Yep, the end of the month is fast approaching so get ready for another evening of awesome freethought!
Freethought Kampala is going to have its usual monthly meeting – dubbed Freethinkers’ Night – at a bar/restaurant called “4 Points” in Centenary Park on THURSDAY the 25th of March, starting 6.00PM.
ENTRANCE IS FREE
If you are an open minded person whose opinions are formed not by faith but on the basis of science, logic, and reason and are interested in meeting like-minded individuals – you are WELCOME to join us at this meeting. Last month’s meeting was a blast so you wouldn’t want to miss this one!
Freethought Kampala brings together Kampala’s non-religious people, such as freethinkers, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, humanists, and those with naturalistic world views.
The topic this month is ‘Witchcraft – Does It Actually Work, Or Is It Just Superstition?’
Many Christians in Uganda believe that witchdoctors are agents of ‘Satan’
There will be a brief presentation of a number of videos showing how villagers in rural India are being educated in critical thinking and receiving practical lessons on how not to fall for the gimmicks of so-called ‘godmen’ that roam the Indian country side purportedly performing ‘miracles’.
We will also discuss whether it is possible for religious believers in Uganda to be encouraged to be more skeptical of claims of witchdoctors, seeing that Christianity strongly reinforces the belief that witchcraft works.
Please keep time.
For more information, contact us at: freethoughtkampala@gmail.com
Freethought Kampala 
33 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 21, 2010 at 10:40 pm
The 27th Comrade
Sorry for re-plugging myself, James, but … science, logic, and reason are not born of themselves. I deal with that in this post. If you believe in science, logic, and reason, you are also “superstitious”, because you believe in things that are not, and cannot, be based on science, logic, and reason: namely, science, logic, and reason.
Faith is what begins everything, and that is why atheism – especially this brand you weild, is self-refuting and incoherent.
March 22, 2010 at 10:38 am
James Onen
Ah, word games 🙂
It really must be annoying for believers that some of us can live honest, moral and fun lives without wasting a large part of those lives bowing and scraping before an invisible man in the sky invented by primitive sheep herders thousands of years ago.
Did you pray today?
March 22, 2010 at 11:03 am
The 27th Comrade
Your comment, is it word games? I think not. If you can show our irrationality, go for it. 😀 Characterising what I say as word games doesn’t change that it is staring you in the face. If you are rational, logical, and scientific, then surely you can go farther than ad hominems against what I say.
(By the way, I think I like “word games”. I did mention, didn’t I, that I was influenced by Rudolph Carnap and W.V.O. Quine, who are rigid atheists, if memory serves. :-D)
Those words have no meaning on the atheist viewpoint. Have you proven – with logic, science, and reason – that fun, honesty, morality, and life do exist? Show me that proof, if you have it, and I’ll draw you a functor to God. You can only believe in fun and morals and honesty if you believe in God. (Unless, of course, you are a hypocritical or inconsistent atheist, which is likely the case.) Please note that I plug myself in these comments not to get traffic (for I hate traffic – I man the server myself) but so that I don’t have to flesh out every point again, in your comment box. It’s the worse of two evils, I feel.
Part of my contention, if you care at all, dear James, is that this invisible man in the sky is not an invention of primitive sheep herders.
I don’t think I prayed today. 😀 I should have, though.
No, wait, I think I did pray on waking up. 😀 It must have been a brief perfunctory thing, like “May the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the Love of God, Our Father, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all, now and forever. Amen.”
March 22, 2010 at 1:27 pm
James Onen
The day you bring me an amputee that has had his missing limb restored by your god, I’ll start believing that maybe Yahweh exists, Comrade. Maybe you can include this as your prayer request for today 😀
Until then, sorry. Take your imaginary friend elsewhere. I’m not interested.
March 23, 2010 at 11:26 am
Quitstorm
Explain in detail why Logic,Reason and Science cannot be be a way of life than religions? By the way,will you attend the even?
March 23, 2010 at 3:30 pm
The 27th Comrade
Logic, reason, and science can (and should, even must) be a way of life along with the religious. I am against losing science, and that is why I am against scientism. I am against losing logic, and that is why I am against logical positivism. I am against losing reason, and that is why I am against the exclusion of faith.
I won’t be able to attend the event, because I attend another every month (for years now) that is parallel (temporally, not in content) to that.
One day, perhaps. 😀
March 22, 2010 at 10:03 am
phillip
Juju! hope we can get some witchcraft practitioners to pass by. Whoa…!
all this talk of faith… which definition is being referred to..???
faith; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Interesting comments from 27th comrade… (Wow he’s really good!)
Here’s my two cents on the issue…
Atheism is not a religion (not too sure about evolutionism, Darwinism or scientism etc). Atheists are bound by no common ideology or belief. An atheist simply does not believe in the existence of god(s). (Or more accurately finds no evidence to point to the existence of such).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion (definition of religion)
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1423.html
Check this out; an able bodied man jumps off a 12 storey building without a parachute or anything to break his fall upon a concrete slab. Given 3 outcomes;
1. He will break a good number of organs, rupture some of his organs and possibly die.
2. He may bounce and fall upwards crushing back on the top of the roof from which he bounced off.
3. Merciful angels will gently guide him down.
Allow me to illustrate scientific reasoning (Science is a form of systematized pragmatism; it finds out what works, and in the process increases our understanding of the universe we live in).
