Faith in Bacon's scientific method

Jul 2014
15,634
9,740
massachusetts
Argument from authority, as well as a false dichotomy.

I've already demonstrated that theories of evolution have been around since the ancient Greeks and Hindus, with many alternative evolutionary theories existing independently of Darwin (such as evolution forming the basis of Common law theories of civilization); and not in mutual exclusivity to god or creation.

Not to mention, if history is any indicator, all of the theories considered science today may be considered the "magic" or "alchemy" several 100 years from now, so there's no reason to "believe" in them today, or any day, other than for a need to place faith in something... anything...

No one, in practice, believes evolution is about "survival" anyway - if it was there wouldn't be any scientists, given that cave dwellers had no problems with mating and procreation, often taking several wives - science itself would merely detract from time which could be better spent having sex and popping out babies.
No, what you have demonstrated is that you have been seriously mislead, what you believe simply isn't true.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
No, what you have demonstrated is that you have been seriously mislead, what you believe simply isn't true.
That's begging the question.

And if you're arguing that Darwin's theory "isn't the same" as the other evolutionary theories, then by the same standard that debunks the notions of Christianity having similar ideas with other world religions, such as stories of sons of God, virgin births and so forth.

You could just as will argue circularly that "Christianity is different because (insert reason here)".
 
Nov 2005
9,566
4,182
California
No, it's a fact.
Secular Humanism is a set of principles or axioms accepted based on faith, so it is a religion or system of belief.
You're intentionally equating "religion" with belief in God or something "supernatural", which isn't what it is. Believing in a God or something supernatural by itself wouldn't qualify as a "religion", whereas religions which do not invoke God do exist, secular Humanism being one of them, as well as some forms of Buddhism, Taoism, and so forth.
At this point, you are arguing with the dictionary and insisting on being ignorant.


Even the term "supernatural" is vague and meaningless - one could argue that thoughts are "supernatural", since thoughts are not "natural", but something created by the mind.
Again, you make up your own meaning for words for your own convenience.

supernatural:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universeespecially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Thoughts are clearly within the realm of "usual or normal". They are not supernatural.


That's a strawman, and yes Secular Humanism has a set of beliefs or axioms which are dictated to its members, and accepted autocratically or based on faith.
You are repeatedly abandoning the true meaning of words to implement your own delusions.
"strawman" is where I falsely claim you have a position (which you don't really have) and then I argue against it.
What position here have I claimed you have which you do not?


Non sequiter - even that's just a value judgment, and the nitty gritty truth of science likely isn't that simple.
You are seriously lost.
I was responding to your value judgment by pointing out concrete examples of sciences value.
And then, when I respond in kind, you whine about value judgments???
:rolleyes:


The notion of a "religion's god" doing it in some literalistic fashion is somewhat childish to begin with...
Why?
The religious god has facilitated genocide, demanded a father to kill his son, ordered rape and slavery, ...
He's the one that created the diseases. Why shouldn't we likewise comment on whether or not he has cured the disease?


... and likewise, it's been demonstrated that science in some form or another, often co-existing with religion, has been a part of every human culture, whether ancient Rome or ancient China.
That statement has significance, if only you could grasp the meaning of it and it's demonstrated importance.


(Likewise, autocratic "secular" cultures such as North Korea are known to exist, showing that autocratic behavior isn't limited solely to things which are considered "religion" or "religious", by some vague, dishonest or inconsistent definition).
Never claimed it was related solely to things considered "religious".
And my definition is not "dishonest or inconsistent". YOURS is as you make it up to apply to whatever you please.


Plus the belief that mankind should do things such as invent vaccines or cure things is in itself a "religious", philosophical, or faith-based belief.
You routinely say things which boggle the mind in how absurd they are.
You actually think the value and importance of curing a disease is a "religious" / philosophical / faith-based belief?
It's a universal moral position for which the counter has no intelligible position.

Ask any second-grader if it's a good thing or a bad thing to cure a disease and they will undoubtedly say it's a good thing.
You are so confused that you jumble ideas like faith, morality and knowledge into a big pot for which you have no intelligible distinction between the three.
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
At this point, you are arguing with the dictionary and insisting on being ignorant.

