God? Don't be silly!

[Scouse]

But...isn't science always based on faith of some sort, when you've proven something, there's faith that the data is enough for it to be true, even IF there's a chance it's not. What do you call trusting that "mayb" to not be true?

Soz mate, nope.

If, through experimentation, I determined that that a certain action would produce the wanted result 90% of cases, then I would act that way in all the cases, full in the knowledge that 10% of the time I would come unstuck.

However, I would attempt to come up with a better theory to improve my odds, even if it meant destroying the one I was currently using.

No faith required. Just a method which is always subject to change - sometimes radical change.


I can give an example of this that proves the above:


We used Newton's theory of Gravity to calculate trajectories of space-ships.

We no longer do that - we use Einstein's theories as they're more accurate.

However, we know Einstein's theory is also incorrect, so for the past hundred years theoretical physics has been obsessed with finding the correct one, whilst using the best they've currently got...

 

[nath]

I can't explain it any more, you just have to assume i guess, i'll tell you if you're wrong. You can't explain it in "detailed specifics". I've given enough info on it for you to atleast assume or get an idea, otherwise, you never will. You've ignored almsot everything i've said to define it, simply due to not reading anything mroe, between the lines, etc. Scientist problem. ALL can't be explained in mathematical formulas, especially not meaning.

Now you have to be more specific though; what about god assuems so much?

If some being, that is defined in the bible, all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent, would come along, wouldn't it be the god the bible talks about?

Or odin, loki, thor etc.

Because it's far more likely that there's a (more) simple solution than that of a God. It's only because of your belief/upbringing/natural acceptance of God that you think that makes sense. I'm sure at some point in human history lightning being a sign of God's wrath made sense. We now know what causes it and that attitude becomes silly. Can't you see the logic behind that and apply it to other ideas?

If I were able to travel back in time I could no doubt convince others that I was a God, clearly I'm not.

As for your explanation - I could argue with the points you've made as I understand them but they really are completely vague. You've complained about people arguing points that aren't what you meant, that they miss the context but if you're going to say things and expect us to understand without fully defining what you're saying that's going to continue to happen.

you just have to assume i guess, i'll tell you if you're wrong

I'm sorry but that basically puts you in charge of the discussion, if I argue any point you could just say, and indeed have said "that's not what I meant you're twisting my words". It strikes me that what you're saying is deliberately vague, the things that you're saying COULD be more detailed but you don't seem to be willing to try.

But...isn't science always based on faith of some sort, when you've proven something, there's faith that the data is enough for it to be true, even IF there's a chance it's not. What do you call trusting that "mayb" to not be true?

I missed that point the first time, Scouse responded pretty accurately. This statement is nice and direct so I'll respond too - the answer is no. Science is not based on faith at all, ever. As has been said, if something is shown to work more often than not, we'll use the balance of probability to work with it but that does not imply faith, it implies an understanding of probability. A very handy thing that science also does is try to BREAK its own theories, attack them from all angles to test how robust they are. If you were to try and apply the same process to religion, you'd find it breaks down pretty quickly - as do countless scientific theories. The difference is, once a theory has been adequately shown to be bullshit, it's dropped.

There's no faith, no blind obedience to science.

 

[Furr]

lolreligion, that is all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Because it's far more likely that there's a (more) simple solution than that of a God. It's only because of your belief/upbringing/natural acceptance of God that you think that makes sense. I'm sure at some point in human history lightning being a sign of God's wrath made sense. We now know what causes it and that attitude becomes silly. Can't you see the logic behind that and apply it to other ideas?

If I were able to travel back in time I could no doubt convince others that I was a God, clearly I'm not.

It's not about me, it's about you not even acknowladging that it's a possibility that strikes me as odd, since you're saying "can't be disproven" and "open to discussion". You're not. If everything imaginable has a scientific explanation, you're effectively being "non open".

I said it once, i'll say it again, if someone came along who had all the powers that are explained in bible for god to have, wouldn't that be the person talked about in the bible? Effectively, god.