Using a dummy (with pressure sensors etc) in repeated experiments based on the initial observation (recreating the conditions) one can test all the three outcomes and easily demonstrate which is closer to the truth. (Experimentation)
The products of science are theories, which when repeatedly tested give truths, which when subjected to more thorough testing i.e peer review give facts. (Gravity is yet to be disproved, till then it’s widely considered a fact!)
check out Jame’s post…. https://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/can-science-be-trusted/
By asserting science is based on faith, I ask, can science be described as ‘belief that does not rest in logical proof or material evidence’?
That is where scientific reasoning and faith differ. Science relies on logical proof, testing, empirical evidence; material evidence etc. While in absence of evidence faith relies on blind belief. (may be he bounced and fell upwards, maybe angels came to his rescue, but is there any evidence to prove this? …I contend non, rendering both outcomes not plausible till substantial proof proving otherwise can be submitted).
In response to the statement ‘science can not render science’…. I found this response a classic. (Because as atheists we have never claimed to be know it alls, and when we don’t know, we admit it and wait for new knowledge and discoveries to enlighten us as opposed to faith in theories that can’t be proven- @ james… see pink elephant theory coming soon).
Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.
And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “god” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next – it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations.
The theist, who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith. That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.
science and faith are two very different things, you can go around in semantics (dog-chasing-tail if u like) but clearly it’s chalk and cheese. am pretty sure that theists just like atheists are all capable of scientific reasoning.
(Heliocentrism concerning Galileo Galilee is one good example in history that comes to mind to remind us just how faith has approached science- who though a theist suffered a great deal for his scientific beliefs).
March 22, 2010 at 10:12 am
phillip
for now science offers an atheist the best answers possible… simply because it’s really the most reliable thing we have on the table…
i personally love science because its dynamic, theories are being disproved everyday and new ones put in their place only to be disproved again (sometimes reverting to the original theories). this constant pursuit of truth means to me i don’t just have to believe anything anyone says… you have to provide evidence to support any and all assertions… and when in lack of evidence speculation and fantasy are simply not acceptable. (my favorite saying is NEGATIVE RESULTS ARE ALSO GOOD RESULTS).
March 22, 2010 at 10:26 am
The 27th Comrade
Hello, Phillip. Perhaps you do not quite understand what I’m saying. Fortunately, I’m asserting it with “evidence”, if logical proofs are evidence at all.
What I am saying is that science, logic, and reason cannot be demonstrated by evidence. We hold them to be true strictly by faith, because we would have to use them to demonstrate anything. If we used them to demonstrate them, we would be engaging in circular reasoning and affirming the consequent and a host of other fallacies of reasoning, science, and logic.
Isn’t this what the bulk of abiogenesis hypotheses amount to? (Do join in here, if it is okay with you. Sorry, James, for me to usurp thy boundless power on thy blog and become a pretender to the throne herein. :-D)
RNa-World, DNA-World, and all that, it is all just empty speculation, which has never been demonstrated even in a lab. All that has been demonstrated is intelligent design of cell biochemistry. Ah, but of course, we cannot posit an intelligent designer and remain scientific, can we?
March 22, 2010 at 10:33 am
James Onen
Comrade, do you believe that witchdoctors wield magical powers?
March 22, 2010 at 11:06 am
The 27th Comrade
Try as I may, I have not been able to prove that they do not. (I have a strong vested interest in proving that they do not. But I have failed to arrive at that conclusion.)
Perhaps you can show me how you proved it. 😀 You seem quite confident that they do not.
March 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm
James Onen
Do you think a man can turn into a goat, for example, using witchcraft?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7846822.stm
You also cannot disprove that I have an invisible immaterial pink elephant sitting on my desk. Does this give you any reason to believe it?
You can have all the fun you want with epistemology mumbo jumbo, but I think it is dangerous to encourage the belief that such things are real, given the potential hazards of such beliefs – especially since there is no good evidence that suggests they are. This is one of the problems with religion. Pastors actively tell their congregations that evil spirits or demons are out and about causing all kinds of mayhem.
Again I ask, do you think the man in the story I linked to actually turned into that goat, using witchcraft?
March 22, 2010 at 12:51 pm
phillip
you said…. ‘What I am saying is that science, logic, and reason cannot be demonstrated by evidence. We hold them to be true strictly by faith, because we would have to use them to demonstrate anything. If we used them to demonstrate them, we would be engaging in circular reasoning and affirming the consequent and a host of other fallacies of reasoning, science, and logic.’
i must admit, philosophical arguments have never really been my thing. from a simple minded person’s perspective like me it just seems like ur making a clever deliberate play on words…
when you say they can not be demonstrated by evidence what is it that you mean? a scientific principle or science as a whole? after all gravity can be demonstrated by experimentation which provides EVIDENCE of it’s existence. the rationale used to arrive at it’s existence and experimental design are all testable. (which renders ur argument moot).
you may hold science, logic and reasoning by faith but that is due to ur misunderstanding of the fundamental principles on which science operates. (please try reading Jame’s post).
but for the sake of argument, what do you think one could use to evaluate science other than evidence? (faith…?!!????). science has consistently shown it’s self to be a giver of higher truths for that very reason… IT IS TESTABLE. (AGAIN RENDERING UR ARGUMENTS MOOT).
as regards ur remark on RNA and DNA-world may i suggest u read up a little more. i work with RNA and DNA everyday… and can happily demonstrate DNA or RNA for you right here in our little lab in Makerere University. if you took time to read you would realise most of the bio-diversity you see today is a result of mutations and natural selection. (not intelligent design). otherwise how would you account for the predictability of the effects of anti-biotic selection pressure in bacteria.
i reiterate….The theist, who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.
March 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm
The 27th Comrade
It is not a play on words, and even I, a simple-minded person, do understand what is being said. To be an atheist, you’ve got to be smart first of all. So since you are an atheist, you should be able to understand that.
What I am saying is that how do you know that science works, before you use it to establish what is valid because science says it is? How do you arrive at science? Whatever the method is, it is not science. It is faith, if faith is not-science.
Science as a whole. The belief in evidence as a whole cannot be demonstrated by evidence.
Does it? You just disproved Kurt Gödel! And re-established logical positivism! And showed that some logical structure (such as science) is complete and consistent! Yay! Awesome! Now let’s write Principia scientia, after the august efforts of Whitehead and Lord Russell with Principia mathematica! 😀
So you hold these principles to be true, demonstrated by evidence, demonstrated by the principles themselves?
I find it telling that first you wanted to teach me what science is. After all, you are in Makerere University’s biochemical research program! Yay! 😀
Now you are pointing out James’ post, which achieves a definition of science. And you say that I misunderstand the fundemental principles on which science operates.
Dear Phillip, can you show me a trustworthy proof that proves that proofs are trustworthy? Can you show me good evidence that there is good evidence? When you fail, you will see why such things we take purely on faith alone. If you manage to do these things, you will either see why there is circular reasoning, or why you would not see a logical fallacy if it stared you down for six hours straight.
What would you use to believe that evidence is trustworthy (as obviously both you and I believe that it is)?
Trustworthy evidence?
Is science a higher truth? Is it rendered by science? (Do answer my questions, dear Phillip. I believe that it will help greatly.)
Is science the result of practicing science?
😀 No doubt while I am off learning the definition of science? Certainly, when I am learning what “peer-review” means, I will remember to read some more about RNA-World hypotheses. 😀
You have developed synthetic cell biochemistry at Makerere University? Wow! I honestly didn’t know that, and how far we had progressed. I sense a Nobel prize, Uganda’s first, coming on. My honour, sir, to be talking to you. I, in fact, will pardon an Nobel-potential for committing the ad authoritatem. Do you have a paper published?
James should have linked to you instead, in his post on science. 😀
Is it? 😮 Mirabile dictu! Am I being introduced to neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection? Could it be that you are giving this ignorant, superstitious theist a lecture on Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Which, as we all know, has been falsified, right?
As we all know, intelligence cannot design adaptability!
Is this your contention? That if things were intelligently designed they would not be able to adapt?
How do you make the link from adaptation due to selection pressure to no intelligence in creation? Shoe designs, which are due to (buyer) selection pressure do adapt. We have stilettos for a reason. 🙂 I wonder, though, if that implies that shoes do not require cobblers. (Or, for that matter, that the cobbler trade does not exist!)
Do you even have the faintest grasp of the very strong presumptions you are working under?
Hey, if it is methodological naturalism you love, cool. Just don’t drag metaphysical assumptions into the picture. (“If God did it, it wouldn’t be like this!” How do you get this assurance? Do you want to show me that, if bacteria had been intelligently designed they would not be able to adapt? Please do.)
I’d love it if you answered my question, dear Phillip. Are you not a biochemist?
If I say that we do not know who painted the Mona Lisa, does that require faith or not? If I believe that Da Vinci cannot have existed, then cool. In that case, it is not due to faith. The belief that Da Vinci is fictional, however, requires faith.
March 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm
phillip
i realise i erred in understanding what you referred to by RNA-world and DNA-world, as regards sources of life…
humbly accept my correction.
what i can confidently demonstrate is the chemical nature of RNA and RNA-enzymes (ribozymes), and their ability to both catalyze reactions and store information in their nucleotide sequence that can be translated to amino acid polypeptides (proteins).
March 22, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The 27th Comrade
Nobody is contesting that. Also, that you would need intelligence for that, I hope nobody is contesting.
March 22, 2010 at 7:53 pm
James Onen
Woah, slow down Comrade.
The claim that an intelligence is needed to store information in the nucleotide sequence that can be translated to amino acid polypeptides is in no way warranted. What about natural selection?
Man, I thought ID creationism got tossed out years ago. What’s it still doing around in 2010? I would have thought a guy as smart as you would be a theistic evolutionist, at least.
March 22, 2010 at 2:05 pm
The 27th Comrade
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again.
Try as I may, I have not been able to prove that they do not. (I have a strong vested interest in proving that they do not. But I have failed to arrive at that conclusion.)
Perhaps you can show me how you proved it. 😀 You seem quite confident that they do not, and I want a piece of that cake quick-quick.
