Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see what you're saying, but we give a lot of credence scientific theories that can't be proven, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Properly speaking those aren't theories (the highest and most proven explanatory frameworks of science) but hypotheses. And those are hypotheses about things that manifestly exist and can be examined (else they could not be scientifically valid hypotheses). And some of these things accurately describe the world and accurately predict how it functions, even if we don't 100% understand them. Some drugs fall into this category. Technically, some of the basic axioms underpinning math aren't provable, but since math elegantly describes the observable world, it hardly matters.
All of this is a far cry from, say, "I believe in ghosts", or even, "I had a non-intersubjective personal experience of ghosts".
Theists are fond of talking about 'unproven theories' but theories by definition cannot be proven. The theory of gravity, for example, is unproven. Yet it works extremely well. When we launch a deep space probe and fling it past one planet at just the right distance so that the planet's gravity alters the probe's trajectory so as to point it at the next planet to be visited, it works exactly as calculated. I suspect most theists don't really understand how sound is anything in science that has been elevated to the level of theory. Further, I think theists tend to confuse a scientific theory with the common usage of the term, which essentially means 'any conjecture, no matter how unsupported by any evidence it may be'.
As you note, they tend to then equate mere conjecture with a scientific idea that has been subject to rigorous testing and has ultimately been elevated to the lofty status of theory, thereby convincing themselves that any religious assertion is somehow as valid as, say, Einstein's relativity - which, too, has been tested repeatedly and found accurate (for example, the GPS satellite array only works when adjusted for relativity's predictions). The more nefarious know that this is a dishonest sleight of hand' most just don't understand the terms they're throwing around.
Properly speaking those aren't theories (the highest and most proven explanatory frameworks of science) but hypotheses. And those are hypotheses about things that manifestly exist and can be examined (else they could not be scientifically valid hypotheses). And some of these things accurately describe the world and accurately predict how it functions, even if we don't 100% understand them. Some drugs fall into this category. Technically, some of the basic axioms underpinning math aren't provable, but since math elegantly describes the observable world, it hardly matters.
All of this is a far cry from, say, "I believe in ghosts", or even, "I had a non-intersubjective personal experience of ghosts".
...
That said, that we don't understand everything doesn't mean we understand nothing, or should assume the what we don't understand is likely to have explanations that aren't grounded in nature and what we already know for sure.
As a former science teacher, it always saddens me how little attention some young people paid in sceince class.
There are stories of soldiers that have been decapitated in battle and continued running into the fray for several yards before falling. I have personally witnessed chickens beheaded and running the circumference of the yard not hitting a thing for about 45 seconds.
I have read many stories of those that had died and traveled in the spirit to other places and witnessed things that were confirmed after they had been resuscitated.
The testimonies of NDEs are endless and disturbing if you don't believe in an after life. The spirit of a person is not confined to the brain alone.
With out certain filters you can't see certain things that exist in all the light spectrum just as you can't hear all a dog can or see all that cat can see.
Basing what exist on only what you see is a poor witness. Can you see air?
Theists are fond of talking about 'unproven theories' but theories by definition cannot be proven. The theory of gravity, for example, is unproven. Yet it works extremely well. When we launch a deep space probe and fling it past one planet at just the right distance so that the planet's gravity alters the probe's trajectory so as to point it at the next planet to be visited, it works exactly as calculated. I suspect most theists don't really understand how sound is anything in science that has been elevated to the level of theory. Further, I think theists tend to confuse a scientific theory with the common usage of the term, which essentially means 'any conjecture, no matter how unsupported by any evidence it may be'.
As you note, they tend to then equate mere conjecture with a scientific idea that has been subject to rigorous testing and has ultimately been elevated to the lofty status of theory, thereby convincing themselves that any religious assertion is somehow as valid as, say, Einstein's relativity - which, too, has been tested repeatedly and found accurate (for example, the GPS satellite array only works when adjusted for relativity's predictions). The more nefarious know that this is a dishonest sleight of hand' most just don't understand the terms they're throwing around.
At some point, wouldn't it be appropriate to elevate a 'theory' that's consistent with all the evidence,
and has no credible contradictory theory, to the status of 'principle'?
We could speak of the principle of gravity or the principle of evolution.
There are stories of soldiers that have been decapitated in battle and continued running into the fray for several yards before falling. I have personally witnessed chickens beheaded and running the circumference of the yard not hitting a thing for about 45 seconds.
I have read many stories of those that had died and traveled in the spirit to other places and witnessed things that were confirmed after they had been resuscitated.
The testimonies of NDEs are endless and disturbing if you don't believe in an after life. The spirit of a person is not confined to the brain alone.
With out certain filters you can't see certain things that exist in all the light spectrum just as you can't hear all a dog can or see all that cat can see.
Basing what exist on only what you see is a poor witness. Can you see air?
Bodies functioning temporarily on momentum and adrenaline and the lower brain stem functions have nothing to do with life after death. Such things speak to the division of responsibility between the autonomic nervous system and the other parts.
We can't see air but we can measure and analyze it, it exists and no one seriously disputes that it does for that reason.
Sometimes as a semantic shortcut we say we don't believe in invisible gods or realms but it isn't visibility that's the problem really, it is that they are asserted without evidence including any sort of measurability or intersubjective experience. By intersubjective I mean that people experiencing the same god regularly come up with substantively different descriptions of, and messages from, that god, which strongly suggests their own imagination and social and cultural expectations as the source. Or they even come up with different gods altogether. By measurability I mean that if a thing exists it will be detectable by either our senses or the various instruments we use to extend them (for example, into the ultraviolet or infrared, in terms of vision). Other than vague hand-waving deflections involving words like "quantum" and "dark matter" (usually with poor understanding of what they do and don't mean) no one has even attempted to propose a mechanism by which spirit beings and realms would be verified or even provisionally explained (that is, a testable hypothesis). And if they did, the gods would be reduced thereby to natural phenomena anyway, which probably isn't what believers generally want to happen.
But “realities�?
Seriously? How do you empirically know that it’s the REALITY?
Have you ever died and came back to actually KNOW that there is no life after death and there is absolutely nothing after death?
And if you had died and saw that there is nothing after death then you are wrong in that count as well. It’s because, after death, your consciousness was there to perceive and realize that there is nothing after death. Which means there IS consciousnesses after death.
The true answer and the true reality is, we don’t really know. what’s after death?
True we don't know but I base what I think to be true on proven facts or a lack thereof. There is no proof that people go on after death. Only various religions around the world that have conflicting explanations as to what happens. They can't all be right but they could all be wrong. And I believe most religions use the idea of an afterlife as a carrot on a stick for their faithful. Obey god, give us you money and we will give you eternal life. So they have a reason to make things up that benefits them.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 09-17-2023 at 06:44 PM..
And I believe most religions use the idea of an afterlife as a carrot on a stick for their faithful. Obey god, give us you money and we will give you eternal life. So they have a reason to make things up that benefits them.
Bodies functioning temporarily on momentum and adrenaline and the lower brain stem functions have nothing to do with life after death. Such things speak to the division of responsibility between the autonomic nervous system and the other parts.
We can't see air but we can measure and analyze it, it exists and no one seriously disputes that it does for that reason.
Sometimes as a semantic shortcut we say we don't believe in invisible gods or realms but it isn't visibility that's the problem really, it is that they are asserted without evidence including any sort of measurability or intersubjective experience. By intersubjective I mean that people experiencing the same god regularly come up with substantively different descriptions of, and messages from, that god, which strongly suggests their own imagination and social and cultural expectations as the source. Or they even come up with different gods altogether. By measurability I mean that if a thing exists it will be detectable by either our senses or the various instruments we use to extend them (for example, into the ultraviolet or infrared, in terms of vision). Other than vague hand-waving deflections involving words like "quantum" and "dark matter" (usually with poor understanding of what they do and don't mean) no one has even attempted to propose a mechanism by which spirit beings and realms would be verified or even provisionally explained (that is, a testable hypothesis). And if they did, the gods would be reduced thereby to natural phenomena anyway, which probably isn't what believers generally want to happen.
Even on the subject of death and NDEs, there are vastly different accounts, from comforting to horrifying. So much of that is probably based on the underlying personality and psychology of the person.
One of the hardest realities I had to come to terms with when I became an atheist was knowing that my beloved wife would be no more when she passed away. (
That's not entirely true. You can remember her. Think about her any time you wish, and she is alive in your memory.
Sorry for your loss.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