As for your explanation - I could argue with the points you've made as I understand them but they really are completely vague. You've complained about people arguing points that aren't what you meant, that they miss the context but if you're going to say things and expect us to understand without fully defining what you're saying that's going to continue to happen.

I'm sorry but that basically puts you in charge of the discussion, if I argue any point you could just say, and indeed have said "that's not what I meant you're twisting my words". It strikes me that what you're saying is deliberately vague, the things that you're saying COULD be more detailed but you don't seem to be willing to try.

Not willing to try? There's a whole list of things on my previous posts i gave to you as definitions. You're looking for some clinical "it's 345.76" answer which can't be given due to it being a MEANING. I've tried, given as much inforrmation about my meaning as i can and NOW, that i HAVE done that, it's YOUR TURN to do some work. Assume and then i can correct you in the right direction.

Because if it's just you telling me to define more, it's YOU that's in control of the conversation as you've been for a looong time. Why the hesitation of giving to TINIEST amount of leanway here? Like i said, i believe it's paranoia.

You're asuming that i COULD explain them more when i directly said i CAN'T.

If you can't believe such a simple thing, it's pointless to even talk to you.

I missed that point the first time, Scouse responded pretty accurately. This statement is nice and direct so I'll respond too - the answer is no. Science is not based on faith at all, ever. As has been said, if something is shown to work more often than not, we'll use the balance of probability to work with it but that does not imply faith, it implies an understanding of probability. A very handy thing that science also does is try to BREAK its own theories, attack them from all angles to test how robust they are. If you were to try and apply the same process to religion, you'd find it breaks down pretty quickly - as do countless scientific theories. The difference is, once a theory has been adequately shown to be bullshit, it's dropped.

There's no faith, no blind obedience to science.

To you and Scouse, it comes down to terminology and the fear of it once more, no point in continuing.

It always does, every time...terms...little tidbits...miniature things with no meaning...

You REALLY should read the thread from another perspective and see what you're doing, but ofcourse, accepting ANY blame or correction is not possible for an "open minded" atheist. That much IS proven.

Afterall, if there's no trust, do you not trust people? IF there's no faith, do you not have belief that someone is capable of something? Or is everything clinical "i don't see potential or there lack of, only proof" with you?

 

[nath]

Regarding explanations. Both myself and others have tried to counter points you made in the thread and almost without exception you've said we're twisting your words. I try to avoid twisting words by asking you to be absolutely explicit with your terms so that I can argue them effectively but you're now refusing? You keep telling me to look at it from another perspective, I could suggest you do the same - you're not willing to put forward a solid point of view, perhaps for fear that if you define yourself too clearly we'll be able to argue it effectively. With those statements you made earlier (the ones relating to "your God is science" why not put forward some practical situations that define this similarity you're aiming to describe.

For example "a religious persons leaning post is God, an atheists is Science - for example in this situation: <insert example here>" then I might have something to discuss with you.

To you and Scouse, it comes down to terminology and the fear of it once more, no point in continuing.

It always does, every time...terms...little tidbits...miniature things with no meaning...

You REALLY should read the thread from another perspective and see what you're doing, but ofcourse, accepting ANY blame or correction is not possible for an "open minded" atheist. That much IS proven.

Afterall, if there's no trust, do you not trust people? IF there's no faith, do you not have belief that someone is capable of something? Or is everything clinical "i don't see potential or there lack of, only proof" with you?

Finally you come out with a statement clear enough for us to discuss, both myself and Scouse argue against it and you just criticise the way we say it and gloss over our actual point? I feel we were pretty clear in what we were saying - if you don't fully understand it please ask for a clarification, if you disagree with the content itself say why. What you've done is effectively "yeah well.. that's kinda rubbish isn't it?" without actually specifying why.

I said it once, i'll say it again, if someone came along who had all the powers that are explained in bible for god to have, wouldn't that be the person talked about in the bible? Effectively, god.

It *could* be, but it's far more reasonable to assume that it's someone who is simply capable of emulating a God like entity. After all, if you have a psychic reading and the "psychic" gets things right, s/he could be a psychic but it's far more likely they're a clever fraud. Someone good at cold-reading etc.

God cannot, can never be proved. It doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility of one, it simply means it can never be scientific fact. The "leap of faith" required to believe is, I feel, a flaw in thinking that needs to be addressed in modern society. Keep in mind, I'm discussing the idea of religion, in general - not specific religions. Specific religions are far easier to dismiss as they set out premises that can be logically broken. Because of that I'm not interested in discussing Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, whatever but the thought process that leads us to those religions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I gave you an example, sunset.

And, why should i do all the perspective viewings? Like you said...

Finally you come out with a statement clear enough for us to discuss, both myself and Scouse argue against it and you just criticise the way we say it and gloss over our actual point? I feel we were pretty clear in what we were saying - if you don't fully understand it please ask for a clarification, if you disagree with the content itself say why. What you've done is effectively "yeah well.. that's kinda rubbish isn't it?" without actually specifying why.

Exactly what you've been doing

And the yet best reason for "your god is science" is the inability to accept that it can't explain everything. As shown on the example "what if god was proven".

Your opinion of science is effectively; "it can explain it always", which, sad to say, means that it's all powerful.

 

[old.Tohtori]

To clarify;

If you believe that science can explain everything, you have faith in it. You believe it can. You trust it can.

If you however DON'T think that science can explain everything, you acknowledge the possibility of something(like god) that couldn't be explained by science.

It's not pick and choose.

 

[nath]

And the yet best reason for "your god is science" is the inability to accept that it can't explain everything. As shown on the example "what if god was proven".

Your opinion of science is effectively; "it can explain it always", which, sad to say, means that it's all powerful.

I'm not actually sure where you got that idea, but it's completely incorrect. I've never once suggested that science can explain it always. And that's exactly the point - science is NOT all powerful. It cannot explain everything, and that's why your suggestion that "your God is science" is false.

In response to your second post - you've got it exactly. I/we do acknowledge that science cannot prove everything - that's what I was saying - nothing could prove a God to me, science cannot prove it. However that doesn't nullify my point that faith in something with no evidence or proof is flawed thinking. I don't have faith in anything at all. I believe things that have been proved, I think things that have been demonstrably reliable are, well demonstrably reliable. What a religious person appears to do is take what has not been proved and then decide that implies a God. It's a flawed approach that is far removed from a scientific attitude. That is why you were wrong to compare atheism and religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not actually sure where you got that idea, but it's completely incorrect. I've never once suggested that science can explain it always. And that's exactly the point - science is NOT all powerful. It cannot explain everything, and that's why your suggestion that "your God is science" is false.

In response to your second post - you've got it exactly. I/we do acknowledge that science cannot prove everything - that's what I was saying - nothing could prove a God to me, science cannot prove it. However that doesn't nullify my point that faith in something with no evidence or proof is flawed thinking.

I wasn't saying it is, but you downright disowned the possibility of anything existing that ultimately couldn't be proven by science or other such prooving method.

What would you call something that science couldn't explain?

I don't have faith in anything at all. I believe things that have been proved, I think things that have been demonstrably reliable are, well demonstrably reliable. What a religious person appears to do is take what has not been proved and then decide that implies a God. It's a flawed approach that is far removed from a scientific attitude. That is why you were wrong to compare atheism and religion.

Again, if something appeared that was, by all definitions of man, a god, wouldn't it be that god that is defined?

Also you do have faith in other scientists, unless you prove yourself everything.

You're turning it into "religion isn't the answer", when i'm challenging atheism without religion in it.

Stop comparing atheism to religion yourself, i'm challenging what atheism is.

And so far it seems there's a bit of cop-outing going on.

 

[MYstIC G]

Bored now. You all smell. Enough.

 

[Jupitus]

Bored now. You all smell, alot.

Fixed that

Keep it civil guys, please.

 

[nath]

The story so far..

Hope you don't mind me posting this, figure it's the best way to carry things on.

"I wasn't saying it is, but you downright disowned the possibility of anything existing that ultimately couldn't be proven by science or other such prooving method.

What would you call something that science couldn't explain?"

That's not what I'm doing - I'm saying there ARE things that can't be proved or disproved. My point is that it's a flawed way of thinking to have faith, to actively believe in specific unprovable entities. It's not that I'm saying they can't exist, but that it's incorrect to place your faith in something like that.

"Again, if something appeared that was, by all definitions of man, a god, wouldn't it be that god that is defined?"

It could well be God, but it would be more likely that it was something that was capable of emulating what we think of as Godlike qualities, rather than being an actual God. That doesn't mean it definitely wasn't God - just that it wouldn't be logical thinking to simply assume it was.

"Also you do have faith in other scientists, unless you prove yourself everything."

That's not faith at all - it's trust. You could argue that's nitpicking but trust can be broken upon presentation of evidence. Faith doesn't work that way - the counterpoint to God not being provable is that he's not disprovable and as such faith can blindly follow the idea of God without any method to change ones outlook. If I so chose, I *could* test theories that a scientist are putting forward as fact. In fact people do, it's called peer review. You can't do that with religion.

"You're turning it into "religion isn't the answer", when i'm challenging atheism without religion in it.

Stop comparing atheism to religion yourself, i'm challenging what atheism is."

The reason I'm doing that is that you suggested that religion is to a religious person is as science is to an atheist. I was arguing against that point.

I think i get your point now, even if it is as weird as a way to look at things as you might see some belief systems. I'm actually on the same side that blind faith doesn't work, in anything.

I still think it's similar, not same, but similar to live a life as an atheist as a theist, but that probably stems from me not being christian or other "major belief" follower, and more towards the way of life thinking.

I'd say your life is an icecream. Very detailed, atom by atom icecream, which you eat up nd then...well...who knows.

My life is the same icecream, i too challenge it, wonder it, live it as i would, but i have a lil cherry on top to eat last.

Weather the cherry is real or a plastic one, i'll only know when i bite down on it.

But, a follow up question, what if something came along and changed everything that science has proven, and then added stuff it just wanted to the scientific realm? What would you think of it? Would you after that look upon that being as the provider of proof?

Then I would re-evaluate everything that science has proven, but I'd still rely on *science*. Science isn't an entity and it's not the facts that science has discovered, it's the method of thinking that allows us to draw conclusions. Testing and proof. If we lose the ability to observe and test the world around us then that'd throw us in to chaos and I've no idea what would happen.

Ok, let's say god would do that(roll with it, fight to urge to pick on word god ), god came along and destroyed scientific ways by messing things up. Would you say that in that VERY unlikely case, someone believing in a god entity would have an advantage because of the belief system?

Basically could just "roll with it", or infact ANY new thing easier?

I don't see why they would - the scientific way of thinking is designed around understanding the way the world works. If someone/something came along and changed that it wouldn't make that way of thinking redundant, we'd just need to use that scientific method to understand what has been changed.

The issue is, science gives us the mental resources to approach a system and attempt to understand it. Religion is just believing something that has no evidence, no testable hypotheses - because of this I think it's redundant. I don't have people having an idea that there's more out there - of course that's possible, but given the evidence it's no more or less likely than any other wild and zany ideas. It will only become more valid when there's more evidence of it.

 

[Tom]

Any rational scientist who observed changes to the known rules of the universe would not automatically ascribe that to a God.

 

[rynnor]

Moving the discussion along a bit - what do folks think of this - BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Physicist wins £1m Templeton gong

Basically you can get a million for providing some tenuous grounds to say that religion isnt rendered completely obsolete by science

Edit - I saw this story and thought of this thread...

So if anyone can think of a cunning way to entwine religion and science it could be a nice little earner!

 

[old.Tohtori]

The issue is, science gives us the mental resources to approach a system and attempt to understand it. Religion is just believing something that has no evidence, no testable hypotheses - because of this I think it's redundant. I don't have people having an idea that there's more out there - of course that's possible, but given the evidence it's no more or less likely than any other wild and zany ideas. It will only become more valid when there's more evidence of it.

That's the thing i don't get(read whole, not just that bit). If anything is possible, even if not proven, why is the religion god so taboo?

If there is a being, as described as god, a being that can create life(all the creationism stuff), why is it so bad to believe there is, if it's even a 0.000001% chance of being possible?

Wouldn't that make religion "Unlikely" and not "redundant" or "stupid"?

 

[DaGaffer]

That's the thing i don't get(read whole, not just that bit). If anything is possible, even if not proven, why is the religion god so taboo?

If there is a being, as described as god, a being that can create life(all the creationism stuff), why is it so bad to believe there is, if it's even a 0.000001% chance of being possible?

Wouldn't that make religion "Unlikely" and not "redundant" or "stupid"?

Because it doesn't really make much sense if there are more likely options. Occam's Razor again.

 

[nath]

It makes the ideas behind religion unlikely, not impossible, but not the practice of religion itself.

Here's a question for you - if I'm coming from a blank slate, no beliefs imposed upon me. The only thing I know is that which can be observed/tested - why should I believe in anything superstitious? Is there any evidence/reason/whatever for *believing* in something? Or is it, as I think it might be, simply leftovers of a redundant way of thinking that science has demonstrated the flaws of?

edit: As for the link you posted, Rynnor:

The spiritual, he argues, cannot be ruled out by scientific endeavour.

I assume there's more to his studies than this conclusion, but it seems fairly obvious. However as many have said in this very thread - that doesn't mean it makes sense to make leaps towards conclusions, it means that there's things that we don't know and perhaps never shall.

 

[rynnor]

The issue is, science gives us the mental resources to approach a system and attempt to understand it. Religion is just believing something that has no evidence, no testable hypotheses - because of this I think it's redundant.

I'm not sure I'd go that far - there are areas where science cannot go because you cannot make a testable hypothesis that can be measured without bias.

Pretty much all of psychology fits this bill and probably a fair bit of medicine - for instance its not actually possible to asess things like faith healing or the effect of genetics on the development of mental illness because you cannot eliminate the human factor.

This doesnt stop people producing various studies on these things but they are all flawed by bias that cannot be eliminated.

You can never entirely eliminate the place of religion through science since religion exists for the most part beyond the bounds of good objective science.

 

[rynnor]

The only thing I know is that which can be observed/tested - why should I believe in anything superstitious? Is there any evidence/reason/whatever for *believing* in something? Or is it, as I think it might be, simply leftovers of a redundant way of thinking that science has demonstrated the flaws of?

Actually people are inherently superstitous - they see patterns where there are none - theres been experiments with kids where sweets are released at random intervals and it showed that kids often associated whatever they were doing at the time as some kind of ritual to get more sweets.

So theyd start repeating whatever it was and lo and behold more sweets came which 'proved' it - thus a superstition is born!

Edit - I think they even proved the same thing with other animals like dogs/pigs etc.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Because it doesn't really make much sense if there are more likely options. Occam's Razor again.

To some things, yes, there are more likely options. Like evolution etc.

But when talking about belief in god, what is the more likely option there?

It makes the ideas behind religion unlikely, not impossible, but not the practice of religion itself.

Here's a question for you - if I'm coming from a blank slate, no beliefs imposed upon me. The only thing I know is that which can be observed/tested - why should I believe in anything superstitious? Is there any evidence/reason/whatever for *believing* in something? Or is it, as I think it might be, simply leftovers of a redundant way of thinking that science has demonstrated the flaws of?

Regarding first part, and partly to Gaffer, but if god is unlikely, not impossible, and religion in itself helps people(as we know it does to some), is there really harm in believing in something unlikely, if it helps concrete the other beneficial elements of religion?

Regarding question;

As said above, belief in something helps in boosting the beneficial elements of the religion. It doesn't mean that it works for everyone, but to those it does, there's no real harm in believing in that "unlikely god".

 

[nath]

This doesnt stop people producing various studies on these things but they are all flawed by bias that cannot be eliminated.

You can never entirely eliminate the place of religion through science since religion exists for the most part beyond the bounds of good objective science.

I'll agree that you can't eliminate the ideas that religion puts forward, but I feel if science teaches us anything it's that they should remain ideas, not beliefs - for the main reason that there's no evidence.

What you mentioned about psychology and the like - they're not an exact science but that doesn't mean the approach is as scientific as they can be. The tools of logic, testing and rational thinking that science is all about are still applied. It's just a bit murky and perhaps requires a bit more trial and error - that doesn't make less scientific if you ask me.


edit: Toht, regarding your first part - we all know the harm that can come from a genuine belief in religion coupled with our natural violent humanity.

Second part - so you're suggesting deluding ones self in order to feel good? That doesn't make the belief any more valid. Plus in this scenario, this blank slate guy wouldn't be able to just say "oh, it'll make me feel good? OK I'll believe!" - you can't switch belief on and off like that. What is out there that could possibly convince him that there is a God? What evidence, what reason?

 

[mooSe_]

Moving the discussion along a bit - what do folks think of this - BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Physicist wins £1m Templeton gong

Basically you can get a million for providing some tenuous grounds to say that religion isnt rendered completely obsolete by science

Edit - I saw this story and thought of this thread...

So if anyone can think of a cunning way to entwine religion and science it could be a nice little earner!

On the face of it, it just seems like some desperate rich religious people willing to pay anything to some clever person who is able to give them some hope that they aren't a bunch of idiots.

But I suppose it's best not to rule out other people's views; as in doing so, one assumes one's infallibility.

 

[rynnor]

I assume there's more to his studies than this conclusion, but it seems fairly obvious. However as many have said in this very thread - that doesn't mean it makes sense to make leaps towards conclusions, it means that there's things that we don't know and perhaps never shall.

Yeah - he's on about perceiving an ultimate reality (which i thought was a name for death ? ) underneath that which we can perceive through science.

Tbh I think hes just had his mind blown by quantum physics - many of those from the early days couldnt really cope with its implications - even Einstein.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm not sure I'd go that far - there are areas where science cannot go because you cannot make a testable hypothesis that can be measured without bias.

Pretty much all of psychology fits this bill and probably a fair bit of medicine - for instance its not actually possible to asess things like faith healing or the effect of genetics on the development of mental illness because you cannot eliminate the human factor.

This doesnt stop people producing various studies on these things but they are all flawed by bias that cannot be eliminated.

You can never entirely eliminate the place of religion through science since religion exists for the most part beyond the bounds of good objective science.

Ooh, not sure about this; you're correct at an individual level, but that's what statistics are for.

Actually people are inherently superstitous - they see patterns where there are none - theres been experiments with kids where sweets are released at random intervals and it showed that kids often associated whatever they were doing at the time as some kind of ritual to get more sweets.

So theyd start repeating whatever it was and lo and behold more sweets came which 'proved' it - thus a superstition is born!

Edit - I think they even proved the same thing with other animals like dogs/pigs etc.

The Clustering Illusion. There's a lot of evidence to suggest this is how religion took root in the first place.

 

[nath]

Actually people are inherently superstitous - they see patterns where there are none - theres been experiments with kids where sweets are released at random intervals and it showed that kids often associated whatever they were doing at the time as some kind of ritual to get more sweets.

Incidentally it's not just kids - Derren Brown tried this with a bunch of c-list celebs and they all fell in to the same trap. However, that's not proof is it. Admittedly it displays a natural fallibility in the way our mind works but that's what's so great about science, it allows us the tools to avoid such pitfalls. After all, if it was done enough they would see that sweets came at times when they *weren't* doing what they thought it was that caused it. Of course we have this wonderful ability to completely ignore the times our theories don't pan out and focus on the times it does. Psychics love that shit.

 

[DaGaffer]

As said above, belief in something helps in boosting the beneficial elements of the religion. It doesn't mean that it works for everyone, but to those it does, there's no real harm in believing in that "unlikely god".

This is something you've mentioned a few times; "where's the harm?" For most people, there's probably no harm in it, and perhaps some good, but that still doesn't mean its actually true, and that's where I have difficulty with religion; when I was first exposed to religion, it was the fact that a lot of biblical stories actually made very little sense that led to my initial doubts; they obviously weren't true. And then one thing followed another. When I reached the point where the bible seemed no more likely than any other mythology (no offense ) and every mythology looked like early versions of comic books, the whole thing came tumbling down in my mind. After that, I was an agnostic for a long time, but the further I looked at it, the role of a "designer" just didn't fit the evidence, so I couldn't go with the idea of any higher power.

I also have particular issues with Judaic religions because tbh, if God did exist, he just seems like a right bastard to me.

 

[rynnor]

I'll agree that you can't eliminate the ideas that religion puts forward, but I feel if science teaches us anything it's that they should remain ideas, not beliefs - for the main reason that there's no evidence.

I think a religious person would counter that with 'there's evidence all around you - the miracle of life, the unlikelihood of the combination of forces that gave us a universe with all the conditions required for something as fragile as life to flourish etc. etc.' - just saying is all

What you mentioned about psychology and the like - they're not an exact science but that doesn't mean the approach is as scientific as they can be. The tools of logic, testing and rational thinking that science is all about are still applied. It's just a bit murky and perhaps requires a bit more trial and error - that doesn't make less scientific if you ask me.

Hmm - I'm actually studying psychology at the moment and tbh the more I get into it the more I realise how subjective the whole thing is - they dont even have common definitions for different disorders and un-surprisingly experts who are specialised in one area miraculously make a lot of diagnoses of just that very condition etc. etc.

On the face of it, it just seems like some desperate rich religious people willing to pay anything to some clever person who is able to give them some hope that they aren't a bunch of idiots.

Heh - I may be an incurable cynic but it looked the same way to me moose

Edit - Tom will be after me for awfull spelling and punctuation again!

 

[Wij]

Hmm - I'm actually studying psychology at the moment and tbh the more I get into it the more I realise how subjective the whole thing is - they dont even have common definitions for different disorders and un-surprisingly experts who are specialised in one area miraculously make a lot of diagnoses of just that very condition etc. etc.

I gave up on psychology at uni for that very reason. It's not scientific. They just make it up.

 

[nath]

I also have particular issues with Judaic religions because tbh, if God did exist, he just seems like a right bastard to me.

To be fair and consistent with my own argument, that particular fact isn't an argument against the existence of a God though.

I think a religious person would counter that with 'there's evidence all around you - the miracle of life, the unlikelihood of the combination of forces that gave us a universe with all the conditions required for something as fragile as life to flourish etc. etc.' - just saying is all

Ah yes, but that's the whole point of this thread - that's faulty thinking.

Hmm - I'm actually studying psychology at the moment and tbh the more I get into it the more I realise how subjective the whole thing is - they dont even have common definitions for different disorders and un-surprisingly experts who are specialised in one area miraculously make a lot of diagnoses of just that very condition etc. etc.

Well you'll know more about it than I, but surely the attempt is to be vaguely scientific - even if the psychologists fail here and there. I know when it comes to psychiatry, it's anything but an exact science but it's still an *attempt* at science. They're not saying "hmm.. I prescribe lithium because I think your aura is slightly mauve". My main experience of psychology is students at uni having read the first chapter of a text book and have decided they fully understand the human condition.

 

[rynnor]

I gave up on psychology at uni for that very reason. It's not scientific. They just make it up.

Yeah - I had a mate who is a Clinical Psychologist but since I told him I thought Neuro Linguistic Programming was just an incidence of the placebo effect he no longer talks to me - I guess people get attached to these things to an irrational degree