I have been able, in my journeys, to disprove the case-by-case elements of this stuff, and show that someone somewhere told a lie. I have not, however, been able to say the grand declarations that you say, so give me some of your sauce. I want (more than you seem to believe) to show that these practices need not be engaged in. The entire framework of this, and my drive for it, cannot fit into a blog post. It’s why I have a blog these days. 😀
It does not give me reason to believe that the pink elephant is not sitting on your desk. If, by logical necessity (one, two, three) the pink elephant sits on your desk, then I believe that the pink elephant sits on your desk.
Like I told you back then, in the comments on an old post of yours, part of your confusion comes from assuming an equality between mythical animals and, say, the Uncaused Cause.
Is this some kind of ad hominem?
I think it is more-dangerous to pretend that atheism is correct. There is a theism that doesn’t kill babies. There is no atheism that has a reason against simple cold-blooded murder. If you cannot prove that, for example, cells are the result of intention (the word that is born with “intelligent”), then you cannot prove that a killing is also a result of intention (“murder”). If you cannot prove that God exists, you cannot prove that causing a death is bad, for example. Whatever causes you to reject God causes you to reject morality. You cannot prove that danger exists. (“Do you believe that immaterial danger is lurking on that syringe? How many dangers can dance on the head of a live wire?” And so on.)
Worst of all, this ideal of yours results in a rejection of the very idea of trustworthy evidence, because faith in trustworthy evidence is not supported by trustworthy evidence.
Do you want to lose the whole of science to gain scientism, which self-refutes?
Most religions don’t have pastors, James. Then again the problem with religion is that people suicide bomb, isn’t it?
Logic! Reason! Science!
March 23, 2010 at 12:16 am
James Onen
@ Comrade
We can talk all we want about abstract things and all kinds of logical possibilities but in the end we live in a reality where we must try our best and work out the closest approximation to the truth as possible.
I, and neither can any scientist, ABSOLUTELY prove that boiling water kills the germs that cause cholera. Theoretically, one would have to have tested every Cholera causing germ in existence to provide absolute proof of this, which is impossible. Does this mean we shouldn’t boil our drinking water? Of course not. Anyone who suggested that water should not be boiled would be called a fool. In the same way, of course I cannot provide absolute proof that a man can’t turn into a goat with witchcraft – but I can argue that there are no good reasons to think so.
Imagine if you told your housemate ‘there is drinking water in the fridge’ and your housemate asked ‘how do you know? Can you provide absolute proof, etc..’ . Of course you can’t provide ABSOLUTE PROOF that there is drinking water in the fridge. After all, you’d need to prove that your eyesight was functional. You’d need to prove that what you’ve looked into is actually a refrigerator, you’d need to prove you know what drinking water actually is etc.. Are you therefore going to answer ‘I have a strong vested interest in proving that there is drinking water in the fridge. But I have failed to arrive at that conclusion.’ it’s all very silly, Comrade.
I hope that was quick enough for you. 🙂
When I say ‘witchcraft does not work’, I mean it in the same way I would say ‘Uganda House is on Kampala Road’. Lack of time prevents me from writing ‘there are no good reasons to believe witchcraft works’. If I gave you the impression that I was making an absolute sweeping statement regarding witchdoctors, it is unfortunate. That was not my intention.
That said, I would like to hear details of how you ‘disproved’ these cases of witchcraft you encountered please. At least one. 🙂
Could you prove that the pink elephant wasn’t logically necessary? For example, maybe it is the earthly manifestation of your uncaused cause 🙂 Could you disprove that?
By the way EVEN IF I were to grant that there was an uncaused cause, that in no way suggests that this uncaused cause would be your omnicient, omnibenevevolent, prayer-answering, miracle working, triune, will-send-us-all-to-hell, heavenly-daddy. 😀 It could be any number of things, let alone beings. It is also possible that it no longer exists, after it ’caused’ whatever you imagine it caused way back when. Is there any reason why the uncaused cause must still exist today? Can you prove that its not possible for the world to be the way it is with this uncaused cause having ceased to exist?
This is why theism, even when riding on the coat-tails of cosmology, can’t get off the ground.:-D
I think it is rather sad that there are those that pretend that theism is correct. It is extremely demeaning to imagine that one cannot apprehend moral actions unless a god exists. Christian dogma asserts that ‘we are all sinners’… an assertion that is not only disgraceful but demonstrates a serious lack of self-worth.
I have a good reason for how it is I can apprehend that cold blooded murder is wrong. Human beings, as social animals, are hard-wired to be empathetic because it aids in survival of the group. (Empathy has been observed in other social animal species) Also, I would not like people to hurt me, so I would go out of my way not to hurt people, again due to empathy. ‘The Golden Rule’ as it were. No god needed.
Meanwhile, the bible has Yahweh ordering the slaughter of women and children. The bible has Yahweh himself drowning all but 8 people on the planet in a global flood. Then there is:
‘Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!’ (Psalm 137:9)
How about the guy that was stoned to death for picking up firewood on the sabbath? (Numbers 15:32)
Theistic morality my foot!
To quote Dawkins: ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.’
Indeed, if he existed, Yahweh would certainly qualify as the worst cold-blooded murderer in history.
We have already seen how immoral this god you think exists is.
Our evolved sense of empathy confers upon us the ‘inclination’ not to want to harm others unnecessarily. (others have defined it as a ‘motivation’ – meaning, in both cases, that it is possible for it to be ignored) I would therefore not be inclined to cause anyone’s death unnecessarily, and I would be able to recognize that doing so would be ‘bad’. If ‘bad’ here is being defined as ‘having undesirable or negative qualities’, I see no reason as to why you’d need to posit a god for us having the ability to apprehend what things have undesirable or negative qualities. The god you worship (as is depicted by those that believe in its existence), according to me, is full of undesirable and negative qualities – as I understand those to be.
I can therefore comfortably reject your god and still be a moral person, fully embracing morality.
Ha ha..I don’t know about ‘prove’ but if danger is not a ‘thing’ in and of itself that exists on its own. It is ‘the condition of being susceptible to harm or injury’. I can easily think of ways that I can categorize a number of ‘conditions’ that would render me ‘susceptible to harm or injury’ thereby labeling them danger-ous. I don’t know what this has to do with your god existing, though. There would not need to be a god for one to be able to apprehend what conditions would constitute ‘danger’.
My answer to this rather funny (and typical) question of yours is very simple: http://xkcd.com/54/
It really works!
March 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm
The 27th Comrade
I already dealt with that in the comments here. Some day, you will also get a blog post.
In a general way, I do roughly every time I pray.
If God can restore the workings of right reason, and he does it for you, it will be most-likely because of me.
Imagine if there is a blogger who doesn’t answer question s you ask him, and you say “Unless you answer my questions, you do not exist!” Would you be justified in thinking that James Onen of Freethought Kampala does not exist?
March 22, 2010 at 8:07 pm
James Onen
You think you dealt with the amputee issue it but you didn’t. You offered an excuse – and a lame one at that.
Bring us amputees or acid attack victims whose bodies have been restored. The bible clearly has your god purportedly healing all kinds of illnesses and even raising the dead. Believers TODAY claim that their god is healing them, getting them husbands, jobs, cars, etc. Do you think these stories are false?
So where are the amputees and acid attack victims whose bodies have been miraculously restored?
In this age of skepticism that is exactly the kind of evidence that would convince non-believers – yet no such evidence ever presents itself for evaluation. All we hear is god helped me get a job, god helped me quit masturbation..
Ha ha.. this is so funny. So your god would rather spend his time helping people find jobs, parking space or their missing keys, instead of healing acid attack victims and amputees?
This is indeed a weird god that you worship. 😀
March 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The 27th Comrade
Oops. Forgot to link. In the comments here.
March 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Ritah
*sigh*
Faith… firm belief in something for which there is no proof (from Merriam Webster dictionary).
On the question of “faith” in science:
If you had the time and the stamina to follow every branch of science back to its roots, you would find the roots of that branch to be empirical observations – whether observations of the world, the universe, or people.
The word “empirical” is important here – it denotes evidence that exists independently of any particular observer.
Science does not rely on faith. Science relies on data, evidence, testing, observation, and rigorous peer review. Nothing is accepted at face value. No answer is ever considered to be THE answer. There are always more questions to be asked.
Science asks questions and is never satisfied with the answers. Faith is satisfied with the answer “God did it” no matter what the question.
Therefore, i do not believe in any gods/witchcraft because there is absolutely no evidence to support their existence. I suppose another way to look at this would be to say that I do not believe in gods for the same reasons you do not believe in unicorns, fairies, flying spaghetti…
As Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That a god exists with the characteristics attributed to the Christian god is certainly an extraordinary claim. And yet, there is simply no evidence to support this claim?!
Oh, yeah! There is FAITH!
Well, I have confidence, not faith. And Yes, am ATHEIST too!
March 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm
The 27th Comrade
That is not what empirical means (reach yet again for your Merriam-Webster and quotemine it!). Is the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics empirical? Is it independent of observer?
But imagine, first Phillip teaches me what science is, then he teaches me what neo-Darwinian evolution is, then you are teaching me what “empirical” means. Isn’t this an interesting look in the inter-personal attitudes of atheists towards others? Oh, well. I guess the blog is spreading reason to us superstitious fools, eh?
And superstitious fools need primers at every other turn.
This is ashaming you. What a foolish faith in the foundations of science! Even those of mathematics are not (and cannot be) consistent and complete! Insofar as science uses mathematics, same thing.
These are what are under question. The problem is that I dealt with all these, but the comments I put are nowhere to be seen. Perhaps they were too base for the blog, but it hurts to see ignorance continue even after the lesson.
Did you even read, leave alone understand, the stuff that is still preserved up there? Or did you just launch in to teach this ignorant superstitious theist a lesson?
On what grounds do you believe in evidence, testing, observation, and rigour and peer review? Is it because of evidence, testing, observation, and rigour and peer review? Do you see the circularity? Do you see why you only believe these things on faith alone?
Or would you never see a circular argument if it stared you down for a day?
At least you are honest. If God did something, (modern Baconian) science can never be satisfied with “God did it”, regardless of the truth of that. It is like rejecting “OJ Simpson did it” because that is not a hypothesis in Pro-Black Forensic Science.
Faith is satisfied with “God did it”, because that is the Answer. I dealt with it before. Are you saying that atheists are eclusively (or even by majority) responsible for establishing science?
And this is the commenter who opens with a sigh? 😀 Remind me, did you claim to be logical, reasonable, and scientific?
Since everybody knows that the Uncaused Cause is like Russel’s Teapot, right? Have you been to the archives on my blog? Do go there and check out the series called The Things That are Made.
What evidence is there to support that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence? When you establish that, perhaps you will be enlightened. See also: Goedel’s incompleteness theorems.
My God, this is so tiring! Are all atheists this blinded by cognitive biases?
Do you arrive at confidence via science, logic, and reason, or by faith? Is it confidence in science? If it is, then it is the faith I’m talking about.
If you don’t agree, get started writing Principia Scientia, which should sit nicely next to Whitehead and Lord Russell’s Principia Mathematica. Again, perhaps you could still be enlightened.
March 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm
James Onen
Hmm..
Am I sitting at my computer and writing this comment? I think so. I have evidence that I am writing this comment. Hang on..I would need to use evidence to prove that I have evidence that I am writing this comment. But wait..that is circular. So I cannot prove I am writing this comment. Neither can I prove that I exist. I also cannot prove I don’t exist. So I probably don’t exist – or do I? I also cannot prove there are no invisible immaterial pink elephants. I should therefore live under the assumption that they might exist – alongside spider-man, the incredible hulk and the power rangers whose existence I also cannot disprove.. Maybe I should just go home now. Wait – do I have a home? My mind tells me I have a home. But maybe I’m delusional and am just imagining I have a home, yet I don’t really have one. I guess I should just stay put, sit here, and wait to see what happens. But how will I know if my senses aren’t fooling me into thinking I’m sitting at a desk? Help!!
Blah..blah…blah..
That’s what it all boils down to. These philosophical word games get tiring, Comrade.
If you want to use this as your excuse to believe in the existence of imaginary beings, be my guest.
We are really not interested.
March 22, 2010 at 6:24 pm
phillip
wow… really good at play on words…
you say…. ‘Is science a higher truth? Is it rendered by science? (Do answer my questions, dear Phillip. I believe that it will help greatly.)
Is science the result of practicing science?’
i will leave you with a simple answer…. “Data, evidence, theories and explanations”
March 22, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Ritah
Like you said, this is bloody tiring! You say you have mentioned some things before, but itz the same case this side. Don’t think yo the only person trying so hard to be understood here most especially when people give you the *the inter-personal attitudes of atheists towards others*… Really?
However much I respect your right to believe, I will never respect a belief on the sole basis that you or anyone else believes it. You must be able to prove to me that your beliefs demand respect. And that is why I debate my theist friends. And many have religious beliefs that I can respect. Not because they copied them straight from their holy books and into their heads, but because they can give rational, legitimate reasons why they believe those things. I don’t agree with them, but I respect some of their beliefs. And that respect spawned from friendly, constructive debate.
I surmise that you are one of those who fondly believe that your lifestyle choice is above criticism and MUST be respected. Why? Just because! However, as you have found, most atheists/rational thinkers actually don’t care what religious people think – and no, we do not have to respect such utter nonsense. What we do is respect your right to hold that belief, however ignorant and pointless. I, personally, would defend vehemently your right to your nonsensical beliefs. I strongly suspect that you, and others like you, would not extend that courtesy to us. It is okay. Totally OKAY!
Like you said, it hurts to see ignorance continue to blossom even after various lessons from various people.
March 22, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Ritah
Oh, and by the way, itz so okay to call yo self * superstitious fool*, if thatz how u feel.
March 23, 2010 at 12:55 am
savannah
Based on the “atheist argument”, is it possible that some of the simple stone age tools are just random stones that just happen to look like primitive tools??? Couldn’t the stonehenge just be a random arrangement of rocks that just happens to be circular, and not necessarily created by primitive beings???? Is archaeology then a religion or is it a science (or both perhaps??), since it assumes the existence of an unseen creator of objects which might as well have been random.
Living organisms, including humans, are after all,a result of “spontaneous” mutations (I think in Information Theory/Communication Systems, such a random mutation/variable is called “noise”, and “noise” results in loss of information. It then seems paradoxical that noise can result into information simply because of natural selection).
I’ll become atheist when one can explain how life can obtain such an extremely low state of entropy, when the second law of thermodynamics explicitly states that the entropy of an isolated system spontaneously increases.
March 23, 2010 at 10:10 am
phillip
f you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or another most will claim that science is based on faith just as much as religion is. For example, the horrific Answers in Genesis website has this to say about science:
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.
A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.
From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? It works. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn strongly implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.
Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it’s a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.*
Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it’ll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.
All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We’re not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. And it works. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.
Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.
Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.
And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.
To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.
March 23, 2010 at 10:28 am
phillip
Science is a faith is a statement that reflects a straw man argument propagated by apologists to attempt to discredit “belief” in science as being no more logically sound than believing in a religion. However, this represents a categorical misunderstanding of science,… which is explicitly based on logic, with ideas developed through demonstrable, repeatable experiments or studies. Religion, on the other hand, is based solely on, as inherent to the argument, faith.
Development of Scientific “Beliefs”
Most respected scientific papers, a key step for introducing new concepts into widespread belief, are peer-reviewed, in that other scientists in the relevant field are able to judge the experiment or study detailed in the paper for soundness of both experimental design and conclusions reached. Additionally, the process described should, when replicated, produce results that support the same conclusion — scientists continually replicate and often refine experiments in order to test the validity of claims and refine theories.
Claims that scientists make, therefore, are supported by developed systems of logic and reason. Anyone with the resources to replicate an experiment or the intellectual capacity to criticize conclusions is free to do so, leading to a continual development of more complex scientific concepts through more nuanced understanding of our world.
In fact, the reliable functionality of so many of our modern technological conveniences rely heavily on the replicability of science. For example, modern telecommunications technology, which use the exchange of “packets” of encoded information over a myriad of mediums, from wireless technology to fiber optics, is able to, with incredible accuracy, relay complex information in a way that can be decoded by the recipient.
While there is always the possibility of error due to unforeseen or unaccountable occurrences, the integrity of the data is far more often than not preserved and not due to “faith” in the functioning of the electronics, but rather to the collaboration and continued efforts of not only scientists, but also business men and maintenance workers, who all work together to maintain to the standards of the technological model.
Religious Beliefs
Religious beliefs, however, are supported most often solely by faith alone. The Christian evangelical who promises the potential convert a paradise after death has no means to demonstrate their claims any more than the mere existence of God. Relying on outdated “sacred” texts and dogma, their beliefs have no basis for logical understanding and rely simply on accepting these works as factual, without any logically sound basis for this belief.
March 23, 2010 at 11:49 am
The 27th Comrade
Again, I’m answering in one body, if you do not mind.
<blockquoteThe claim that an intelligence is needed to store information in the nucleotide sequence that can be translated to amino acid polypeptides is in no way warranted. What about natural selection?Heh, the old belief that pruning is what causes the branches! That selection generates what is to be selected! That filtering causes the stuff that is to be filtered!
The reason I made that claim is that, based on your other blogs post, the only time cell biochemistry has been created is due to intelligence. Science, dear friends, doesn’t allow us any other conclusion at this point.
I’m not smart. You should have seen that by now. Also, perhaps ID creationism should have been tossed out. But your “Can Science Be Trusted” blog post brought it right back in.
Me, I treat all origins theories with a measure of scepticism. There are some things that they must achieve (namesly being reconcilable to evolution, but not necessarily neo-Darwinian evolution, and also explaining why there is purposeful design in life). I blogged about this in three back-to-back posts on my blog.
You, more than any other person here, it would seem, have a knack for seeing where stuff leads.
Now, at least you can see how much faith is implicitly bound up with everyday life. Not to mention the scientific method.
I’m glad you got here without me having to flesh every bit out for you.
They all follow the same rubric. In general, my MO is this: find the hidden liar. When those guys fake talking voices in the ceilings, there is a hidden guy there. When they fake rushing winds, look for a hi-tech fan somewhere. When they make their shrine extra-cold, look for a Japanese air conditioner. In this way, slowly, you can show that this guy is just a talented actor exploiting people. It is usually that simple.
It is what many theists who a critical of some miracle report will follow, I’d assume. There is a certain preacher who has a ball exposing fake miracle reports. Me, I have pressing concerns, like exposing fake wisdom in the atheist crowd. 😀 But my real vested interest in exposing fake miracles and magic and stuff is because I think that, while God does those things, we should not exploit it by tacking on lots of fake things and leading to a case where people can no longer know God through the times when He suspends His laws. So, your attitude towards miracles is shaped by these guys, rather than the one time you earnestly pray that a loved one be saved demise, and then an event happens – say an unsummoned ambulance – that you cannot explain away by sheer random chance (if you’re not hypocritical, which isn’t easy for an atheist in such a situation). But if you did get such a situation, you have already hardened yourself to it now, because of this stuff.
Also, as later blog posts of mine will explain, I deem the pre-Christian traditions of ours to be indicators of what was to come, so they were valid when they were merely instances of natural revelation. But not anymore. Hence, why I campaign against them. (I spare witchcraft as simple herbalism, though. That one is important in many ways. But as spiritism, it has been eclipsed by the One whom were promised when first we learnt about these religions by natural revelation.)
Arguing with Kalaam premises, yes. In those premises, only the Uncaused Cause is arrived at as necessary. I think you’re confusing arguments.
No, I don’t think I could disprove it. Could you?
Proof?
Uncaused, therefore not capable of being … de-caused. Also, timeless.
Is it an assertion without support? Or are you blind to the reality of it? Don’t attack it because it is a bitter pill.
Can you show that it is not true?
That is not proof that murder is bad. Are you trying to prove that murder is wrong? Can you even prove that there are wrong things at all? Or are you one of those superstitious people who take such things on faith alone? Have you any empirical evidence that there is right and wrong? Objective, empirical, peer-reviewable evidence?
Take your superstitions elsewhere!
(Now you see the problem, I hope. Or, again, are you blinded to that?)
Had those things had their origins among humans, it would have been bad. But they had their origins in God. There is a reason we do not arrest humans for leaving their cages, but we arrest dogs for doing the same.
Laws for humans apply to humans. Of course, it is bad that such things had to happen, and it illustrates something that is important for all of us to remember: God is vicious.
This should make Jesus even more-poignant. Jesus is the forgiving side of God. This is also why I do not believe that religion can be complete without Jesus. It would be a lop-sided orgy of righteous indignation doing things that make those ones you cite look gentle. (This is also why people like Pr. Ssempa, who use Jesus to display judgement, rather than Grace, have the wrong end of the stick, the legalistic end of the stick.)
The wages of sin is death; there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Have you ever thought about these things?
He will also be the worst of all eternity. Seeing only this side is wrong, though. He will also be the most-forgiving of all eternity. You can choose to dwell on the judgement, but not on the pardon. ‘Tis your call. If you think what was done in the past was bad, just think how much more judgement remains when there is no way to escape judgement, for those who now have it, have it because they rejected pardon.
Now you point out the killing. Now I point out Barabas, condemned to death, being freed that an innocent guy can take his place.
Most-importantly, you and Prof. Dawkins think that viciousness implies inexistence. Idi Amin and Pol Pot were both real. Stalin, Mao. Myself, too! 😀 I am evil, but I exist.
Pointing out what was always known, that God is vicious to a level unparalleled, doesn’t change whether He exists or not. After all, the inexistent can’t be vicious.
(All those judgements were to the guilty. God is at His Absolute Worst when Jesus is crucified for us. That He was innocent makes it all the more disturbing. What kind of God is this Yahweh? Answer: vicious, very vicious, and providing a way out for us in Christ. Heaven forfend that you reject this single way out. You already know how bad He can be. And nothing compares – nothing at all – to what shall befall us when we reject the exit route.)
Evolved doesn’t imply moral. Is cheating and murder evolved as well? “Our evolved sense of antipathy confers upon us the ‘inclination’ to want to harm and cheat others at any opportunity to maximise our survival.
“Morality does not exist! Give me evidence, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence of morality.”
And, one more time: science works. New Atheism is based on scientism. Scientism doesn’t work. Posts coming up. (From what I see, every time I have a skirmish here, I get reasons to blog again. And it is not your side-kicks, but you. I guess you were sent for me. 😀 My coming posts are going to explain incompleteness and consistency in logical structures, of which science is one, and also to explain why God is so vicious and bloody. Saying science works is not what is at contest. Saying faith doesn’t is what is. After all, if faith didn’t work, we would not have science. But since we have science, which works, we also know that faith can be relied on.)
Essentially, you are saying that unless God heals amputees He doesn’t exist? How about “if God doesn’t heal amputees, he doesn’t heal amputees”?
Depending on what they mean, they could be lying or telling the truth. Some people just mean it on the scale of “I stayed alive long enough to get a job” or some such. Those are tautological. Those who, like me, would say “God healed me” meaning that they stayed the course of the sickness and medication are only acknowleding that God set up the universe to work as it does, and that he kept us alive, and so on and so forth.
But I guess you mean some guy who stayed at home and a job and car rushed through the door. Well, in that case we investigate, because that is not a tautology. If it is improbable to get the car and job otherwise, it is likely that it is as he would have termed it, a miracle. Bear in mind, though, that miracles aren’t a knock-down for a sceptic (and neither is arguing for God’s existence). See my previous posts.
God can be rejected; especially in this age, He will be. It’s what makes me think the show is closing, so to speak. See 1 Corintians 1:17-31. The money starts at 21 and goes for three verses: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
Now, on to the next comment:
Well, if those entities are logically necessary, then you should live under the knowledge that the exist. If they are not logically necessary, then they only might exist.
In a more-personal forum, I’ve told you before why you cannot, for immaterial beings, say that they do not exist while using the identifiers you use to arrive at the atheist conclusion.
The help is called faith. Just have faith already. Have faith, unsupported by evidence, in your senses and in your observations. It’s how we do science, brother.
But I must give you credit for being the one on this blog with the knack for seeing what the argument is. The rest of your team is arguing that “empiricism is trustworthy!” as a reply to my question “Did we discover empiricism by practicing empiricism?” And again they reply “Empiricism is trustworthy!” It got very tiring, especially since the comments I put earlier are nowhere to be seen.
But you, you saw where this was going. You have discovered that even our belief that our short-term memory works well is precisely because of faith. But now let me guess what comes next: you fail to see what this implies for scientism.
They show you that the foundations cannot be the house. They show you how much faith is required even from moment to moment. Careful hypocrisy is how the atheist elides faith in God.
Hmm. Rather turn the face than face atheist absurdity. Logical! 😀 I guessed what would happen! Now you know why atheism is built on shallow assessment of what we think we have studied through and through? Unless you are brave enough to face the roots of science, which is taboo for a New Atheist, then you are raping the words you use to identify yourself: reason, logic, science, truth, and so on.
@Phillip:
As an answer to “Is science the result of practicing science?” You said:
Why do you believe in data, evidence, theories?
Fat Boy has already seen where this leads. Let him teach you, so that you can say with him: “we are not interested!” That way I will know, at least, that you (like him) saw my point and just refused to face it.
July 28, 2021 at 5:49 am
Samuel Rwemirinzi
Woooow i want to know what happened to this club.wooooow.please resurface and breath again because thus is tge time people need you to bring a good change for all humanity.