Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?

Bold added by Larni.Surely though the validity of faith can be tested for its truth holding properties? If not, on what basis does one have that faith can ever have truth revealing qualities? Chocolate is so tasty because of the interplay between molecules and the effects it has on the brain. Taste is a very interesting field as is smell and indeed any sense based field. I recall as an undergrad doing experiments in the area of scent preference.All covered under the heading of science.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I am British and after seeing that I had to crack a wry smile. I thought he held his own quite well.

But you offer no alternative. This guy seems to have actively ignored his own conclusions. To say that prayer only works when you 'do it right' still means we need some evidence that people can ideed 'do it right'. We have none.If we look at the Harvard Prayer Experiment: http://www.ahjonline.com/article...I would conclude that the knowledge patients had (who knew they were being prayed for) introduced a cognitive variable that that inhibited recovery. Either pray (and the faith in pray) has no effect or cognitive bias nullifies any effect of prayer.Is this not using science to examine faith approriateley?Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed long link

I would argue that personal experience is not valid or reliable evidence in most situations. This is why the scientific method exists. To improve the reliablity and validity of attemps to explain things. Nothing wrong with the above: it informs us that there is something to investigate. It is then the job of science to take over and examine whether what we believe (in this case ghosts) is real. I see on reason not to use a PKE meter to test for ghosts.If something is real it can be measured (eventually). There where many people in Rochester about that time. What makes you conclude that his inlfluence is a work here? To find out we would have to use the scientific method to test your hypothesis.

You are correct: science does not own the truth; it illuminates the truth. The 'tastiness' of chocolate is a subjective interpretation of the chemical reactions perceived through our sensory apparatus, mediate by our 'core beliefs'. As such we can draw (and indeed we do) different conclusions as to the 'tastiness' of chocolate.To continue your analogy the experience of eating chocolate and interpreting the data recieved from the tongue (mediated by our prior experience) dictates what conclusion we draw as to the tastiness of it in the same way that out of the ordinary stimulus is interpretated as divine or natural. Our personal preference will dictate what we believe. Science seeks to remove this personal bias. Nothing of the sort and if I conveyed that image I am not explaining my point appropriately. The sense are not science: but their function and effects on our psychology can be illuminated by a scientific methodology.It is in the same way that we can illuminate the mechanisms of emotion with a scientific methodology. Time was when these were deemed 'off limits' and that to examine emotion would somehow denegrate emotions like love. Thankfully this is changing (at least in my field) and we can truly see how impressive and wonderful our human conditon is. I contend these are fair game for scientific study.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I would be interested to see things that we know are real and yet cannot be tested scientifically. That is not an appropriate way to determine the plausibility of her story. Her story (that she saw a ghost) would be our hypothesis. We would then try to reject that hypothesis. If we could not reject it (because the evidence so strongly supports it) we could conclude (within a given margin of error) that her story was probably true. Thats as far as (scientifically) we could go. Sorry about that, it's the prentend ghost detector in 'Ghostbusters'. I was not being serious. But it highlights that for something to be real you must have some indication that it exist. This expression of existance must be detectable somehow. If so we can measure it. Gods can't be tested by science in the same way the Flying Spagetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn can't be tested by science: there is nothing to test for. These are the poorest ways tha we have to establish the facts. A 12 person jury trial is a joke. Anything that include human perseption is inherently flawed. That is why we use self correcting scientific methodologies.

Why do believers always give god based motivations to people who do not subscribe to belief in gods? I don't have a god shaped hole in my head that needs filling.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Rubbish.Start another thread and we can dicuss your position.

The 'tastiness' of chocolate is measure of ones personal preference for chocolate. This can be measured and examined. I don't uderstand why you say that I am implying that the tastiness of choclate is somehow 'less tue'. I don't understand this: do you mean that 'science' and 'perception of taste' are being directly compared as we eat the chocolate and balanced as to which is more effective at measuring the subjectlive tastiness of chocolate?So I am to understand that you say a scientific methodology cannot describe or quantify the subjective personal experience of chocolate (and what it means) to a person.Now this is where I get stuck. The tastiness of chocolate is not an issue of truth vs falsehood. You would examine the 'tastiness' of chocolate with the use of a qualitative analysis.This leaves the subjective experience of sensation of any individual open to the scientific methodolgy. You could find out exactly what the sensations mean to the individual and correlate that with physiological indicators.In the case of chocolate we could examine the words used to describe the sensation of eating chocolate with brain chemistry..... Page not found | UT Health San AntonioFrom here we could formulate any hypothesis we want and use the data to test it.We can do this with religious experience also: BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the BrainNo forgiveness needed.

So, want to start a new thread to defend your position?

Thats cool, man; we disagree, no worries and I certainly don't claim the last word

No it can't. It can reveal what we believe is the truth. If you define a miss-interpretaion of data as an illusion or hallucination, then the answer is a definite yes.

I believe that if gods are indeed outside of science then we could never detect them. A god could exist outside of our ability to measure its' reality (don't forget our senses count as detectors) and no body would ever know.If a god can manipulate reality (so that our sense can detect them), we can (eventually) use the scientific method and technology to examine said manipulation and so examine evidence of the divinity (indirectly).I honestly reckon that the reason people claim gods are out side of science is because the scientific method has progressivley demolished supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. I contend that to appoint gods as 'paws off' is an attempt to protect the notion of gods being real.Historical testimony is a piece of data that can be used to form a synthesis with an aim to posit a theory. When one piece of data (lets say a book in the bible) conflicts with a multitude of data, I call it an outlier and disregard it.The scientific method is not the data e.g. eyewitness testimony, but how you use the data to come to a conclusion.So in answer to you question: a god could only be outside science if it did not exist.To the second question: the corroberating evidence of the Egyptian papyrus would strenghten the hypothesis about the Assyrian King's history. You could draw tentative conclusions only. If you then uncovered (say) radiometric dating data that contradicted both documents one would be unable to draw conclusions and futher reaserch is in order.Edited by Larni, : Disc One: Cast and Crew commentary.
Disc Two: Deleated Scences, Alternative Ending Story Board, Theatrical Trailor.

The exact opposiste. As I have said, a scientific methodology can reveal that you believe (and subjectively to you it is true) the taste of chocolate is yummy and that you want more.You seem to infer that my position on this question is reveresed. In this hypothetical state of affairs you are correct. However, and this is so important to get straight: Our sensory system is incredibly error prone.So you cannot rely on it. It is also mediated by cognition and experience. These are fundemental biases that can and must be controlled for.By science.