It seems to me that, during my short time here on the forums, the majority of the AG Community is Atheist. Is this just me, or is there truth to my thoughts?
I'm not sure I'm following how that would be illogical? Though I would actually say it's better to accept a theory rather then believe it.
The theory of gravity is not derivable just by looking at axioms of logic and going from there; it was intended to be a counterexample to "you should not believe anything that is not logical" or "logical is defined as anything that is derivable from axioms" - there needs to be some empirical input in order to arrive at that conclusion, and thus cannot be arrived from purely deductively.
Things that can be shown inductively or deductively. Of course we can still arrive at incorrect conclusions. But when those errors are found we should adjust accordingly.
Though I would actually say it's better to accept a theory rather then believe it.
I couldn't agree more with that statement.
I'm always annoyed when people announce that they believe in evolution or don't believe in evolution; belief isn't something that is involved in science; rather we should accept or not accept things based upon the data we are presented with. Most people don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
Of course we can still arrive at incorrect conclusions. But when those errors are found we should adjust accordingly.
That's assuming that there is only one correct conclusion then correct? Sorry if I'm taking this out of context but I don't there are absolute answers for morality, if you're simply talking about natural sciences then I agree, however.
I'm always annoyed when people announce that they believe in evolution or don't believe in evolution; belief isn't something that is involved in science; rather we should accept or not accept things based upon the data we are presented with. Most people don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
Well, does belief imply that there's some uncertainty? I can believe that x=x. Belief doesn't represent anything except conviction; however, the term accepting a theory is more specific.
Well, does belief imply that there's some uncertainty? I can believe that x=x. Belief doesn't represent anything except conviction; however, the term accepting a theory is more specific.
I see your point; however, when it comes to language I tend to look at connotation rather than denotation. Belief tends to imply almost an affection for something, an attraction to it; it's important to be as objective as possible (clearly) and I find that "belief" tends to preclude objectivity, at least in part.
Well, does belief imply that there's some uncertainty? I can believe that x=x. Belief doesn't represent anything except conviction; however, the term accepting a theory is more specific.
Saying that one believes a theory, for example "I believe in evolution" implies that evolution is a belief, just an opinion and not something well founded. You can say you believe in God but you wouldn't say you believe in thermodynamics. We accept a theory because it's the best explanation of our observations.
Something which is supported by reliable evidence and / or facts.
Einfach you're making it seem that half the events in your day you know of are the truth. If I'm told my sister wants to burrow £15 I don't KNOW that, but I believe it because its the evidence provided by my mother.
You actually answered it in the quote right below that xD
Oh, sweet.
We accept a theory because it's the best explanation of our observations.
Indeed, but sometimes scientists (well I say "sometimes", but its probably very common) attempt to find other solutions that undermine an already known theory to see if it is logical. With that in mind - gravity and the Big Bang have not found any opposing evidence (that is as logical).
Indeed, but sometimes scientists (well I say "sometimes", but its probably very common) attempt to find other solutions that undermine an already known theory to see if it is logical. With that in mind - gravity and the Big Bang have not found any opposing evidence (that is as logical).
Just because there are competing theories doesn't mean we shouldn't accept the established one.
But it was a perfectly logical theory hundreds o years ago.
If you want to be technical you probably shouldn't use the word "logic" there. "Prevalent" is probably the word you're looking for. Logic refers to a set of rules that structure argument.
Religion is also not any kind of theory. It is an assertion that one commits to as fact, with far more authority than a theory, which postulates a model to represent perceived reality.
Religion is also not any kind of theory. It is an assertion that one commits to as fact, with far more authority than a theory, which postulates a model to represent perceived reality.
True, they don't seem to recognise the power of the human mind or even refuses to accept some of the facts because it could compromise them.
