Lost & Confused

[jmkiser 0]

Very much so. What you do in this life determines where you will spend the afterlife. So, therefore, this life is the test, the afterlife is just the grade, pass or fail.

wowI never heard that at AU.So this life... the one that won't last more then 100 years... is of more importance then where you will spend eternity? I understand that this life is "the deciding factor" (which is just flat out evil). But that it is more important then pretty much eternity? And just pondered something stupid... how do you spend eternity in heaven if you've had a few years on earth? nm that... stupid me just being stupid lol

[Loismustdie 0]

wowI never heard that at AU.So this life... the one that won't last more then 100 years... is of more importance then where you will spend eternity? I understand that this life is "the deciding factor" (which is just flat out evil). But that it is more important then pretty much eternity? And just pondered something stupid... how do you spend eternity in heaven if you've had a few years on earth? nm that... stupid me just being stupid lol

This life is incredibly important in that it determines where you spend eternity which is more important than this life. Or something like that.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

To the bolded part: /sigh :: shakes head in disappointment ::To the italicized part: You didn't say anything at all that addressed Christianity > other religions."All you merely stated was that there was $20 and if you didn't take it, then you don't have it. So pretty much nothing really. You did nothing to prove why your $20 was better then any other country's money. You didn't show that your $20 actually had any intrinsic value other then the paper it was written on."I also have to point out one of the number one things that gets to me. Why does every relation to Christianity have to be by analogy? It's not something against just Hollywood, but it is something that has bothered me consistently. I mean, I use analogies a lot to clarify some things that aren't easy to understand, but Christianity isn't one of those things. Someone asks me about Christianity, I say "Hey, here's a Bible". If you want, you can even give a summary of some of the main points to understand from the Bible. But the majority of the time, it's "You know, it's kind of like when staring at the layers of a tasty cheeseburger..." agh!Sorry if that came off as aggressive and jerky. Nothing against you, personally, Hollywood.

I dont think you are aggressive and I dont wear my feelings on my sleeve...so nothing personal here. The fact that you stated what you did about my $20 story actually reiteratted my point exactly. The point was...that if you understood and was 100% sure of the value of the $20 but still didn't put it in your wallet... you wouldn't have it. Many people don't even trully know which path is there path...therefore can't trully follow it. (Again with the analagies you hate so much) lol...sry.I understand that there are people who go to church and there are people who are trully Christians. Not all that go to church trully have that $20 bill in their wallet yet because they are still trying to be convinced of it's true value.And the reason I didn't compare all religions is that I don't have the time nor the intelect to do that. I don't ever claim to know all the answers...nor was I trying to convert this guy... he asked a question and I offered some suggestions.Perhaps the athiest here would like to offer some suggestions. Or maybe the Jewish or Mormons. Remember this my friend... knowledge is good. Don't be afraid to learn and don't be offended when someone thinks differently than you.

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually, you are very wrong. Jesus talks more about this life than the afterlife by a long shot.

no, virtually everything he is reputed to have said (in the canonical gospels) is in the context of preparing for what is coming and gaining it through obedience. he also seems to clearly make the implication that what is coming is a "place prepared" with god beyond this life, NOT in it. paul does the same thing as a follow up.really though, if you want to get down to technical reality the sayings of jesus in the synoptic gospels appear to be copied from other material with the authors (whovever they were) inserting their own context to fit their own preconceptions from OT prophecy of a jewish savior. so assuming jesus existed and actually said any of what is in the bible, the true context is unknowable. presumably velvet elvis doesn't mention that lol.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

based on the track record of both there's no reason to think science can't objectively address the specifics of all of those questions much more usefully than philosophy can.

In certain ways, yes, in certain ways, no. I do think that there is a role of philosophy that can't possibly be covered by science. You like to argue that a lot of human behavior comes from the evolutionary drive to keep the species together. Thus, we are kind to each other because it keeps us alive and able to reproduce. Which I think in a large part is true.It doesn't mean, however, that our species even existing is a good thing. It doesn't demonstrate that there is some intrinsic goodness to kindness. For these questions, one must turn toward philosophy. Specifically, one must debate whether there is even such a thing as a priori goodness.

this is absolutely a scientific question.

I disagree with this. It is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. One can put strict limits on the role that a god would have played in the history of the universe, sure, but one can never really say whether a god lives outside of the physical universe and has because there would be no physical way to measure him (if he's outside the realm of our experiment). We can measure the magnetic moment of a muon. That's science. We can't measure God.Obviously, we can say that any notion of a god that nearly every religion on this planet proposes is ridiculous and false. We can go very far and put god into a box such that the question of his presence becomes moot. If god truly has no physical influence on our universe, then who cares, really?

[crowTrobot 2]

I've always thought areas of philosophy and science to be separate.

they are different approaches - different methods of dealing with the same areas. if you define questions in terms of practical specifics nothing is really outside the domain of science. philosophy is really only useful for parsing impractical questions : )

I'm also a little ignorant on our detailed knowledge of things like altruism. Do you have any simple suggested reading for someone as myself to catch up on what the scientific community has discovered about these topics?

unfortunatly science is only just beginning to study behavior that we classify as morality from an evolutionary perspective, and there's not much that is widely agreed upon at this point.

[simo_8ball 0]

"I don't know what is outside" is the reality of the atheist, not "I know there is nothing there". That's the common misconception of the atheist and a huge part of the bad PR. Anyone who says that they KNOW there isn't anything out there is a religious nutjob.

No, a true atheist has total disbelief in any God. An agnostic says "I don't know what is outside".One of Dawkins points in TGD is that noone can truly be an atheist, and noone can truly be a deist. You cannot know for certain either way (if you knew 100% that God existed there would be no need for faith). In exactly the same way that it's impossible to 100% disbelieve Russel's teapot. It's getting into technicalities there, but that's the gist of it. Everyone is agnostic to some extent. 'Atheists' just think the possibility of a personal God is so unlikely it's not worth considering as plausible.Remember that Christians are atheistic towards Allah/Buddha/etc. - actually, isn't it one of God's 'rules' that you shall not believe in any other God?

[crowTrobot 2]

It doesn't mean, however, that our species even existing is a good thing.

i think this is an example of an impractical question, since we know that human survival is instinctually going to be the #1 priority ("good" be definition) no matter how vaguely we formulate questions about it in order to appeal to philosophy.

It doesn't demonstrate that there is some intrinsic goodness to kindness. For these questions, one must turn toward philosophy. Specifically, one must debate whether there is even such a thing as a priori goodness.

again this is only a philosophical question because it's phrased in a vague impractical manner. presumably by "goodness" you mean moral behavior, and if you are careful to specify that it becomes a scientific question.

I disagree with this. It is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. One can put strict limits on the role that a god would have played in the history of the universe, sure, but one can never really say whether a god lives outside of the physical universe and has because there would be no physical way to measure him (if he's outside the realm of our experiment). We can measure the magnetic moment of a muon. That's science. We can't measure God.

we can't measure whether a teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth and mars either. again, questions about god are only beyond science if you phrase them in an impractical manner.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

we can't measure whether a teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth and mars either. again, questions about god are only beyond science if you phrase them in an impractical manner.

Sure we could. It would take a ton of money and effort and a really long time, but eventually it is conceivable that we could find a teapot. We could never even imagine measuring God.

[crowTrobot 2]

No, a true atheist has total disbelief in any God. An agnostic says "I don't know what is outside".

the practical working definition of atheism is just lack of belief. there are no certainties involved. agnosticism and atheism are sort of smeared together in everyday use.actually from technical linguistics i think the original meaning of the greek word agnostic is not "i don't know", it's "you CAN'T know".

One of Dawkins points in TGD is that noone can truly be an atheist, and noone can truly be a deist. You cannot know for certain either way (if you knew 100% that God existed there would be no need for faith). In exactly the same way that it's impossible to 100% disbelieve Russel's teapot. It's getting into technicalities there, but that's the gist of it. Everyone is agnostic to some extent. 'Atheists' just think the possibility of a personal God is so unlikely it's not worth considering as plausible.

actually dawkins point was that there's obviously a whole continuous range of levels of certainty about any specific god, and the few terms we use don't do it justice. that's why he adds his own scale 1-7 scale.

[crowTrobot 2]

Sure we could. It would take a ton of money and effort and a really long time, but eventually it is conceivable that we could find a teapot. We could never even imagine measuring God.

misses the point. insert whatever else you want that is beyond our ability to detect.all you're saying is that if you pre-define the answer to a question as unknowable you can't know the answer. i think that's a rather impractical approach to any question, including whether god exists or not.

[simo_8ball 0]

the practical working definition of atheism is just lack of belief. there are no certainties involved. agnosticism and atheism are sort of smeared together in everyday use.

I actually see agnostics as the opposite of atheists.Atheist = I deny God's existenceAgnostic = I can't deny God's existence(ok, that's not perfect admittedly but it illustrates the difference quite well)

actually dawkins point was that there's obviously a whole continuous range of levels of certainty about any specific god, and the few terms we use don't do it justice. that's why he adds his own scale 1-7 scale.

Yeah. The overriding part I took from it was that it has continuous rather than discrete limits.

[Balloon guy 158]

When I wanted to know about God, I prayed for Him to show Himself in a way that would make sense for me.He did.I believe.The Bible is a good starting point.Edit: This will not be well recieved as any form of correct way to know truth, but mstly by people that don't know God.

[crowTrobot 2]

When I wanted to know about God, I prayed for Him to show Himself in a way that would make sense for me.He did.I believe.Edit: This will not be well recieved as any form of correct way to know truth, but mstly by people that don't know God.

other religions/cults work the same way. the question was what distinguishes christianity?

[herokid7 0]

no, virtually everything he is reputed to have said (in the canonical gospels) is in the context of preparing for what is coming and gaining it through obedience. he also seems to clearly make the implication that what is coming is a "place prepared" with god beyond this life, NOT in it. paul does the same thing as a follow up.really though, if you want to get down to technical reality the sayings of jesus in the synoptic gospels appear to be copied from other material with the authors (whovever they were) inserting their own context to fit their own preconceptions from OT prophecy of a jewish savior. so assuming jesus existed and actually said any of what is in the bible, the true context is unknowable. presumably velvet elvis doesn't mention that lol.

Actually, Velvet Elvis does mention that. Lol. He has a whole chapter in the book on doubt, and about how it can be a good thing in a Christian's life. You really should read it, Crow, I think you would be shocked. Even some of my Theology professors at school say when your quoting Jesus, you should say "The gospel writers say Jesus said," because the gospel writers never wrote down their stories until several years after Jesus life, death, and resurrection. So they were just writing down from memory, and probably just got out the gist of Jesus' message.Jesus often talked about a "place being prepared" because his disciples were worried about the things he said about leaving them. He said he was going to prepare a place for them to give them some comfort. And Paul said that "To live is Christ, to die is gain." which basically means he didn't think this life or the afterlife was more important than the other. The disciples who wrote the synoptic gospels each had their own specific audiences to which they were trying to reach, so of course there were going to be differences. Very rarely do two people see the same thing in the exact same way. Y'know, I've even read on the American Atheists Inc website that they say "only the most skeptical of atheists say there was no Jesus" with the context being that do believe Jesus existed just that wasn't what he said he was. So for you to say that he might not have existed puts yourself in a very, very, very, small miniority. It's pretty much a fact that a man named Jesus did exist, and that is pretty much agreed on by all historians, theologians, scientists, evolutionists, atheists, and members of several different religions.

[checkymcfold 0]

based on the track record of both there's no reason to think science can't objectively address the specifics of all of those questions much more usefully than philosophy can. this is absolutely a scientific question.

i don't think either of these statements are correct.the scientific method was refined over the course of history THROUGH the avenue of philosophy. where would science be without popper and his philosophical work? the articulation of scientific statements as falsifiable (oddly, the same criterion by which your second statement above is rendered incorrect) was a profoundly philosophical and unscientific claim.science and philosophy are friends. religion and philosophy needn't be enemies, either. i, for one, don't understand why science and religion need to be enemies, either. the problem of the latter seems to come into play when either one oversteps its boundaries by making such silly claims as "god doesn't want us to do research on stem cells" or "the question of god's existence is a scientific question."

[checkymcfold 0]

biblical christianity is primarily about embracing god and accepting jesus as your savior (works alone yada yada). following jesus' moral example while we're here on earth is just part of the obedience required to accomplish that. it is certainly not the primary focus of biblical christianity. overall the bible de-emphesizes this life.

this is actually less true than you think. first, i'm not really sure what any of you guys ever mean when you refer to "biblical" christianity (lois included), since there are so many profoundly disparate resources to be found in various areas of various versions of the christian bible. as to your point, though, i'm not sure that the more orthodox sects of catholicism or eastern orthodoxy in general would really fit into that framework. historically speaking, they're more originally (i mean that word in a very literal sense) christian than some of the more mystical, evangelical teachings today in the west.as to the OP's original question, i think that religion is a profoundly personal choice, and that one can never be harmed by doing as much as they can to learn about as many religions as possible in order to find a worldview that best befits their own lives. are you individualistic? do you value a sense of community centered on having similar views of the world? do you have a firm understanding of your own morality, or do you feel more lost when you think about what is right and wrong? if the latter, do you like the feeling of having external guidance in that regard? do you think that there is a higher power, and if yes, what sort of power is it? different answers to these sorts of questions are going to suggest amenability to different religions.

[crowTrobot 2]

the scientific method was refined over the course of history THROUGH the avenue of philosophy. where would science be without popper and his philosophical work? the articulation of scientific statements as falsifiable (oddly, the same criterion by which your second statement above is rendered incorrect) was a profoundly philosophical and unscientific claim.

science evolved in spite of modern philosophy, not through it. it was certainly doing fine on its own long before before popper came along. all he did was to define what was already working.and whether a theory is falsifiable is a matter of asking the question in a practical manner. if you pre-define the answer as unfalsifiable then obviously the question isn't going to be scientific. questions about god can certainly be phrased in scientific terms. do we have any reason to believe god exists? no. for practical purposes he doesn't exist, any more than russell's teapot exists.

science and philosophy are friends.

many of the most respected working scientists consider philosophy utterly useless, if not detrimental, and say so publicly.

for one, don't understand why science and religion need to be enemies

maybe because science refutes the certainties held by virtually every religious person?

[crowTrobot 2]

this is actually less true than you think. first, i'm not really sure what any of you guys ever mean when you refer to "biblical" christianity (lois included), since there are so many profoundly disparate resources to be found in various areas of various versions of the christian bible. as to your point, though, i'm not sure that the more orthodox sects of catholicism or eastern orthodoxy in general would really fit into that framework. historically speaking, they're more originally (i mean that word in a very literal sense) christian than some of the more mystical, evangelical teachings today in the west.

not sure how this makes the new age interpretation in velvet elvis any less of a stretch.

[crowTrobot 2]

Y'know, I've even read on the American Atheists Inc website that they say "only the most skeptical of atheists say there was no Jesus" with the context being that do believe Jesus existed just that wasn't what he said he was. So for you to say that he might not have existed puts yourself in a very, very, very, small miniority. It's pretty much a fact that a man named Jesus did exist, and that is pretty much agreed on by all historians, theologians, scientists, evolutionists, atheists, and members of several different religions.

i didn't say anything about the likelyhood that stories of jesus are based in some way on an actual historical figure. i was just questioning how accurate they can possibly be assumed to be when the canonical gospels are of such dubious origin.

[herokid7 0]

not sure how this makes the new age interpretation in velvet elvis any less of a stretch.

Velvet Elvis is not New Age!!!!!.......it's Postmodern....

[checkymcfold 0]

science evolved in spite of modern philosophy, not through it. it was certainly doing fine on its own long before before popper came along. all he did was to define what was already working.and whether a theory is falsifiable is a matter of asking the question in a practical manner. if you pre-define the answer as unfalsifiable then obviously the question isn't going to be scientific. questions about god can certainly be phrased in scientific terms. do we have any reason to believe god exists? no. for practical purposes he doesn't exist, any more than russell's teapot exists.many of the most respected working scientists consider philosophy utterly useless, if not detrimental, and say so publicly. maybe because science refutes the certainties held by virtually every religious person?

1. russell's teapot is ****ing retarded, just as the flying spaghetti monster thing from dawkins. i really don't know how else to say it.2. you're rewriting the history of science and philosophy, both on their own terms and alongside one another, but i don't know how to convince you of this without doing way more work and specific research than i'm willing to do for an online forum debate.3. "many of the most respected working scientists" over the course of history have actually engaged with philosophy on the side and considered themselves philosophers. i suppose we can each make a list and see whose has more names on it? i start with einstein, pascal, newton, and hawking, off the top of my head.4. tell me how "science refutes the certainties held by virtually every religious person" and i'll tell you why you're wrong. don't forget to define your terms.5. logically speaking, if you don't define a proper domain to which a sort of inquiry can apply and then investigate claims in accordance with it, you're ****ing up. epistemology must come logically prior to metaphysics. if science doesn't understand that, then we sure as hell need philosophers to tell scientists what to do sometimes.

[crowTrobot 2]

1. russell's teapot is ****ing retarded, just as the flying spaghetti monster thing from dawkins. i really don't know how else to say it.

lol i don't know either. so you think someone can somehow be validated in belief in something just because they pre-define it as unfalsifiable.

2. you're rewriting the history of science and philosophy, both on their own terms and alongside one another, but i don't know how to convince you of this without doing way more work and specific research than i'm willing to do for an online forum debate.

no i'm not, i'm looking at history from a practical perspective. science developed because it worked. science as a discipline was fascilitated by philosophical support at various points when it otherwise might not have been, but philosophy never added anything to it in terms of methodologic detail that wasn't already devoloping on its own. refinement occurred through simple trial and error - particularly in the 20th century.

3. "many of the most respected working scientists" over the course of history have actually engaged with philosophy on the side and considered themselves philosophers. i suppose we can each make a list and see whose has more names on it? i start with einstein, pascal, newton, and hawking, off the top of my head.

i was referring to modern scientists who've realized that those scientists that have engaged in philosophy have accomplished nothing through it. weinberg comes immediately to mind, and there are several others i've recently heard who are quite vocal about the uselessness of philosophy. any modern relationship is tenuous.

4. tell me how "science refutes the certainties held by virtually every religious person" and i'll tell you why you're wrong. don't forget to define your terms.

not sure what you're asking. science by definition invalidates certainty of belief in something for which you have zero objective evidence. relgious people just exempt their belief from science by choice, even though they conveniently use science in every other aspect of their lives.

5. logically speaking, if you don't define a proper domain to which a sort of inquiry can apply and then investigate claims in accordance with it, you're ****ing up. epistemology must come logically prior to metaphysics. if science doesn't understand that, then we sure as hell need philosophers to tell scientists what to do sometimes.

if you make a claim that can't be validated through science you're making a claim phrased in impractical terms. the idea that this type of claim constitutes a "domain" outside of science is just applying an utterly pointless double standard.

[checkymcfold 0]

lol i don't know either. so you think someone can somehow be validated in belief in something just because they pre-define it as unfalsifiable.

not so much that as that i think unfalsifiability through experimentation is really what we're getting at here. i think that there are simply different forms of evidence that apply to different areas: science, art, religion, etc. and some of these bits of evidence are simply unto their own sphere and shouldn't be extended beyond it absolutely. experimentation and validation through trial and error are some of these things that are true of science, but not of art, or in terms of the present discussion, religion.

no i'm not, i'm looking at history from a practical perspective. science developed because it worked. science as a discipline was fascilitated by philosophical support at various points when it otherwise might not have been, but philosophy never added anything to it in terms of methodologic detail that wasn't already devoloping on its own. refinement occurred through simple trial and error - particularly in the 20th century.

kinda, just see above. i don't think that trial and error can really apply in a direct way to metaphysical questions that don't have any sort of direct practical import for the world. you could argue, i suppose, that religion affects the world in political ways, but politics isn't a science, properly speaking, either. the negotiation of human interaction, thought, and relation to the external world in general terms simply isn't so easy as to boil down to one methodology for interpretation. philosophy is very much concerned with this problem. science, as a sphere unto itself, simply can't deal with this issue if it is to remain internally consistent in logical terms. for the record, i'd argue that that's a good thing for all involved--if science started to extend itself into other areas requiring different sorts of inquiry and methodology, our tvs would stop working, and that'd suck.

i was referring to modern scientists who've realized that those scientists that have engaged in philosophy have accomplished nothing through it. weinberg comes immediately to mind, and there are several others i've recently heard who are quite vocal about the uselessness of philosophy. any modern relationship is tenuous.

i'd suggest that they're not doing the right sort of philosophy. analytical philosophy is what most people tend toward in philosophy, but imo it's utterly useless and falls into precisely the sort of trap weinberg seems to criticize--that one cannot glean anything useful from it. try continental philosophy. it's better, promise.

not sure what you're asking. science by definition invalidates certainty of belief in something for which you have zero objective evidence. relgious people just exempt their belief from science by choice, even though they conveniently use science in every other aspect of their lives.

this is what i mean by define your terms adequately. although i agree that many critics of science depend on it in ways that they either don't realize or acknowledge, to dismiss all of their claims thereby is logically disingenuous on the same level. don't get me wrong--i think that people who deny evolution are retards as much as you do, but my point is that their claims as they relate to unscientific things like art and religion (see above) aren't made less valid because they're stupid about one point. moreover, the thrust of all these arguments that i bring up is that dismissing people as just ignorant of science, etc. doesn't actually effect any concrete, positive change. in order to change someone's mind, if you really think that needs to be done, you need to show them that you're able to converse with them on their own terms and in their own language to some degree, and the rhetoric of vitriolic atheism is rendering the goal of "enlightening others" entirely impossible. in some respects, that's neither here nor there in terms of what we're talking about, but it's worth mentioning, imo.edit: got a bit off track. to more directly address your claim, read what i've written at the bottom of this post and apply it to different classifications of evidence and logic. spheres are defined by their logical and epistemological systems. these systems are unique to these spheres themselves, and do not apply to others. indeed, the uniqueness of these systems are what provide the very definition of what constitutes a "scientific claim," a "religious claim," or an "aesthetic claim," etc. science cannot provide justification for being classified as a metasphere to all others without sacrificing its internal logical consistency (oddly, one cannot make the same claim about religion and art, as their logics are more amenable to stretching beyond their own spheres, not that i would advocate doing so). what i mean by this is that if science is going to depend upon the usefulness of experimentation to provide evidence, and that such evidence is all that is of practical worth, it must be able to provide an experiment that shows that experimentation as such is the ultimate arbiter of any sort of useful truth. an experiment, insofar as it can only be evaluated a posteriori, cannot as such lay claim to defining an a priori epistemological principle that would yield science the status of a metasphere in the way i've just described. put differently, you can't use an experiment that is defined as an experiment only by virtue of its practical usefulness to evaluate the very understanding of what usefulness is without falling into a trap of circular logic (the former is a more properly rigorous statement of this, but this may make more sense to some readers).

if you make a claim that can't be validated through sciencehttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=116577&pid=2396924&st=40Complete Edit you're making a claim phrased in impractical terms. the idea that this type of claim constitutes a "domain" outside of science is just applying an utterly pointless double standard.

i think you're entirely backwards here. would you apply scientific arguments to art? to sociological endeavors? why then to religion? i'm not equating art and religion here except to say that both are unscientific in nature. there's a very good reason that a lot of aesthetic philosophy (nietzsche and kant, to name a few authors thereof) takes on profoundly political tones in terms of how it describes the way humans discuss and debate various sorts of topics. in these discussions, it's made clear that with regard to claims unbased in knowledge (generally equated with science and theory writ large), agreement is simply an unreasonable goal if it doesn't originally exist. i'd say that on this score, art and religion are similar, politics lies somewhere in the middle, and science is different entirely.BUT that's not to say that anything unscientific is "impractical" or something. there are lots of our lives that are impractical but still absolutely necessary to our humanity.

[crowTrobot 2]

i think that there are simply different forms of evidence that apply to different areas: science, art, religion, etc. and some of these bits of evidence are simply unto their own sphere

what forms of evidence can there possibly be that can't be expressed in scientific terms?

i don't think that trial and error can really apply in a direct way to metaphysical questions that don't have any sort of direct practical import for the world.

i guess you and i differ in that i think metaphysical questions are just impractical questions not worth asking (as indicated). the fact that you can phrase questions so that science can't address them doesn't necessarily make it a useful or practical thing to do. is it possible to prove or disprove that god exists? = impractical philosophical approach, accomplishes little or nothing to ask.is there any physical evidence supporting claims about god from specific religions? = more practical scientific approach with potential benefits for humanity.

-if science started to extend itself into other areas requiring different sorts of inquiry and methodology, our tvs would stop working, and that'd suck.

again, i don't understand how "other areas" would be hurt by scientific inquiry, as long as the questions coming from those areas are phrased in a specific manner.

try continental philosophy. it's better, promise.

ok i'll look into it lol.

doesn't actually effect any concrete, positive change. in order to change someone's mind, if you really think that needs to be done, you need to show them that you're able to converse with them on their own terms and in their own language to some degree, and the rhetoric of vitriolic atheism is rendering the goal of "enlightening others" entirely impossible. in some respects, that's neither here nor there in terms of what we're talking about, but it's worth mentioning, imo.

agreed in principal, but sam harris is always making the point that it's hard to criticize religious belief at all without coming off as vitriolic because it has been socially taboo to cirticize relgion for so long. i agree with your point (from an older thread) that dawkins goes too far sometimes.in case you haven't seen neil d.tyson confronting him in person on this issue i'm sure you'd enjoy it:http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYBFqse7tiU

would you apply scientific arguments to art? to sociological endeavors?

in terms of questions asked about those areas in a specific enough manner, absolutely. in fact evolutionary sociology is a fast-blooming scientific field right now.