Religion
Related: About this forumAre you an atheist wanting to talk faith with a believer? There's an app for that.
by KATU.com Staff
Monday, August 15th 2016
PORTLAND, Ore. -- A Portland State University philosophy professor and a team of students have created a new app designed to connect Atheists with believers.
"Atheos" aims to create a "respectful debate" between believers and non-believers.
There are ways to have productive, civil conversations about contentious issues such as religion, faith, supernatural beliefs, even politics, Philosophy Professor Peter Boghossian said, adding his goal was to give users the "confidence and tools" to have challenging conversations.
The app teaches the Socratic Method through game play, including quizzes and immediate feedback.
An introductory version of the app is free, and the full version costs $4.99.
http://katu.com/news/local/are-you-an-atheist-wanting-to-talk-faith-with-a-believer-theres-an-app-for-that
http://www.atheos-app.com/
Lunabell
(6,089 posts)To have a debate with the religious crowd. It's like arguing with a block. They take everything "on faith ". No critical thinking at all.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)But to be charitable, maybe it's just good-natured hyperbole.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You're never going to have a meaningful debate with a religious believer in that topic.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)how living cells came about from inanimate matter?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Religion will never have the answer.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Science works against faith.
Faith in God is different than faith that the sun will rise. For shame!
--imm
jonno99
(2,620 posts)1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
I'll restate my original question:
Do you have confidence that eventually scientists will figure out how living cells came about from inanimate matter?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The main problem is simulating the exact conditions that existed on earth at the time, which are unknown. The MillerUrey experiment showed that it is plausible for life to form under what was thought to be primitive earth conditions at the time.
More recently this article:
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
IOW, life is an emergent behavior of matter in a fluid energy bath.
I generally restrict the word faith for phenomena that cannot be observed.
--imm
jonno99
(2,620 posts)While MillerUrey proved that under guided conditions, certain amino acids could form, this is a far, far cry from proving that "natural" molecular self-replication is possible.
"Faith" is simply a word that describes an attitude or a way of thinking. Saying "I think", or "it's... in the bag" is just a way of stating that you are confident in your line of reasoning.
As of yet there is no proof that a natural mechanism exists for abiogenesis - and yet your are confident that "it's pretty much in the bag" - the unproven and the unobserved. By your own definition, you are acting "on faith".
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Plausible explanations are different from supernatural events. And scientist don't "prove" things.
There are other differences between Miller and nature. How nice of you to ignore them.
--imm
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Well, you claimed that Miller
You're working very hard to try to prove that you don't act "out of faith", however, leaving the faith word aside, your confident position on unproved phenomena is really no different from the person who accepts the supernatural as a "plausible" explanation for that same phenomena.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I go with the evidence.
--imm
jonno99
(2,620 posts)that the proof of it is "in the bag".
If your confidence that life can form naturally is not really "faith" - using your definition:
immoderate
(20,885 posts)There is profuse evidence that amino acids, complex compounds, (the so-called "building blocks of life," occur in many natural situations. For instance, they're found in meteors. From outer space. Also, 'emergent behaviors' can be observed, in humans, in animals, and in artificially created 'cellular automatons' as per the work of John Conway. Basic math. So far all facts, right?
Then there's the second law of thermodynamics. I assure you, that does not result from my feeling! It's the reason rocks roll downhill, (and superseded the previous explanation, that God wants it.) So far, good solid science, right? Also, to be fair to Miller, his experiment ran for several hours, in a bottle. The planet itself, had millions of cubic miles of ocean, (electrolyte) ample access to minerals, energy from a nearby star, and a billion years to play in. Facts. (Does guided experiment mean faked? What does it mean? Can you be specific? Would you call the universe guided? By?)
It can also be observed that the universe has a tendency toward entropy. That's what Jeremy England's papers show. (Nice how you can reject them without reading.) That's also math and accepted by peers. Where it's speculative, nevertheless plausible, is that since life accelerates entropy, then life, where possible, will be generated by emergent actions. Again this last part is hypothetical, but not contradicted by any observed phenomena. I do not profess more than a basic understanding of this physics. But I'll contrast that with your total lack of understanding. Also information theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory, all provide frameworks which converge around the plausibility of gratuitous generation of life. That's all evidence. It converges.
OK, where's your evidence? (Look at the sky! Look at the trees! ?)
--imm
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Look at the longer definition of faith in Webster's.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You keep telling yourself that.
rug
(82,333 posts)You keep telling yourself that.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You're putting down science and technology by the way, on a cell phone.
rug
(82,333 posts)The poster wrote, ""science will find the answers to those questions."
Not has. Not has a good record. Will.
In doing so, he expressed the belief, the hope, that science will find the answers. Unqualifiedly.
In short, the power of science to find answers is unlimited.
That's bunk, that's hope, that's faith. That's bullshit.
It's also unscientific.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)The poster, apparently on faith, asserts the contrary.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)See?
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)That's the answer to both your questions. Nothing that occurs naturally is unlimited.
BTW, you do realize science is simply a method. A method devised and used by human beings. It has no independent existence. Are you saying human beings are unlimited, augmented by scientific techniques or not?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Is there a limit to knowledge?
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)My cat, upon encountering an open can, may think there's nothing else to consider.
So yes, there is a limit to knowledge. But that limited knowledge does not delineate all that there is.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)And you assumed I made that assumption. I didn't.
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)Origin.
End.
Volition.
Purpose.
Good.
Bad.
I suggest the first three will not be known by science and that the last three can not be known by science.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I presume you are saying then, that there is no limit on scientific knowledge.
--imm
rug
(82,333 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Response to rug (Reply #20)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)It seems like a very reasonable hypothesis, one firmly based on past evidence, to predict that it will solve this problem too.
Christians always stress any gaps. In fact, they have a "God of the gaps." But? The gaps by now are pretty small.
So you guys oppose evolution? Note that geology and evolution confirm a barren earth, followed over millions of years by very primitive and then increasingly complex life forms.
Extrapolating backwards, it seems that the Biblical account is clearly false. And that evolution from inanimate matter, ultimately, is a far more probable scenario.
So we have certainty on this? Not yet. But we have an extremely, extremely high degree of probability. Quite a bit higher - a hundred times higher say - than miracolous creation.
Seriously: you guys are opposing ... Evolution ?!?
rug
(82,333 posts)Clearly there are.
Tracing back through this thread, the original question was "how living cells came about from inanimate matter".
That is a discrete question that is subject to scientific examination and one that may be explained in one fashion or another. May.
What remains to be explained is how the inanimate matter came to be. Unlike the question of life which is in the realm of chemistry, biology, and physics, the answer to that question defies natural laws.
Now, since you're replying to me, who the fuck are "you guys"?
I'll leave you with one further question:
Seriously: you guys are proposing ... Omniscience ?!?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts).. is a typical religious strategy: leave out the larger body of evidence. Focusing just on the small gaps.
The overall picture is that science works say, a trillion times better than praying for miracles. And that evolution overall, has fit the evidence over and over. So if we go with the proven record? Evolution from inanimate matter is by far the most likely probability.
By the way? The Bible itself supports science. Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40; Mal. 3.10, etc.. And for that matter, so does the Church.
Interestingly, even the Bible has God creating man out of inanimate dirt, or "clay."
rug
(82,333 posts)Trying to focus on evolution as disproof of religious belief is the more typical, and weaker, pro-science argument.
I'm glad you agree that the Roman Catholic Church supports science.
Yes, the root of the name Adam is the Hebrew adamah, meaning "ground". Similarly, human comes from the Latin humus, meaning earth, ground, or soil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Do you only talk with people with whom you are in 100% agreement?
That is called a monologue.
Lunabell
(6,089 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)1) Ignorance, by which I think you mean basic ignorance of fact, or
2) bigotry, by which I think you mean racial and/or ethnic prejudice, or
3) intolerance, by which I think you mean your own intolerance for 1 and 2?
If you choose intolerance, and avoidance, how can barriers ever be broken down? Only dialogue can break down barriers.
Lunabell
(6,089 posts)I'm not ever going to be a shrinking violet.