OT: Superman and Stemcells

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

First of all I am an atheist. So I feel no particular need to try so supply you with a creationist argument. The point I attempted to make was that rational and highly logical people do any of a number of the things you seemed to consider contrary to logic. Take one of your examples, spousal abuse, while morally unsound, I fail to see how it can be either logically sound or unsound, valid or invalid without a great deal of very contrived reasoning. I think you misapply the term logic, and use it in a Star Trekkish Mr Spock fashion that gives it a wider application than what is warranted.

I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them". Considering that it is a simple task to produce examples of seemingly highly logical people that have engaged in those activites you find logically unsound, it seems to me that the burden of proofs that these apparently logical people are in fact not so rests squarely on your shoulders.

I'm normally not a religous person. But if you are out there, save me superman.

[Arryn]

Johan, for someone who's otherwise fairly intelligent, I'm surprised (shocked, actually) that you cannot see for yourself why spousal abuse is an illogical (or if you prefer, irrational) behavior. Do you really need me to explain it to you?

With regards to proofs, you are doing precisely what I said that believers do: shifting the burden of proof. In this case, by attacking the attacker. You are also using circular reasoning in your attacks. Which is a logical fallacy, BTW.

You cannot use as a logical argument: "I don't have to prove what I say is true because you must prove me wrong." To use an analogy, let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not, and to demonstrate where the prosecution has made mistakes in its allegations (ie: where religion has made unverifiable claims). The defense does not need to prove anything. Proof is the burden of the side making the accusations (claims).

If I claimed to be the Messiah, it's not your job to prove me wrong. It's my responsibility to prove that I am what I claim. Religion fails such tests. It cannot prove its claims. Quite the opposite.

Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.

[Zen]

Hah, I think in your case Arryn, it is not too illogical or irrational in the case of spouse abuse. Zing!

I also think it's ever amusing that people fall on the *strawman* of labor of proof. Proof in this matter is purely opinion, hypothesis, and a foundation of faith (whatever it may be).

[Tuna]

Zen said: Proof in this matter is purely opinion, hypothesis, and a foundation of faith (whatever it may be).

Why? The scientific method works perfectly well for everyhting else on the planet. Why should the existence of soul, or god, be any more a matter of faith than the fact that earth rotates around the sun?* Why should existence of something be an opinion? If it exists, the it exists and is provable, if it doesn't exist then it just plain doesn't exist. No need for opinions or faith here.

*(Or actually, rotates around the center of gravity in the solar system which happens to be very near the center of the sun, but anyway.)

[Zen]

Tuna said:
Why? The scientific method works perfectly well for everyhting else on the planet. Why should the existence of soul, or god, be any more a matter of faith than the fact that earth rotates around the sun?* Why should existence of something be an opinion? If it exists, the it exists and is provable, if it doesn't exist then it just plain doesn't exist. No need for opinions or faith here.

*(Or actually, rotates around the center of gravity in the solar system which happens to be very near the center of the sun, but anyway.)

Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.

[Evil Dave]

Zen said:

Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.

It's hairier than that, but I don't wanna dig into Popper and Kuhn to remember how to argue the utter hairiness.

The short form goes kinda like this: some things which were previously the results of long chains of hypotheses are now considered facts. Mars isn't just a bright point in the sky that moves differently than the "fixed stars". We're positive it's a rocky world much more like the Earth than the Sun. Atoms are in the same Category, since you can (more or less) observe them directly with x-ray diffraction and electron microscopes. OTOH, the stuff that makes up atoms (or supposedly makes them up) isn't (yet) a real "fact".

Yeah, there's a lot of handwaving in that. Like I said, arguing it correctly is hard.

[Zen]

Arryn said:
Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.

I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:

I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.

What interesting choices of words. Religion was "invented" or "created"? Hmmm possibly so. I think I might have said developed over time because it achieved those things rather than setup such a harsh shyster view. Im not offended mostly because I consider "religion" as quite different from "religious". The two serve very different purposes.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn,

I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people". If you start from assumptions like "all people are sinners waiting for redemption", "women are more sinful then men", "it is men's duty to 'correct' women", then wife-beating (under certain circumstances) is logical, the same way many people would consider it logical to spank their kids if they were playing with fire.
This doesn't say that either one is "right", tho.

Religions are perfectly capable of making predictions: "All the faithful go to paradise after they die." Have you ever seen a priest burning in Hell?
What's considered proof (at least as far as scientists worry about it) depends not only on making predictions, but making ones that can be disproven. And usually disproven in particular ways. If somebody says "I am the messiah because God came to me in a dream and said so", well, there's no way we can check that. Even if he says "As proof of my divinity, the sun will rise tomorrow", we'd say "While we can test that, it was also true that the sun rose before you became the Messiah, so what does that have to do with anything?" Now, if he says, "As proof, the sun won't rise tomorrow, because my god will cast Utterdark overnight." now that we'd be much more interested in.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people".

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.