Therein lies the rub, eh? You're treating "rational" like it is a gold standard. But it isn't. It's a human construct, just like religion. We do have to have some parameters so we can have the discussion, and I'm not saying that believing in a god is "rational", but I don't think that term is sacrosanct and I'm not sure I'd wield it as such.

First, the distinction is clear in science. Do you have readily repeatable evidence? If yes, rational. If no, irrational. (repeatable evidence is not feeling or belief based)

Second, for this discussion, do not place a personal value judgement on these words (rational and irrational). We all consists of both. Yes the word irrational is used as an insult, but that in itself is pretty irrational. Don't go there.

You are absolutely correct that if you follow my point out to its logical conclusion that is what you get, and certainly I don't agree with that. I am not sure where to draw the line between rational behavior and beliefs based on feelings being irrational behavior. I don't see belief in God to be anything other than natural and rational, the same as I don't see moral and ethical standards being anything other than natural and rational. But I don't see believing that if you step on a crack you break your mother's back as rational, even if nature has programmed you to believe it.

Are you saying that scinetific theories based on a singularity would be irrational?

Clear in science? Not so much...data is always open to interpretation, especially as the system gets more complicated.

I'm not arguing that "rational" isn't a concept and the proper term, but rather acknowledging that imho there is wiggle room. I just don't see this as absolutes. Things that have been thought of as "true" have ended up being superseded by further work in the field. And science is just describing the natural world and making human-readable constructs to try and aid our understanding and prediction.

In order to discuss this issue, we must both be using the same definition. In science, a theory is an operational model supported by repeatable evidence or test results. Which is distinctly different than how the word "theory" is used commonly.

I am saying that any scientific theory is rational in that it is based on repeatable evidence. Yes, you can have competing theories that both have roughly similar amounts of evidence and you can have irrational feelings that one is correct and one is not. But until enough evidence is obtained, you are not capable of making a rationally based decision on which theory is in fact the correct one.

To answer your question more precisely, please post the theory and singularity you are concerned about.

Yes, of course. But no definitions only lead to chaos in discussions. That is why I offered the advice to not place personal value baggage on the words (rational and irrational).

Theories in science are based on repeatable data and yes, data can be interpreted differently (that is why you can have competing theories). But all good data is "fact" (even if you have different interpretations) not "feelings". What conclusion is based on those "facts" is rational, conclusions based on those "feelings" is not.

Truth is a non-science based word. Truth has always been subjective and variable. In science you may proclaim the latest "truth", but in fact it is just a further refinement or definition of a theory.

There would be no absolute, but there would certainly be lines between. Any Psychiatrist/ Psychologist would or could give you the defining parameters.

Just a bit light relief from god, man.....read this in todays paper and though some might enjoy.



OPINION: Phillip Adams | August 16, 2008
MY old friend James Randi is a magician. His professional name is The Amazing Randi. While this might better serve an over-endowed porn star, his overendowments are further north. They're his eyes, sharper than any Leica lens, and, between his ears, a formidable intellect.

For decades scientists have been investigating mind-bending claims of paranormal abilities and, all too often, have been fooled by the likes of spoonbending Uri Geller. Geller was able to con some psychic researchers while baffling others - hardly surprising given that his attacks on cutlery began when he was a professional conjuror in Israel. By the time he'd upgraded this simplest of tricks to the status of a supernatural gift he'd had a lot of practice in spoiling spoons. But he couldn't fool Randi. To provoke Uri to fury, just mention Randi's name. Geller has taken Randi to court a number of times but Randi maintains he has never paid a cent to anyone who has ever sued him.

Though many scientists have committed fraud in their labs, few have had any experience of dealing with (or even recognising) fraudulent subjects. But that happened with Geller. It was amazing how easy it proved to fool highly intelligent people. Until Randi duplicated Geller's miracles to the duped.

(For a vivid account of scientific chicanery, track down Arthur Koestler's 1971 book The Case of The Midwife Toad, about a prominent scientist falsifying evidence to support his radical theory about evolution. Sadly, the rigorous scepticism displayed by Koestler disappeared between the book and his death. His will offered his estate to any university that would establish a chair to examine "psychic phenomena". No convincing evidence for any of it - from telepathy to psychokinesis - had emerged in more than a century of study. It was a history of selfdelusion with some scientists so desperate for proof of something, anything, paranormal that they would fudge their figures. So Koestler's loot went begging for years until Edinburgh University accepted both the money and the will's conditions. Nothing of any significance would emerge.)

Randi became a star in a starstudded organisation elaborately entitled The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Among the committee's luminaries were Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould and an assortment of Nobel Laureates - all of whom conceded James's pre-eminence. Where others were blinded by Geller, fellow magician Randi had X-ray eyes for chicanery.

Dick Smith and I decided to form a local branch - the Australian Skeptics - and invited The Amazing Randi out for our first test - of the widely accepted claim that some people could "divine" water. We offered $100,000 to any diviner who could find water during a simple test. Ten of Australia's top diviners - deemed so by their peers - agreed that the suggested experiment was entirely fair and reasonable and were convinced they'd all be 100 per cent successful. So they decided to divide the prizemoney. Ten thousand dollars each.

Sadly all would fail utterly. Yet none of the disappointed diviners were frauds. They really believed they could do it, but under the simplest scrutiny they couldn't. Similar tests have been conducted around the world. Hundreds of confident diviners have been found wanting. Randi has upped the ante in the US with a million-dollar prize. It's still in the bank earning interest.

But all of this is preamble to my parable. On Randi's arrival in Australia we held a press conference in Dick's office. Our magician performed some wonderful tricks, the sort of things others claimed as paranormal. And the best of them was the simplest - involving a cigarette Randi snatched from my lips as I fumbled for some matches. He placed the ciggie on Dick's desk and invited the four news crews to watch closely. While prattling on he made magical gestures with his fingers and the cameramen fiddled with their focus. And my fag flew up and down the desk!

Everyone was awed by Randi's vivid demonstration of psychokinesis. Some theorised that Randi's fingers had accumulated electricity. "Simpler than that," he said. "I was blowing it." While all eyes and zoom lenses had focused on the few inches between fingers and fag, no one had beeen watching Randi's lips.

He'd used the magicians' ancient art of misdirection. It's the same if a conjuror is producing a rabbit from a hat or David Copperfield is "disappearing" the Statue of Liberty live on TV. Your attention is drawn away for a second - and it's hello to the rabbit or goodbye to the giant statue.

I mention this not to keep you safer from Uri Gellers so much as from politicians. They're masters of misdirection, so always watch their mouths. An example? "Look over here for vanishing WMDs while, abracadabra, we invade Iraq."

"The Amazing Randi" - owns a curry shack in Ormond too. Gave me the ****s so bad once I will never be back.

Science is far from perfect, BUT (and this is a very big BUT) it strives to establish an evidence basis for anything it asserts. Being human, scientists will argue about the meaning of the data, but the process remains one of establishing an evidence basis. Religion represents the diametric opposite - it is fully based in belief.

IOW, if I believe that the rock in my front yard is my god, then it is, and you can't argue against it; evidence isn't a part of the equation.

(Of course, worshiping the rock probably makes more sense than worshiping a typical deity - at least you know the rock exists)...

Religion and science do not belong in the same conversation. Religious belief is by definition based on faith. Science cannot and should not attempt to delve into the realm of religion, as it is not equipped to do so.

Why not? What are these matters in the realm of religion that science is not equipped to answer? What are the deep cosmologial questions? And why is religion equipped to answer them? Why not your-seriously- plumber?

If there are questions that lie beyond science- say, origins of life in the cosmos- many suggest that they certainly lie beyond religion.

Stuart, I had composed a reply, but the argument is truly wasted on you. I have about as much chance of explaining my position to you as I do getting my dog to sing. You are so deeply invested in your own beliefs that you have become an impervious wall.

I am hereby choosing to stop beating my head against that wall. You don't get me and I don't get you...that will never change.

Fair enough Rick. You seem to think you can throw a statement like that out and have it go unchallenged.

Youve raised the argument of non overlapping magisteria. (hope i spelt that right). What Ive asked you are questions about the NOMA argument. Ive expressed no opinion at all. I dont think the argument is wasted on me- ive read Gould's argument and I think I mostly understand it- and maybe others will enjoy reading abput it.

Without any support, your claim isnt worth very much, and no one will take it seriously.

This is the very essence of the rational and faith based question though, I suppose.

Yes, Stuart. Once again you are completely and totally correct. No one may challenge your intellect and knowledge of the topic.

:rolleyes:

Besides, I wouldn't want to upset you with my 'dishonesty' again...

Rick
You made a big statement. I asked you a question about your statement, thats all. And your response, once again, is straight to a personal attack.

If you are not prepared to argue your position, what ARE you doing here, in a thread about atheism and rationalism?

Its a rhetorical question, dont bother to answer. The answer is evident.

I agree with Rick. Religion (or more broadly, "faith") and science are orthogonal. To try and use science to explain religion/faith is rather misguided. Just like using religion to explain science is misguided.

I think that the two can co-exist. I don't think that science can "know" everything, and I don't think that religion particularly "explains" much of anything empirical. But much lies beyond measurement and metrics...ymmv.

Stuart, I simply accept the fact that I, nor anyone else for that matter, will EVER be able to crack a single hole in the impervious wall you have created. You have convinced yourself that your point of view is completely correct and anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant, stupid, superstitious, weak, or dishonest. You refuse, and will likely forever refuse, to even consider the viewpoints of others. In all the posts you have made on this topic I have yet to see you even consider the point of someone who disagrees with you even once. IROC I may disagree with but I can respect and discuss something with because although we have very different views on this topic, he at least respectfully considers the opinion of another. You seem to lack that ability.

Hell, even Nostatic (who is a scientist by trade) agrees with me on this, yet you somehow cannot fathom where I am coming from.

The breath (or keystrokes in this case) is wasted on you, why argue with a wall? THAT is truly irrational.

Rick

You will find in the ITAG thread, all sorts of examples of all sorts discussions with all sorts of people with all sorts of POV. Some of them quite robust, some not so. Im not going ot dredge through it in attempt to disprove YET ANOTHER unsupported accustion thrown about by you.

Ofcourse I change my views. When ITAG started, i took a "there is no god" stance. Over the course of that thread, I read a lot and came to see the logical fault in that position. So I changed my thinking. This actually happened a number times over the course of that thread- nearly a year IIRC.

Im sure you can give examples where youve done similar.

Nostatic's views, I suspect, are more a philosphy than a dogmatic religion. He doesnt seem to need to personally attack people when he cant muster an argument.

Youve waded in here with all sorts of red herrings. I understand you dont like me, but when you attck me or anyonme else, personally you look silly. Your arguments stand or fall on their own merit.