Again, you make up your own meaning for words for your own convenience.
Nope, just asserting that it is what it is, a set of axioms, beliefs or principles held based on faith.

supernatural:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universeespecially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Thoughts are clearly within the realm of "usual or normal". They are not supernatural.
[/quote]
Thoughts do not exist within the realm of the "natural" world, no.

If you're conflating "natural" with "normal", then that's absurd (since in America and most Western nations, believing in a God is the "norm", whereas being an atheist is "abnormal" - this would mean atheism is "supernatural"... err... okay...).

You are seriously lost.
I was responding to your value judgment by pointing out concrete examples of sciences value.
And then, when I respond in kind, you whine about value judgments???
:rolleyes:
Asserting something scientific "in a vacuum", and then jumping

Why?
The religious god has facilitated genocide, demanded a father to kill his son, ordered rape and slavery, ...
He's the one that created the diseases. Why shouldn't we likewise comment on whether or not he has cured the disease?
Yawn...

If it wasn't "God", then it was the planet - so what value is there in "caring for a planet" which doesn't care about you, other than fear of death and submission?

That statement has significance, if only you could grasp the meaning of it and it's demonstrated importance.

Never claimed it was related solely to things considered "religious".
And my definition is not "dishonest or inconsistent". YOURS is as you make it up to apply to whatever you please.
You're falsely conflating "religion" with mythology, or "belief in a God".

The fact is, religions which do not invoke a God or mythology do exist, which is what Secular Humanism is - a set of beliefs, axioms or principles held on faith, as is every belief system.

You routinely say things which boggle the mind in how absurd they are.
You actually think the value and importance of curing a disease is a "religious" / philosophical / faith-based belief?
It's a universal moral position for which the counter has no intelligible position.
Correct, so it's a faith-based belief, not something based on empiricism, demonstrable, testable, and so forth.

Ask any second-grader if it's a good thing or a bad thing to cure a disease and they will undoubtedly say it's a good thing.
The issue would be more complicated, since a second grader would be less likely to understand the difference between theory and practice, or have a sound understanding of moral philosophy, and of course not all moral beliefs would be created equal (and the moral maturity of a 2nd grader would not be the same as a mature adult).

(For example, if eliminating homosexuals caused AIDS to stop existing, I doubt you would be in favor of "curing the disease" in that manner - or if honor killing your daughter for wearing jeans was what a Muslim in a 3rd world country considered the "moral" thing to do, most people in 1st world country would strongly object to this).

If what you're arguing is that some moral sentiments are "innate", or based on things which are "innate", then I wouldn't disagree - but the same arguments have been made in regards to God, and that belief in God is innate, or comes from things innate, and would have exited before Bacon's modern institution of science.
 
Nov 2005
9,566
4,182
California
Nope, just asserting that it is what it is, a set of axioms, beliefs or principles held based on faith.
Now you're just repeating yourself for the purpose of ignoring what has been shown to you.
I clearly documented "faith" => RELIGION.

faith:
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion


Thoughts do not exist within the realm of the "natural" world, no.
Wow dude.
You really cling to ignorance like a life raft...

nature:
a: being in accordance with or determined by naturenatural impulses
b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature


If you're conflating "natural" with "normal"...
No. I am not.


Asserting something scientific "in a vacuum", and then jumping
I don't know what non-sequitur you were attempting to state, but it does not address my point.
I was responding to your value judgment by pointing out concrete examples of sciences value.
And then, when I respond in kind, you whine about value judgments???


If it wasn't "God", then it was the planet - so what value is there in "caring for a planet" which doesn't care about you, other than fear of death and submission?
So "the planet" ordered slavery, rape and genocide? "The planet" creates viruses and bacteria that kill?
No. Your reply makes no sense. The religion claims "God" did that.
Even if we approach viruses and bacteria from a scientific approach, it's not the planet that does that.

You don't bother to listen to what is being said before you throw out your next half-assed remark.


You're falsely conflating "religion" with mythology, or "belief in a God".
It's in the definition.


The fact is, religions which do not invoke a God or mythology do exist, which is what Secular Humanism is - a set of beliefs, axioms or principles held on faith, as is every belief system.
You are back to circular claims.
You refuse to acknowledge the definition (or the significance) of the word "secular" and just repeat your position which has been debunked. You add nothing of worth to the discussion other than obstinance.


Correct, so it's a faith-based belief, not something based on empiricism, demonstrable, testable, and so forth.
No.
Again, you blindly circle back to your disproven proclamations which defy the dictionary. I've already proven that you abuse the meaning of the terms "faith" and "belief".

The fact that it is not "based on empiricism, demonstrable, testable, and so forth" does not automatically make it "faith". Although, I am amused that you just used a reference to scientific method to preclude "faith" / "belief" => which repudiates your own claims regarding science and "faith".

Regardless, morality without religion would be (at best) "philosophy".


The issue would be more complicated, since a second grader would be less likely to understand the difference between theory and practice, or have a sound understanding of moral philosophy, and of course not all moral beliefs would be created equal (and the moral maturity of a 2nd grader would not be the same as a mature adult).
(For example, if eliminating homosexuals caused AIDS to stop existing, I doubt you would be in favor of "curing the disease" in that manner - or if honor killing your daughter for wearing jeans was what a Muslim in a 3rd world country considered the "moral" thing to do, most people in 1st world country would strongly object to this).
Now you are inserting moral dilemmas into the situation to try to pretend the point is flawed, which is a disingenuous move on your part.
My point is that simply curing a disease is recognized as a universal good.
You can't handle that simple fact so you try to add other irrelevant factors on to unnecessarily (and pointlessly) distract from the conclusion.


If what you're arguing is that some moral sentiments are "innate", or based on things which are "innate", then I wouldn't disagree - but the same arguments have been made in regards to God, and that belief in God is innate, or comes from things innate, and would have exited before Bacon's modern institution of science.
The point is how can you claim it's "faith" or "religion" or "belief" based when it's a universally recognized good.
But this ties into another area where you have a learning deficiency whereby you cannot cope with atheists being able to recognize and follow morality.

Regardless, you tossing out other "arguments" which have nothing to do with the point is irrelevant.
If somebody argues that a stop sign is flat, does it make sense to point out that others have argued the earth is flat?
Of course not. The two concepts have no cogent tie between them just like the existence of some examples of universal morality are not affected by false claims regarding universal belief in God.
 
Jul 2014
15,634
9,740
massachusetts
That's begging the question.

And if you're arguing that Darwin's theory "isn't the same" as the other evolutionary theories, then by the same standard that debunks the notions of Christianity having similar ideas with other world religions, such as stories of sons of God, virgin births and so forth.

You could just as will argue circularly that "Christianity is different because (insert reason here)".
Before you try to Tell me about Darwin's theory, maybe you should try to understand what Darwin's theory is, so far you have not said anything that would lead someone to believe you knew anything about Darwin's theories. Clearly you are more comfortable with the magical notions of Christianity than solid science
 
  • Like
Reactions: RNG
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
Before you try to Tell me about Darwin's theory, maybe you should try to understand what Darwin's theory is,
It's an ugly theory for ugly people, for the most part - in a succinct definition, it's just the theory that man has common ancestry with animals, a theory which has existed in various folk cultures as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of Hindu culture and religion, not to mentions theories of law, society, and culture - such as in Oliver Wendell Holmes "The Common Law".

Darwin's theory may be more complex than some of the theories which came before it, but you could say that about anything - such as how Christianity as religious system is more complex than folk myths about virgin births, sons of God, and so forth.

Atheists and others believing that "man came from nature, just like the animals" have been believing it for all of human history, on the basis of folk wisdom or simple observations, not science - they merely use scientific information to support what they had always believed, and will likely still be believing even once the theory of evolution is debunked.

so far you have not said anything that would lead someone to believe you knew anything about Darwin's theories.
Clearly you are more comfortable with the magical notions of Christianity than solid science
More of your superstitions, silly notions of "magic", blind faith in popular myths of what "solid science" is, merely because you were told so, or indoctrinated, not having invented or discovered anything yourself. Only weakling needs faith in "solid science", as a substitute for faith in God, or whatever he would naively and obsequiously place his faith in, like a trusting little child in want of his daddy.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
15,634
9,740
massachusetts
It's an ugly theory for ugly people, for the most part - in a succinct definition, it's just the theory that man has common ancestry with animals, a theory which has existed in various folk cultures as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, as well as a component of Hindu culture and religion, not to mentions theories of law, society, and culture - such as in Oliver Wendell Holmes "The Common Law".

Darwin's theory may be more complex than some of the theories which came before it, but you could say that about anything - such as how Christianity as religious system is more complex than folk myths about virgin births, sons of God, and so forth.

Atheists and others believing that "man came from nature, just like the animals" have been believing it for all of human history, on the basis of folk wisdom or simple observations, not science - they merely use scientific information to support what they had always believed, and will likely still be believing even once the theory of evolution is debunked.




More of your superstitions, silly notions of "magic", blind faith in popular myths of what "solid science" is, merely because you were told so, or indoctrinated, not having invented or discovered anything yourself. Only weakling needs faith in "solid science", as a substitute for faith in God, or whatever he would naively and obsequiously place his faith in, like a trusting little child in want of his daddy.
That's not Darwin's theory.
You're trying to dismiss what is perhaps the greatest discovery in history, and you don't have a clue what it is....
 
Feb 2007
5,807
3,401
USA
“Evolution is often considered as something unexpected. Wouldn’t it be more natural, some antievolutionists ask, if everything would always stay the same? Perhaps this was a valid question before we understood genetics, but it is no longer. In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution. If one adds further biological processes, such as recombination and selection, the rate of evolution accelerates exponentially. Therefore, the mere fact of the existence of genetic programs makes the assumption of a stationary world impossible. Evolution is thus a plain fact, not a conjecture or assumption.

It is very questionable whether the term “evolutionary theory” should be used any longer. That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that is has become irrational to call it a theory. To be sure, there are particular evolutionary theories such as those of common descent, origin of life, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, but scientific arguments about conflicting theories concerning these topics do not in any way affect the basic conclusion that evolution as such is a fact. It has taken place ever since the origin of life.”


“What Evolution Is”
Ernst Mayr
 
Oct 2019
676
48
USA
That's not Darwin's theory.
It's close enough. The basic premise of his theory is common ancestry with animals, which has been around since the ancient times, and existed in other evolutionary theories independently of Darwin. (Given that his theory emerged after Europe began trading with the Orient, which had held evolutionary theories for thousands of years, it's possible that history may reveal that this may have played a role in the development of his idiosyncratic theory).

You can always argue "it's not Darwin's theory" simply by pointing out a discrepancy - just as you could argue that two apples are not "the same" on the basis of 1 apple having 1 less gram of dietary fiber than the other - much as you could argue that cultural stories of virgin births or sons of God are "not the same" as Jesus, simply by pointing out discrepancies.

Phillip Tetlock documents this well in his book "Superforcasting" - what you'll end up doing is simply pointing out every minute discrepancy between Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution, while at the same time conflating the similarities between Christianity and other world religions - simply because you want to, or because of superstitious idol worship related to Darwin, not wanting to accept the facts that his theories are not something he can claim sole credit for.

You're trying to dismiss what is perhaps the greatest discovery in history, and you don't have a clue what it is....
That's a quaint little popular myth, and there's no reason to consider it the "greatest" at... anything, except out of childlike awe and superstition. Arguing that it's the "greatest" has nothing to do with science - it's simply a personal preference or childlike sentiment for some reason or another. Darwin only caught up to what others had been observing since the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers via common sense, and his superstitious followers can't stand that

No reason to assume it's any greater than any other theory, such as Newton's or Einstein's, any other form of though and abstraction - such as music theory, legal theory, or mathematical theories - or any other human accomplishment such as the inventions of the Industrial revolution, and there would be much more supporting evidence to attribute greatness to an invention such as the automobile, or the personal computer, than their would to a silly theory or abstraction like evolution, which exists only in your mind, as opposed to a car or computer, which exists in every day life.

All you'll do is devolve into circular reasoning ("Here's the conclusion - Evolution is the greatest - Now what results can we find to support it?"), simply because you want to, not because it's true, because it challenges your faith in your evolutionary sky daddy.

If anything, the fact that many people were much more successful at mating, survival and reproduction for thousands of years, without Darwin's evolutionary theory, whereas the average "evolution" fetishist would often be lucky to be able to mate without resorting to rape, seems to indicate that it's not that great a theory after all.

1574520736246.png



I think it's pretty clear who's more "evolved", bah ha ha.
 
Last edited: