true, 100%.
Me: But evolution has been proved true beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s like in court, to prove a defendant is guilty, the jury needs to decide that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is true.
Creationist: A ha! But innocent people are sent to jail all the time!
Me: Okay, but imagine a different court. In this one, a juror has to first pass years of tests to prove that he knows about the law and the case at hand. Then, he and a million others who also passed the test hear case after case after case. A million different defenses [sic.] are launched against the truth of the claim. Every single of the million jurors after every single of the million cases concluded that there was no reasonable doubt that the claim was true. A single juror, in one case, could say “Not true” and the defendant would go free. But that never happened, and still never happens to this day. Because this defendant gets a million trials every day. And still, not one “Not true” has been found.
That’s the case that evolution is true.
Creationist: Yeah but someday we’ll find a Not true, but for you it’ll probably be too late. Enjoy hell loser.
Me: :-\
It comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of science. I just recently finished my final undergraduate essay ever, On The Nature of Proof for my “History and Philosophy of Mathematics” subject. One section of the essay deals with this issue specifically
The scientific notion of proof is not dissimilar from that in general use. While scientists (or, perhaps, the media which portrays scientific research to the public) may occasionally be casual in their use of the word “proof”, when questioned about the certainty of their results (and thus, whether their work actually constitutes “proof”), they might reply: “Scientists don’t talk about ‘proof’, period. We leave that to the mathematicians… Change the word ‘proof’ to ‘evidence’, and it makes more sense.”
Scientists seem to have little problem admitting that they do not, in fact, prove anything. Karl Popper, whose ideas defined the modern scientific method, suggested that “scientific experimentation [is not] carried out with a view to verifying or finally establishing the truth of theories; … we can never finally prove our scientific theories, we can merely (provisionally) confirm or (conclusively) refute them”
It should be clear that any use of the word “proof” in science is either accidental, or a deliberate attempt to promote “pseudo-science” or non-science as legitimate. Scientific theories may be contingently true, but it is not the goal of science to provide “proof”. While science may have higher standards of evidence than the general population, scientists (like the general population) seek “evidence that is sufficient to establish knowledge of a conclusion”, not certain truth.
Permalink
Share This
June 20, 2007
Posted at 3:40 pm by Richard and tagged belief, christianity, climate-change, creationism, dinosaurs, evolution, fundamentalism, global-warming, jesus, politics, psychology, religion, science. Popularity: 12% [?]
I found an interesting article today about why some people resist science, and what these authors suggest is that distrust in science can be traced back to how science and alternative views are presented to children.
Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.
Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.
It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.
(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.
If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree - although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?
I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed if I could find it again - help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters, and not politicians or the church.
(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)
Permalink
Share This
June 17, 2007
Posted at 11:07 pm by Richard and tagged books, flatland, god, rudy-rucker, sci-fi, science. Popularity: 11% [?]
One of the earliest books I can remember reading that had an influence on my spirituality was not a book on religion at all but a book by a science fiction writer, Rudy Rucker. “God” is usually talked about as a father figure, or some mystical being (who looks somewhat like us - old dude, white beard) in the sky - and while these stories might be just metaphors for the true nature of God, it created a barrier to the possibility of me ever accepting the existence of higher power. I remember that “The Fourth Dimension: And how to get there” inspired me to think about the possibility of this higher power in a new way. Rudy Rucker is best known as a science fiction writer, but the book “The Fourth Dimension” is a work of non-fiction. In it, Rucker draws on the works of Edwin A. Abbott who wrote “Flatland” in 1884.
In “Flatland” Abbott explores the fictional life of “A. Square”, who lives in a two dimensional world and is visited by “A. Cube” (a 3-dimensional creature). While it’s a rather simplistic example, it raises the possibility that we (3-dimensional creatures) may be surrounded by “beings of a higher dimension” who could interact with us in God-like ways. While I don’t necessarily believe that God is, in fact, a creature from a higher-dimensional universe, the book suggested the possibility that maybe God can physically exist, but still be “omnipotent”.
Rudy Rucker gave me a way of thinking about the nature of a higher power that still allowed me to understand the world from a scientific viewpoint, and while I’m sure it wasn’t his intention - Rudy Rucker opened my mind to the possibility of “God”.
Permalink
Share This
June 14, 2007
Posted at 7:06 pm by Richard and tagged burqa, choice, hijab, islam, modesty, speedos. Popularity: 9% [?]
I’ve just finished reading a post by the Daylight Atheist which I’m not quite sure how to respond to. I totally agree that all religions have a lot to answer for in the ways they oppress certain groups or ideas - I find the negative attitude of certain denominations of Christianity towards homosexuality disgraceful, for instance. But I find this issue slightly more complicated. The Daylight Atheist suggests that:
Burqas, Hijabs and other such “garments oppress women and are an affront to human dignity. By design, they are dehumanizing and degrading, and remain so even if the woman freely chooses them for herself.”
This is a really difficult one for me, because while I agree with most of what is said, I think taking it to the point where any veil is dehumanising “even if the woman freely chooses them for herself” might be taking things a little far.
I think it’s certainly possible to argue that in these cultures it is not possible for a woman to make free choices about such issues. Perhaps societal pressures are so great that even a woman who thinks that she’s choosing it for herself, in fact, isn’t. But if you assume that it’s possible for a woman to make a free choice about these matters, then I don’t think you can judge her, her religion, or her culture for allowing her to make the choice. If I don’t feel like parading around in a pair of speedos, I’m sure you’ll allow me some modesty by wearing some board shorts and a t-shirt when I’m down at the beach. How is this any different?
Even today in the most liberal societies, we have certain modesty boundaries which are not to be crossed - try walking around the streets in a borat-style swimsuit (possibly not safe for work), and see what kind of dirty looks you get. The point is, while the exact location of the “line not to be crossed” might differ in every cultures, every individual should be allowed to choose what they wear (within certain boundaries), even if it might seem a little strange.
When a group of powerful individuals (e.g. religious leaders) make the decision for you against your will, however, we have a problem.
Permalink
Share This
June 13, 2007
Posted at 2:19 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, atheism, buddhism, catholosim, confucianism, existentialism, harekrishna, hinduism, humour, islam, jehovahswitness, judaism, newage, nihilism, pagan, protestantism, religion, satanism, scientology, soplipsism, taoism, zen. Popularity: 20% [?]
Here are some simple ways that you can compare all the major world religions:
- Read The Big Religion Chart,
or
- Read this:
TAOISM - Shit happens
CONFUCIANISM - Confucius says: “Shit happens.”
BUDDHISM - If shit happens, it isn’t really shit.
ZEN - What is the sound of shit happening?
HINDUISM - This shit happened before.
ISLAM - If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
PROTESTANT - Let shit happen to someone else.
CATHOLIC - If shit happens, you deserve it.
JUDAISM - Why does this shit always happen to us?
JEHOVAH’S WITNESS - Let us in and we’ll tell you why shit happens
HARE KRISHNA - Shit happens. Shit happens. Shit happens.
PAGAN - Shit is part of the goddess, too.
SCIENTOLOGY - This book gets rid of your shit.
EXISTENTIALISM - Everything is shit, so let’s be depressed.
NIHILISM - Everything is shit, so let’s blow it all up.
SATANISM - I made this shit happen and I’m glad about it.
SOLIPSISM - This shit happens to me alone, but I am the cause of it
ATHEISM - I don’t believe this shit.
AGNOSTICISM - What is this shit?
NEW AGE - For $300 I can help you achieve Shit Happens Awareness
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 12:01 am by Richard and tagged creationism, discworld, flatearth, fundamentalism, pastafarianism, podcast, stupidity. Popularity: 9% [?]
… and you thought Creationists lived with their head in the sands.
I found a podcast recently by The Infidel Guy, where he discusses a group I couldn’t believe actually existed today - The Flat Earth Society.
On this podcast, he discusses the beliefs of the Flat Earth Society who still believe that the earth is actually flat. A round disk, centred at the north pole, with a 150ft ice wall which keeps all the water in. How is it, then, that us “Round Earthers” are utterly convinced that the earth is actually round? Well, it’s a world-wide government conspriacy. One of the most disturbing things about this, is these views are apparently not motivated by religious dogma, but rather… just plain stupidity!
Have a read of their FAQ to fully understand just how nuts these views are. While it appears that the actual number of members who believe what they preach is small, I’m still hoping it’s just a big joke, but even Pastafarianists don’t take things that far.
(I wanted to find a nice picture of Discworld to use on this post, but I couldn’t find one that I could use without breaking copyright)
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries · Next entries »
Posts
