Religion

longship

(40,416 posts)

19. I am a reductionist

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 08:48 PM

Mar 2012

But I'm not wedded to that. I just see no compelling evidence to support a non-reductionist view. The universe, from all evidence, seems to emerge from basic rules of nature, many of which we understand very well and to a very high degree of accuracy.

I invite you to grab Murray Gell-Mann's TED talk off the TED site. You can download it and watch it at your leisure. He explains the principles better than I can on these forums.

Concerning plausibility, that's a pretty strong requirement in science. New science always fits in with the existing theories. It's been that way since the birth of modern science, basically Galileo. There are few exceptions, possibly Darwin, but even he wasn't the first to talk about evolution.

New theory fits like a jig saw puzzle piece into the existing body of theory. That just seems to be the way nature is arranged. And mother nature is the final arbiter to what is true, not any personal bias. In other words, nature seems to be reductionist, it's not anything I or anybody else is trying to imprint on her.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Seeing Is Unbelieving [View all] rug Mar 2012 OP

"...the offensive launched against religion by...." Deep13 Mar 2012 #1

I'd hate to see his review of the book that he does consider to be the worst. Jim__ Mar 2012 #2

Blah, blah, militant, blah, blah, scientism, blah longship Mar 2012 #3

I wish that what you say atheists want was true, but it's not true for all atheists. cbayer Mar 2012 #4

Who wants them destroyed? longship Mar 2012 #8

Why does one need religious institutions?? Angry Dragon Mar 2012 #18

Why does who need religious institutions? cbayer Mar 2012 #29

Your last sentence is a bit of farce Angry Dragon Mar 2012 #36

And why do some churches fight vigorously against the imposition of religion cbayer Mar 2012 #37

Your last sentence........ Angry Dragon Mar 2012 #38

There are many who feel no need whatsoever to define god. cbayer Mar 2012 #39

Do you equal atheism with scientism? tama Mar 2012 #5

"Scientism" is not a word I use longship Mar 2012 #7

Your generalizations about theists would lead me to wonder if your cbayer Mar 2012 #9

Well, tell that to the Republicans longship Mar 2012 #10

I am equally pissed off, but your tendency to generalize is polarizing. cbayer Mar 2012 #12

Thank you very much, kind sir longship Mar 2012 #13

I'm a ma'am and I am married to an atheist. cbayer Mar 2012 #15

I apologize, Madame longship Mar 2012 #17

It's not the word that matters tama Mar 2012 #11

Okay longship Mar 2012 #14

I have more confidence tama Mar 2012 #16

I am a reductionist longship Mar 2012 #19

I'm a reductionist tama Mar 2012 #20

Revolutions still build on what came before longship Mar 2012 #21

Agreed tama Mar 2012 #24

Gell-Mann tama Mar 2012 #25

Yup, re Weinberg, Gell-Mann longship Mar 2012 #28

Several problems tama Mar 2012 #30

Actually I see no problems there longship Mar 2012 #31

There's lot to pick tama Mar 2012 #32

If anybody says any of those things in this forum, Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #6

Fine, next time someone here claims skepticscott Mar 2012 #23

So, is the book's author claiming that science skepticscott Mar 2012 #22

Rosenberg does claim the label 'scientism' muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #26

Well, the reviewer claimed skepticscott Mar 2012 #27

Just to break it down... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #33

Which is just a way of pointing out skepticscott Mar 2012 #34

Exactly, science helps answer questions about nature, nothing more or less.. Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #35