Post by: Kyle on September 19, 2006, 10:52:18 PM
I am so tired of this "leftists hate god and are intolerant of anyone practicing religion" garbage.
I am not a leftist. I am a college student. I am an NRA member (as of a few days a go ^_^) I actively campaign and volunteer for Republican and conservative candidates in local, state, and sometimes national elections. I work with groups on campus to spread conservatism and bring attention to UN atrocities and the border travesty, etc. We are having David Horowitz come to campus tomorrow to talk about his book and how to spot and combat communist professors.
HOWEVER
I am a positive, "fundamentalist" athiest. I also happen to be an ardent scolar of religion, especialy the judeo-christian ones. Not as a form of rebellion or as a way to spurn society and my parents. I have never had a religion, so I am an athiest. So, I am pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-church/state seperation.
Why do a-religious people not want Inteligent Design theories taught in school?
Because no, the world is not 6,000 years old. No, Adam and Eve were not the first two humans. No, snakes do not talk. No, the dinosaurs did not go extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. No, the answer to the question "then how is it that stars are many many light-years away?" is not "because God bends the light to test our faith."
What people need to understand is that the mythologies of the old testament are simply that: mythologies. This is not used as a perjorative. They are mythologies. They are poetic ways of conveying a spiritual truth. No, God did not part the red sea for Moses. That is not true. But the statement of faith "God will help his followers when they need it most" IS true (for a religious person).
It is exceedingly clear that the writers of the old testament KNEW that they were writing mythologies LONG after the events supposedly happened. They were perfectly happy with this. It was not until much later that people started to take them as a literal, historical record.
I, and other a-religious people do not begrudge you your beliefs. If you teach your children that the stories are metaphorical examples of how God can help you in your life, good for you; I am glad you do so. If you want to teach your kids that the Old Testament is a historical, literal account, I warn you are putting your children at a terrible disadvantage, but I cannot stop you.
I cannot stop you from teaching that to your kids and putting them at that disadvantage in life. But myself, and many others, CAN stop you from teaching OUR children that, and will fight tooth and nail to ensure it.
We do not hate your religion, we simply hate it when people try and teach matters of faith as fact, when they are in fact matters of faith.
Post by: Guest on September 20, 2006, 12:47:01 AM
Maybe it will make you feel better to know that I do actually agree with much of your post, but I strongly dissagree with your apparent "wounding" at the hands of others who dissagree. Your inability to tollerate opposing viewpoints speaks of a certain insecurity of your own beliefs. If you had a true and strong conviction then it really shouldnt bother you if other people are wrong.
For the record, your kids are going to learn a whole steaming pile of bullshit in school, intelligent design is but a small smelly pellet in an otherwise mountanous pile. When it *really* comes down to it, what does it matter how the human race came about? Does it really impact your life in a significant and daily way? Does a person who believes in creation have a significant disadvantage from a person who understands evolution when applying for a job as a plumber? Is it going to have an impact on your childs ability to pay the rent or mow their lawn? Really, its bewildering to me why an athiest even has a big stake in this fight. I understand why religious people care, they have to, faith is all they have so it has to be protected. By definition you dont have faith, so what are you protecting? The truth? Sure, it's a noble cause, but if that were the case you would be fighting for truth that matters, not truth that simply bugs you. Face it, it doesnt really matter what a person believes in this whole debate, its about *nothing more* than who is right and who is wrong.
Seriously, take a step back and realize that your nearly having an aneurism over a petty little fact that wont occupy more than an hour of a child's education, then tell me with a straight face that you are really all that different from the religious zelots that you oppose. I put the lot of you into the same leaky boat. At least kids still get their recess and other children, otherwise the only thing they would learn is that adults arent qualified to be trusted with their education.
Post by: LAK on September 20, 2006, 01:01:12 AM
This could lead to some interesting discussion though.
Let me start things off this way; how can the OT (or certain items) be written off as mythology, when science itself is divided on it's explanations concerning most key issues on this subject? Take one hundred scientists at random, ask them what are the origins of planet earth, and you are not going to get a unanimous declaration of fact. Unless of course you hand pick one hundred that happen to share the same opinion.
Then let's examine creation vs modern science and ask; is it possible - within the realm of science - for something to come about from nothing. And I mean nothing? I think not; so from where did the first elements - matter - come from?
To try and say "they have just always been there" simply begs more questions. So in order to accept modern sciences' explanations, one must also have a heavy dose of faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstaes.org
Post by: mfree on September 20, 2006, 03:16:02 AM
Don't ever ask someone versed in theoretical particle physics that; there are theories, coming about to explain the phenomenon of "dark matter" that could very well end up explaining the "coagulation" of matter from energy after the little pop.
I can't recall the proper name, but there's a measured effect where two flat plates in a vacuum will "attract" each other once brought within a threshold distance, and rather strongly given the environment. The current explanation is that "nothing" isn't nothing, there's still an energy state and the plates were brought within the wavelength of that energy thus eliminating it from the space between the plates and radiation pressure was pushing them together. Heck, I mean, 300 years ago we all thougth air was "nothing" too.
The biblical creationists have had a couple thousand years to cement their end of things in the human mind and behaviour. Science of the kind that can explain this is less than 200 years old, and very few people understand it, but there's quite a lot of tangible evidence that supports it.
I hold no anger towards someone who believes in creationism. I hold no anger towards someone who believes in intelligent design, asides from their tendency to assign to God human traits and failings through that theory (God as watchmaker, putting together an elaborate machine... and getting it wrong. Omniscient much?). I personally believe in evolution. But heavens help you when you blindly attempt to convert me to your end of things after I say no, or if you deny me my opportunity to tell someone who hasn't recieved either end of things. Why couldn't God have simply done what the Deists propose, set things in motion and watched as everything unfolds precisely according to His plans, over several billions of years?
Personally, I think if God had any influence in the creation of the universe, it was to throw down a set of rules and go "bip" and hey, here's this huge explosion that coagulated out into lower energies and then matter, which over billions of years coalesced into galaxies, stars, and planets, that went through energy-induced reactions to make self-replicating creatures that eventually were modified to succeed wildly as intelligent, self-aware bipedal creatures who could finally appreciate God.
The Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (singularity)
2 And the earth (universe or world) was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light. (big bang)
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (energetical and matter coalescence)
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (creation of time)
6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (formation of atomic elements)
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (see 6)
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. 2 Pet. 3.5 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (gravitational attraction of stellar dust ring into planets)
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (hey, He's on a roll)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (evolve) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (evolutional steps, plants to larger plants, that branch of the phyla)
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (description of biological reproduction)
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (planets spin)
etc
20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth (evolve) abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
etc
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth (evolution of land creatures after sea) the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, (i.e. having self-awarenes) 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (because of their intelligence)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6
I honestly don't see why the fight is so hard against evolution.
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2006, 03:37:44 AM
I wonder what Einstein would have said about that idea...
Post by: Ron on September 20, 2006, 03:54:43 AM
I'm still not sure I can generate the faith to believe that order arises spontaneously from disorder or that sentient life arises spontaneously from lifeless matter.
But with all you smart scientist types telling me what to believe I think I'll be alright.
Post by: Dannyboy on September 20, 2006, 04:06:59 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 05:00:35 AM
Quote from: Malice
I am so tired of this "leftists hate god and are intolerant of anyone practicing religion" garbage.
There are indeed many secular leftists, rightists, moderates and libertarians who hate the idea of God, hate religion and are intolerant. If you aren't of that group, I can definitely understand that you don't want to be lumped in with them. But it seems you have as much resentment toward certain religious people as they do toward secularists.Quote
I am a positive, "fundamentalist" athiest....I have never had a religion, so I am an athiest. So, I am pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-church/state seperation.
Why do you feel that atheism leads to these points of view? Regarding religious freedom, perhaps you misunderstand why some conservative Christians balk at the word "seperation." It is not that we actually reject the religious freedom embodied in the first amendment. Rather, we feel that seperation is the wrong way to interpret the amendment, and actually erodes freedom. Having said that, I feel that many conservatives, religious or otherwise, have a poor understanding of rights, albeit better than that of most leftists. You seem to believe the common myth that ID is a thinly-disguised Christian creationism. This is wrong, simplistic and lacking in evidence as far as I can tell.
Quote
Because no, the world is not 6,000 years old. No, Adam and Eve were not the first two humans. No, snakes do not talk.
Well, that's your opinion, but such dogmatism sounds pretty religious, to me. ID does not teach these things.Quote
No, the dinosaurs did not go extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. No, the answer to the question "then how is it that stars are many many light-years away?" is not "because God bends the light to test our faith."
Again, your opinion, but dogmatic again. ID does not teach these things, nor do informed creationists. Like most partisans in this debate, you argue against the other side's position without understanding it.Quote
What people need to understand is that the mythologies of the old testament are simply that: mythologies. This is not used as a perjorative. They are mythologies. They are poetic ways of conveying a spiritual truth. It is exceedingly clear that the writers of the old testament KNEW that they were writing mythologies LONG after the events supposedly happened. They were perfectly happy with this. It was not until much later that people started to take them as a literal, historical record.
How do you know this? Quote
I, and other a-religious people do not begrudge you your beliefs.
Then why do you belittle them, and in this very post?Quote
If you want to teach your kids that the Old Testament is a historical, literal account, I warn you are putting your children at a terrible disadvantage, but I cannot stop you.
What disadvantage?Quote
But myself, and many others, CAN stop you from teaching OUR children that, and will fight tooth and nail to ensure it.
Would you also fight to ensure that our children are not taught that evolution is the only scientifically viable view of origins? Quote
We do not hate your religion, we simply hate it when people try and teach matters of faith as fact, when they are in fact matters of faith.
So I should have faith in things that aren't factual? Why?
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2006, 05:32:06 AM
Quote
Great. Another evolution/creation thread.
Yea, really, wake me up when it's over, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 20, 2006, 05:51:45 AM
Quote from: GoRon
Appreciate you signing up and straightening me out.
I'm still not sure I can generate the faith to believe that order arises spontaneously from disorder or that sentient life arises spontaneously from lifeless matter.
But with all you smart scientist types telling me what to believe I think I'll be alright.
+1. I'm still not sure I can generate the faith to believe that order arises spontaneously from disorder or that sentient life arises spontaneously from lifeless matter.
But with all you smart scientist types telling me what to believe I think I'll be alright.
Wake me up when it's over.
Post by: charby on September 20, 2006, 06:11:01 AM
Post by: Stickjockey on September 20, 2006, 06:51:25 AM
Quote from: 280Plus
My interpretation is E=God.
I wonder what Einstein would have said about that idea...
How about this:I wonder what Einstein would have said about that idea...
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
-Albert Einstein
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 07:10:29 AM
Sorry, I meant Energy.
Post by: wingnutx on September 20, 2006, 07:36:35 AM
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2006, 07:40:20 AM
And no, fist, I'm not getting tricked into discussing religion on the net again...
LOL...
Post by: cosine on September 20, 2006, 07:42:14 AM
well, the last five posts or so haven't addressed the original posts, nor has there been any real serious debate going on...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 07:55:13 AM
Post by: cosine on September 20, 2006, 07:56:10 AM
Quote from: fistful
quote stick?
This:Quote from: Stickjockey
How about this:
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
-Albert Einstein
"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
-Albert Einstein
Post by: wingnutx on September 20, 2006, 08:45:54 AM
Post by: charby on September 20, 2006, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: wingnutx
quote stick = quote I use to beat you over the head with
Rule of thumb... I will beat you with a stick that is larger in diameter than my thumb.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 20, 2006, 09:00:53 AM
In the deserts of Sudan
And the gardens of Japan
From Milan to Yucatan
Every woman, every man
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
Hit me! Hit me!
Je t'adore, ich liebe dich,
Hit me! hit me! hit me!
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
Hit me slowly, hit me quick.
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
In the wilds of Borneo
And the vineyards of Bordeaux
Eskimo, Arapaho
Move their body to and fro.
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
Hit me! Hit me!
Das ist gut! C'est fantastique!
Hit me! hit me! hit me!
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
It's nice to be a lunatic.
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
In the dock of Tiger Bay
On the road to Mandalay
From Bombay to Santa Fe
Over hills and far away
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
Hit me! Hit me!
C'est si bon, mm? Ist es nicht?
Hit me! hit me! hit me!
Hit me with fistful's quote stick.
Two fat persons, click, click, click.
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me!
Hit me!
Hit me!
Hit me! Ow!
Hit me!
Hit me!
Hit me! hit me!
Hit me (x5)
Hit me! Hit me! Hit me
Post by: charby on September 20, 2006, 09:06:31 AM
Well youre the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Thats o.k., lets see how you do it
Put up your dukes, lets get down to it!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why dont you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
You come on with a come on, you dont fight fair
But thats o.k., see if I care!
Knock me down, its all in vain
Ill get right back on my feet again!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why dont you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Well youre the real tough cookie with the long history
Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
Before I put another notch in my lipstick case
You better make sure you put me in my place
Hit me with your best shot!
Come on, hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Hit me with your best shot!
Why dont you hit me with your best shot!
Hit me with your best shot!
Fire away!
Post by: Guest on September 20, 2006, 09:22:06 AM
drc
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 09:26:30 AM
Post by: grampster on September 20, 2006, 10:10:05 AM
Post by: wingnutx on September 20, 2006, 10:11:45 AM
Post by: El Tejon on September 20, 2006, 10:25:09 AM
Post by: Moondoggie on September 20, 2006, 10:26:01 AM
I don't know where we come from,
Don't know where we're going to,
But if all this should have a reason,
Then we would be the last to know,
So let's just hope there is a promised land,
Hang on til then,
Best as you can!
"Rock Me, Baby"
Post by: richyoung on September 20, 2006, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: Malice
Why do a-religious people not want Inteligent Design theories taught in school?
Because no, the world is not 6,000 years old. No, Adam and Eve were not the first two humans. No, snakes do not talk. No, the dinosaurs did not go extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. No, the answer to the question "then how is it that stars are many many light-years away?" is not "because God bends the light to test our faith."
"A-religious people" don't have much credibility when they PATENTLY cannot accuratly describe the thing they are against - as "ID" is NONE o fht ethings you listed. Thanks for playing and try again real soon....
Because no, the world is not 6,000 years old. No, Adam and Eve were not the first two humans. No, snakes do not talk. No, the dinosaurs did not go extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. No, the answer to the question "then how is it that stars are many many light-years away?" is not "because God bends the light to test our faith."
Post by: charby on September 20, 2006, 10:41:47 AM
A: He lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 10:45:51 AM
Am I being criticized or ridiculed for something involving quotations? What's this all about?
Post by: Stickjockey on September 20, 2006, 10:56:04 AM
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2006, 11:08:54 AM
Post by: Moondoggie on September 20, 2006, 11:19:20 AM
That seemed to me what others were offering in their quotations, as well.
Not intended in any way as a slam.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 11:22:53 AM
Post by: Stickjockey on September 20, 2006, 11:30:38 AM
Post by: 280plus on September 20, 2006, 11:32:05 AM
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 20, 2006, 11:38:43 AM
And a decaf w/cream.
Post by: Mabs2 on September 20, 2006, 01:31:03 PM
OOGABOOGA!!
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on September 20, 2006, 01:40:40 PM
I have the highest regards for your quote stick.
...and don't worry about its diminutive dimensions-- my wife tells me:
it's not about the size of the ship on the sea,
it's the motion in the ocean.
I said that with a straight face...
...but this thread has definitely begun to self-destruct.
Post by: cosine on September 20, 2006, 01:46:25 PM
Post by: Nightfall on September 20, 2006, 03:29:38 PM
I dunno about you folk, but I've begun to find these serious-serious discussions a drain. Look, I've got enough stress in real life . Issues with a much more immediate effect on my existence. I don't find it particularly relaxing to get into important debates about huge issues, especially considering they usually devolve into throwing links and quotes at one another. How many people here have a genuine and deep understanding of astrophysics or evolutionary theory? Yeah, thats what I thought. So why do we get into pissin contests over em?
Post by: Guest on September 20, 2006, 03:33:58 PM
Now the grumpy feminists in gay bars thread? That's a good one. I mean, where else can you have that kind of discussion?
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 20, 2006, 04:42:35 PM
What many religious people do is accept the gifts of technology but reject the science upon which they are based, because its implications carry a heavy emotional cost. To accept the scientific view of the world is to also accept that based on the little we know, we live in a mechanistic uncaring universe fundamentally governed by a few faceless "inhuman" laws of physics and the resulting mathematical permutations. Such a view is fundamentally at odds with the cuddly warm feeling religious people get from believing there is somebody watching over them.
On another level, many people make the mistake to confuse science with philosophy or ethics. Science simply describes the universe and predicts phenomena. It has nothing to do with ethics and should not be expected to provide moral guidelines for those who want to subsitute it for morality or religion. Once this is understood, things become far more clear. Furthermore, many people also do not see that religion is a form of philosophy and thus comprises different departments within itself - epistemology, phenomenology, ethics, cognition. Many religious people subconsciously feel that because science has proven wrong the primitivistic ideas of religious phenomenology, it somehow also attacks the ethics department. It simply is not and does not need to be so.
Post by: Kyle on September 20, 2006, 09:35:54 PM
Yes, I realize that Creationism and ID are seperate ideas.
The problem I have with creationism is that it is NOT a science, so it belongs not in science class.
People sometimes say "how can you believe in evolution, its just a theory." Yes, it is a theory. But it is a testable theory that has a lot of evidence in it's favor. It is observable. It was come to by the scientific method and is always up for serious review. I do not BELIEVE in the theory of evolution. It is the best explanation that we have so far. And the details might change, or the whole theory could change or be proven or disproven. It doesnt matter, it is not a belief. It is adaptable to accomodate new information. This is key.
ID on the other hand, is not science. It was devised by theists who believe, to start out with, that a higher power created existance as we know it, or sparked something that developed into what we know. The conclusion, the "theory" if I must, was PRESUPPOSED. The evidence for it is has been carefully groomed to fit this presupposed idea. It is like when an anti does a study, setting out from the onset to prove that guns are bad. No matter what the facts are, the study will end up "proving" what the anti already "knows." This is NOT science.
To respond to fistful...
Why am I pro-choice, pro-gay? Because I lack religious belief. The opposing positions are almost %100 based on faith.
You say that my statement "snakes do not talk" is "dogmatic." This is a common straw-man argument. I assume you know that in our daily lives, we speak in terms of realitive possibility. I am basicaly correct that snakes do not talk. I am techinicaly incorrect, because some snake, somewhere, somehow, sometime, might talk. It COULD happen, in theory. But we cannot go about our daily lives talking in such terms. We have to simplify things, or we get into pure skepticism, where all statements and proposed ideas are infinitely questionable and no statements of fact are acceptably valid.
The same works in science. The knowledge that we have on matter, energy, and subatomic machinations are CONSTANTLY being challenged and questioned. But that does not mean we cannot make positive assertions on the topics. We do not fully understand atomic energy, but we know enough to base a usefull technology on it.
If you tap your finger on a table, it will hit the table and stop. Correct? Not really. It is POSSIBLE that if you tapped your finger on the same spot of the same table 100 million times, there is a theoretical CHANCE that your finger could pass right through (matter, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are in a state of constant motion and change) .Does that make me an inbecile to say that my kitchen table is solid? Of course not.
Should you have faith in theories like evoltution? Only to an extent. Do not have a religious-type faith in it. That is bad, because when you have such a faith, new knowledge on the subject becomes harder and harder to accept, to your own detriment.
Simply accept that we really dont KNOW where existance came from, or how life came to be what it is. Is it that scary to not know? Human beings will live a few more thousand years and we will die off and life and the universe will go on without us. We will probably never know the answers to these questions, and that is OK! But we should keep searching because it is usefull and we might figure it out someday.
The reason teaching junk "science" as if it was real science to kids is detrimental to them is because it damages their ability to discern science from junk science. It is that simple.
I do not mean to belittle anyones faith. But I probably do so when I make certain statements. But again, people should not take them are insults. I tried to explain that in my post but I guess it did not come across. Noahs ark is a myth. That is not a dirty word. It is a made-up story to convey a basic truth about the God of the Jews and later Christians. Why is this an insult?
How do I know they were written as mythologies? Becuase there are non-biblical historical accounts of ancient times. Because the Egyptians have no records of all of their first borns dying as a result of their enslavement of a religious groups. We know that the OT was not written as the events were taking place. There are are volumes and volumes of work done on this point by religious and a-religious scholars. If you want to know how I know, read some of them.
If I can further explain myself, let me know.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 09:39:36 PM
Quote from: Felonious Fig
fistful,
I have the highest regards for your quote stick.
...but this thread has definitely begun to self-destruct.
Disturbing. I have the highest regards for your quote stick.
...but this thread has definitely begun to self-destruct.
I blame the self-destruction squarely on Malice. We could have had an interesting conversation about how religion affects political views, or on the rivalry between religious conservatives and secular conservatives.
Instead, he had to go on about origins, so the bootless* battle is joined.
*Useless, or at least it meant that four hundred years ago.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 20, 2006, 09:53:52 PM
Ethically-based theories? Hmmm.
Quote from: CAnnoneer
science is the most pluralistic and free because it inherently does not tolerate dogmatic structure. If you have alternative explanations that match observation and experiment better, please come forth and state them. If they are righter than the previous ones, eventually they are accepted and become the new status quo, until a newer breakthrough appears and iterates the system...
A great system, but scientists are human.CAnnoneer, as a Biblical creationist, please tell me what I'm rejecting that results in useful technology. Give me some details that really show what you mean. I think it really is the other way around. Have the Amish claimed that electrons don't actually behave in the way that electrical engineers postulate? I doubt it, yet they still reject electronic technology. (The traditional ones, anyway.)
I have much more to say on this, but it's too late.
Post by: Kyle on September 20, 2006, 09:55:52 PM
And I promise not to post 2 pages of random garbage like other forum members so rudely found it necessary to do to this thread.
The reason I dont want to contiune this is because of your last 2 posts. I found it unnecesarily condescending. Not towards my views or beliefs, but towards me as a person. I would hate to bother you to respond to my boring thread anymore.
Post by: proud2deviate on September 20, 2006, 10:03:29 PM
This post will likely not follow any rational format. Ideas will be expressed and abandoned, opinions will expressed and not backed up by anything even remotly resembling fact, and I won't cite any credible source or reference. It should be fairly flow-of-thought. Considering we're talking about god and religion, I find that somewhat appropriate.
So, where do I stand on religion? To say the least, I don't like it. At its worst, it can be one of the most dangerous and destructive forces in the known universe. Fanaticisim and hate, despair and wrath, sturm and drang, fire and brimstone. Division and conquest. At its best, I can't see that it does much more than sully the mind and halt progress. Religion is drug. Fun for now, maybe, but you damn well could have been painting the garage instead of sitting around stoned off your ass.
A brief history of religion, past to present. . .
Take three rational, sane human beings and place them on a worthless, barren mountain top. They shake hands, introduce themselves, and mill around for a bit. Eventually, they start to get bored. Two start to amuse themselves with a game of twenty questions, while the third starts to construct a pile of rocks. Around question seventeen or so, our aspiring architect has amassed a pile of rocks some four feet in heigth. His companions, consumed by curiosity, place their game on pause and inquire as to what he's doing. He replies. . .
"I am building a temple in honor of my god, the one true god. For on this very mountain top, he sacrificed his only begotten son so that my sins might be forgiven."
One of the other men steps foward and speaks. . .
"I'm sorry, my friend. It seems you've got things wrong. For this is the very mountain top from which Mohammad, the prophet of the one true god, Allah, ascended to heaven. I claim this mountain top in his name."
The third man steps forth to say his piece. . .
"I'm afraid you're both wrong. This is the mountain top from which Abraham offered his son Isaac in sacrifice to Yaweh, my god, the one true god, who, in his eternal wisdom, spared Isaac and forged bonds which carry on to this day. This mountain top belongs to my people."
And so they carry on this discussion for a bit. Discussion becomes debate, debate becomes argument, argument comes to blows. These three (previously sane and rational,) human beings end up killing themselves, their fingers wrapped tightly around each other's throat. In their scuffle, they cause a landslide, which falls down this worthless mountain and crushes the atheist who had been living the sweet life, sipping wine in the lush green valley below. History proceeds to repeat itself for the next couple of mellinia. Bombs burst. Buildings crumble. Folks are variously raped and tortured and burned and killed. All for a worthless frigging mountain.
I'm what you might call a pessimistic agnostic. I don't know if there's a god, and I don't particularly care. Consider the following scenarios. . .
God is proven to not exist. (unfortunatly, this is an impossibility.) Great. We can all get on with our lives. Pour the wine and cut the cheese. The gorgonzola is to die for.
God is proven to exist. Likewise great. Now, what signifigance do you place on this? (that's what really matters.) Instead of saying, "Hey there, god. How's it hanging?" I'll bet that about 99% of the world will rush to court favor. They'll build the temples, and drown idols in innocent blood. They'll hound him for guidence and beg him to smite their enemies. They'll toss a goat on the fire and pray pray pray (prey.) God will witness this insanity and go back to his summer home. The people will blame each other for driving him away and start killing each other again. The sesnsible people who wern't all that impressed with god but might have like to have gotten to know him will get on with life, and chalk it all up as no great loss.
God is love. . .
I've heard this one a lot. Sounds great, doesn't it? Everyone loves love. Opiate addicts often compare the chemical high they get to love. I can testify to this one. During an attack of appendicitis some years ago, I found myself in the hospital with a steady supply of morphine administered by young hottie nurses. In spite of feeling like I had been partially eviscerated (in fact, I had been,) I remember this brief period of my life with some fondness. Have you ever been in love? Really, truely, hardcore crushing, sunshine and bunnies, listening to The Cranberries and weeping with joy, love? Take that and translate into pure physical sensation, and you'll know what all these dope fiends are raving about. Love; it's just a needle away. Possibly the greatest force ever experienced by humanity. Pure and rich, casting blinding light into every crevice of our lives. Love; people will suffer and toil and kill and die for just a little more. The dope fiend will shoot mommy in the head to get to his next fix. Problem is, at the end of the day, there's been more suffering and toiling and killing and dying than loving.
Chicken/Egg/God/Love
Which came first? Was love so pure and beautiful and powerful that the only word we could think of to describe it was god? Or is there love because there is god? I've heard of hell described as seperation/isolation from god. Scary stuff. Love withdrawl for the rest of eternity. I imagine the suicide bomber feels the touch of god/love as much as your average benevolent religious zealot.
The scientific god. . .
I think it was Carl Sagan who originally came up with the different classes of intelligent civilization. He proposed three at first, but with a greater understanding this has since been expanded. Ready? Here we go. . .
Class 1
This describes a civilization that controlls a single planet. Totally. They would harness the forces of that planet, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, gravity, and use the combined energies to drive their machines. (For reference, humanity is currently estimated to be about a .7 on this scale. Personally, I find this to be a generous estimate.)
Class 2
This civilization would be stellar. They would harness the power of an entire star system. All the planets and the sun itself. Perfect controll over all that energy.
Class 3
Galactic. That's right. These guys would have complete control over and entire galaxy. 100-400 billion stars. I'm getting excited. How 'bout you?
Class 4
This civilization would exercise control over a galactic supercluster. Composed of potentially thousands of galaxies each, these are the largest gravitationaly bound objects in the known universe. (speaking of which. . .)
Class 5
That's right. The energy of an entire universe, harnessed by one civilization and bent to their will. Don't think about the implications too hard; it'll cause little wrinkles in your forehead.
Class 6
(yes, I'm sill rambling. How late is it getting?) The multiverse. This civilization can travel between multiple universes and harness the energy of the whole system.
Class 7 (god)
We've arrived. This is the closest thing I've found in science, pseudoscience, or science fiction to a workable god. This entity (or civilization. At this point, who could really tell the difference?) would be able to create or destroy a universe at will, and would use the energy of such an event to it's own unfathomable ends. You hear folks talk about god's plan, and how we can't even begin to see the faintest glimmer of the true nature of it or our place in it. How could we? A full 6.3 classes below he/she/it. Pffft. . .
So, what could such a god really want with us? Walking meat on an average planet circling a medium star in a galaxy of 200 billion in a supercluster of more than a thousand in a universe of more than 10 million in a multiverse of god knows how many, which, by the way, could be destroyed with less than a thought. Does god even know we're here? You don't need to know everything about something in order to smash it with a hammer. Reverse the pattern: we've already seen decimal civilizations. We're living proof. Who's to say there isn't a class .00001 civilization that's proud to control a single atom? Or a single electron? How many of these civilizations do we destroy when we fission a pound of uranium? Do we care? Does god care about us?
The factual, impactual god
God exists. He's all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see him when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel him when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. . .
Oh, wait. That's something else. Geeze, how late is it getting? Anywho. . .
IMNSHO, The greatest possible impact god can have on us is that which we make for ourselves. More often than not, by virtue of human failings, this impact is negative. No, I don't particularly care to talk theology through my front door at 9:00am on a weekend, nor do I want to get blown up to help you get those 72 virgins. Here's a nickle. Now leave me the hell alone. I can't buy beer on sunday? WTF?? What difference does it make? Tell you what; somewhere in this world it's either yesterday or tomorrow. So sell me my damn Mackeson's.
"In god we trust"
This one irks me more than it should, probably because I think more than I should. Oh well. Who is this We? We the people? We the christians? And if I don't trust in god (I don't,) do I cease to be part of We?
"One nation under god"
This is almost laughable, when you consider the purely political motivations behind it. It's particularly funny when you see it on those bumper stickers where "one" and "god" are excessively huge.
Don't get me started on sex. I'll be banned within the minute. . .
Morality
This really bothers me. Apparently I can't be considered moral unless I subscribe to a particular religion. Hey, it's not my fault I don't need heaven/hell to bribe/threaten me into being a decent person.
It also bothers me when people attribute their accomplishments to god. Humble is good, but take a little credit. The entire world is going to try to strip you of your accopmlishments. You yourself shouldn't be so quick to toss them aside.
Okay, I think I've pretty much gotten out all I wanted to. I wanted to touch on philosophy a bit more, but that was pretty much covered towards the end of science. Thanks for the opportunity to get all that off my chest. I honestly can't say I'm looking foward to doing it again. From now on I think I'll stick to posts about more important stuff, like women or barbecue.
G'nite, folks. Over and out.
Post by: LAK on September 21, 2006, 12:46:35 AM
Quote
Don't ever ask someone versed in theoretical particle physics that; there are theories, coming about to explain the phenomenon of "dark matter" that could very well end up explaining the "coagulation" of matter from energy after the little pop.
Why not? They don't have a beginning in their theories either.Where did the energy come from? Out of nothing?
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on September 21, 2006, 12:58:08 AM
Quote
What many religious people do is accept the gifts of technology but reject the science upon which they are based, because its implications carry a heavy emotional cost. To accept the scientific view of the world is to also accept that based on the little we know, we live in a mechanistic uncaring universe fundamentally governed by a few faceless "inhuman" laws of physics and the resulting mathematical permutations. Such a view is fundamentally at odds with the cuddly warm feeling religious people get from believing there is somebody watching over them.
Begging your pardon; the technology we have enjoyed for a couple of centuries up to and including today has come from disciplined minds within predominently Christian civilized society.-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Firethorn on September 21, 2006, 02:42:53 AM
Now, what's always a kicker to me is that Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Think about that for a moment. The theory of Evolution, in it's pure form, does not explain the origin or start of life. One of the tenants of evolution is that life comes from life, that there is no spontaneous generation. Evolution is never going to become a 'law' because the process is too messy to be fully explained by a couple paragraphs. When you start getting into exact methods, functions, the wierd stuff like DNA strand giving/exchange found in some forms of microcellular life.
Now yes, there are a number of theories about the actual start of life. Some could even be considered a form of ID.
Some alien civilization launched a rock 'probe' seeded with spores of life billions of years ago... Why? Interstellar travel turned out to be too difficult for their civilization, so they launched what they could to spread life. On the other hand, that initial spark of life could have come from a live planet that was broken up. Then there's the question of how that alien species/civilization started, because it puts us back to step 1.
Still, life had to begin somewhere, and I haven't heard of any signs of life, past or present have ever been found on mars or the moon. So life might have started here. On the other hand, conditions would have been far different on the earth of that time, and I've heard that scientists have managed to create some interesting substances using the theoretical 'soup' of atmosphere and liquids for the time. Even a one in a quadrillion chance starts becoming likely when you have a whole planet as the incubator and millions/billions of years to work on it.
Post by: 280plus on September 21, 2006, 02:53:51 AM
Find me another planet with liquid water and I'll bet we find life, or will eventually. The evolution theory I was taught in grade school (1960s) (or the "Dark Ages"
) was that we all come from single celled organisms that began life in the sea. And not only that but BLOOD developed as the replacement for the nourishment provided by this one cell being surrounded by sea water. Once there were multiple cell organisms, once they learned how to divide, they had to get this nourishment to the inner cells somehow and hence the circulatory system began to form. So it was postulated back then that sea water and blood were directly related.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2006, 03:25:42 AM
Quote from: Malice
fistful,
The reason I dont want to contiune this is because of your last 2 posts. I found it unnecesarily condescending. Not towards my views or beliefs, but towards me as a person. I would hate to bother you to respond to my boring thread anymore.
The reason I dont want to contiune this is because of your last 2 posts. I found it unnecesarily condescending. Not towards my views or beliefs, but towards me as a person. I would hate to bother you to respond to my boring thread anymore.
??
Post by: 280plus on September 21, 2006, 03:37:46 AM
My apologies.
Post by: Ron on September 21, 2006, 03:52:41 AM
There is some irony in that a guy named "Malice" posting a thinly veiled attack on religious folks is the first one getting offended.
Gotta go to work, I'll check in to this one later.
Post by: charby on September 21, 2006, 04:48:58 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Malice, no offense but this topic has been discussed to death here more than several times. The regulars aren't necessarily interested in seeing another one. Do a search on God or Intelligent Design here and I'm sure you'll come up with all our various and sometimes vehement discussions on the subject.
My apologies.
My apologies also, but as mentioned above these get beat to death and its kind of fun to take the Grandpa Simpson approach on topis that just won't die.My apologies.
Quote from: Grandpa Abraham Simpson
Mr. burns: so do u have a way to get rid of the protesters?
Grandpa: One way to get rid of them is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time we went over to Shelbyville during the war, I wore an onion on my belt....which was the style at the time...you couldnt get those white ones, you could only get those big yellow ones.................now where was I........oh yeah, the important thing was I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time, you couldn't get those...
Grandpa: One way to get rid of them is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time we went over to Shelbyville during the war, I wore an onion on my belt....which was the style at the time...you couldnt get those white ones, you could only get those big yellow ones.................now where was I........oh yeah, the important thing was I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time, you couldn't get those...
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 07:04:00 AM
Quote from: LAK
Begging your pardon; the technology we have enjoyed for a couple of centuries up to and including today has come from disciplined minds within predominently Christian civilized society.
Before I can respond, you have to embelish your argument. Right now, the relevance of the above is not clear.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 07:21:11 AM
Quote from: fistful
A great system, but scientists are human.
Indeed. And that is why science is uniquely resistant to dogmatism because the scientific method of experimental inquiry almost completely offsets the failings of human nature. By contrast, a belief system, e.g. an ideology or religion, are very susceptible to the human failings of its creators, interpreters, and promulgators.Quote
CAnnoneer, as a Biblical creationist, please tell me what I'm rejecting that results in useful technology.
If you use any technology at all, you are using the products of scientific inquiry and the resulting scientific perspective on the world. In that perspective, we understand and predict properties and interactions down to subatomic level. At least up to now, we have not discovered any evidence of the supernatural and in fact there is not even a logical space for such in the framework we have built upon experimental testable evidence. If you believe that there is something beyond that, in essence you are rejecting the straightforward implications of what we already know, and thus in a sense what they are based on. The latter emanates all technology that you use.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2006, 09:09:56 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Science is uniquely resistant to dogmatism because the scientific method of experimental inquiry almost completely offsets the failings of human nature. By contrast, a belief system, e.g. an ideology or religion, are very susceptible to the human failings of its creators, interpreters, and promulgators.
Your faith in science is touching, but unconvincing. Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
CAnnoneer, as a Biblical creationist, please tell me what I'm rejecting that results in useful technology.
If you use any technology at all, you are using the products of scientific inquiry and the resulting scientific perspective on the world. In that perspective, we understand and predict properties and interactions down to subatomic level. At least up to now, we have not discovered any evidence of the supernatural and in fact there is not even a logical space for such in the framework we have built upon experimental testable evidence. If you believe that there is something beyond that, in essence you are rejecting the straightforward implications of what we already know, and thus in a sense what they are based on. The latter emanates all technology that you use.
The second paragraph is a nice rant, but I asked for details. This rant is a complete denial of the evidence produced by modern technology, that shows us the complexity of living things - a complexity of which Darwin could have had no clue. Moreover, your musings imply a greater understanding of the natural world than anyone can claim. No logical space? What arrogance.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 21, 2006, 10:19:53 AM
Quote
am a positive, "fundamentalist" athiest. I also happen to be an ardent scolar of religion, especialy the judeo-christian ones.
Wouldn't that be "scholar", and "especially"?I've got a 26 year-old stepson who is an avowed atheist, and takes great pleasure in slamming Christianity, particularly when I am within earshot. (I'm Lutheran) He rants and raves about how he is being hurt by religion as a whole, it's the root of all things bad in society, a means to a world domination end, etc. I tell him that we Lutherans are in it for the coffee and cookie fellowships.
Tolerance is also not part of his vernacular. His arguments therefore hold no water with me. :/
Post by: defcon5 on September 21, 2006, 10:58:43 AM
-- Gary Bauer, (source unknown)
And so it goes on.
BTW, I am 308win on THR and some *expletive deleted*che bag stole that ID to register here. There, I feel better now that I've vented. Edited to add: "Oops, I think that may be me but I can't figure out why I can't get a password mailed to me." Can anybody help me?
Post by: roo_ster on September 21, 2006, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: fistful
A great system, but scientists are human.
Indeed. And that is why science is uniquely resistant to dogmatism because the scientific method of experimental inquiry almost completely offsets the failings of human nature. By contrast, a belief system, e.g. an ideology or religion, are very susceptible to the human failings of its creators, interpreters, and promulgators."...uniquely resistant to dogmatism..." yukyukyukyukyuk! "...offsets the failings of human nature..." yukyukyukyukyuk!
I wonder, have you spent much time in a department of science in any university? Or a research lab in any corporation? Or in an anaysis cell of a group writing a proposal in response to a gov't RFP? If so, you would appreciate the hilarity of your statements.
Oh, the humans working hard sciences try to use the scientific method and resist dogmatism. A lot of times they even succeed. Other times, they work so hard to promote their pet theory that evidence to the contrary is given little weight. Still others have a severe case of NIH (Not Invented Here) and won't listen to ideas or solutions developed outside thier organization.
Objectivity is possible, however, it is a difficult feat when your reputation, livlihood, and government grant are all on the line.
The problem with science is twofold:
1. Science is practiced by humans. Wherever two or more are gathered, personality becomes a factor. When three or more are gathered, politics becomes a factor.
2. Science does not describe reality. Science describes what it can easily measure*. Kind of like the drunk who lost his car keys and insists on looking for them under the streetlight.
* Heck the soft sciences don't even do this. They need little or no actual data to go off and create whole new fields of "knowledge" so worthless and based in bravo sierra they need new departments to contain the intellectual sewage.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: fistful
Your faith in science is touching, but unconvincing.
If you have a problem with what I said, why not mount a logical attack upon it? The above is both disparaging and non-contributive.Quote
The second paragraph is a nice rant, but I asked for details.
Okay, I'll try to put it in another way. If you accept the scientific method as you claim, why do you abandon it when trying to tackle the divine? Do you not recognize the inherent discontinuity/inconsistency in your belief system? The only way to reconcile the two is to apply the same standards and expectations. This means no deity without measurable reproducible evidence.Quote
This rant is a complete denial of the evidence produced by modern technology, that shows us the complexity of living things - a complexity of which Darwin could have had no clue.
Please explain what you are referring to. Modern understanding of biochemistry in no way undermines Darwin's general idea of evolution from the simpler to the more complex through interaction with the environment and adaptation to ecological niches. If anything, it is reinforced. Subtle complex control mechanisms naturally arise from the chemical properties of molecules, which are based on atomic interactions, which are based on physical interactions and governed by the laws of physics and probability. Quote
Moreover, your musings imply a greater understanding of the natural world than anyone can claim. No logical space? What arrogance.
Please identify for me the gap in the edifice of our current scientific knowledge, where the divine might lurk.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 12:34:13 PM
Quote from: jfruser
I wonder, have you spent much time in a department of science in any university? Or a research lab in any corporation? Or in an anaysis cell of a group writing a proposal in response to a gov't RFP?
Actually, I have. And the above is a low blow. By the same token, just because there are a few child molesters among Catholic priests, we should conclude Catholicism is about child molestation or a significant part thereof.There certainly are business aspects to modern science and some compromises to be made on many levels. But people that compromise the veracity of their publications either publish irrelevancies that remain ignored, or if they do something influential, they are quickly discovered because nobody can reproduce their results, thanks to the methodology of scientific inquiry. Then their careers are over in a trice and the damage is repaired relatively quickly.
Quote
Oh, the humans working hard sciences try to use the scientific method and resist dogmatism. A lot of times they even succeed. Other times, they work so hard to promote their pet theory that evidence to the contrary is given little weight.
People like that quickly marginalize themselves and cease to be taken seriously. If they have tenure, they might even linger till the end of their lives, by science leaves them behind quickly enough. The overall system suffers no harm in the long run.Quote
Still others have a severe case of NIH (Not Invented Here) and won't listen to ideas or solutions developed outside thier organization.
Such organizations inevitably crash and burn because they are overtaken by other labs and companies. The overall system regulates itself nicely.Quote
Objectivity is possible, however, it is a difficult feat when your reputation, livlihood, and government grant are all on the line.
There are self-regulatory mechanisms against excessive politics and subjectivity. See above. Over the long run, nothing unworthy survives. That is the beauty of the system - individual failings even if they occur do not grow to be failings of the system as a whole.Quote
The problem with science is twofold:
1. Science is practiced by humans. Wherever two or more are gathered, personality becomes a factor. When three or more are gathered, politics becomes a factor.
See above for control mechanisms at the system level.1. Science is practiced by humans. Wherever two or more are gathered, personality becomes a factor. When three or more are gathered, politics becomes a factor.
Quote
2. Science does not describe reality. Science describes what it can easily measure*. Kind of like the drunk who lost his car keys and insists on looking for them under the streetlight.
We do what we can. What we do, we can count on 100%. This approach is immeasurably better than accepting phenomenological "truths" on trust or because they suit our psychological makeup and spiritual comfort zone.Quote
* Heck the soft sciences don't even do this. They need little or no actual data to go off and create whole new fields of "knowledge" so worthless and based in bravo sierra they need new departments to contain the intellectual sewage.
Yes, sometimes things like that happen, just like the catholic priests example. But how influential are these guys and how much do they determine the science to pass to the next generation?
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 12:51:09 PM
Quote
Tolerance is also not part of his vernacular. His arguments therefore hold no water with me.
Veracity and tolerance do not need to correlate. But intolerance might mean a closed mind and therefore a likely fallacy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2006, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
Tolerance is also not part of his vernacular. His arguments therefore hold no water with me.
Veracity and tolerance do not need to correlate. But intolerance might mean a closed mind and therefore a likely fallacy.Quote
[The scientific] approach is immeasurably better than accepting phenomenological "truths" on trust or because they suit our psychological makeup and spiritual comfort zone.
I agree, conditionally.* That is why I adhere to Christianity, a religion based on known historical events and supported by science and history. It impedes on my psychological makeup and spiritual comfort something awful.*What do you mean by "phenomenological 'truths'"?
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 03:25:10 PM
Quote from: fistful
What do you mean by "phenomenological 'truths'"?
Phenomenology is part of a philosophy that deals with how the world works, according to that particular philosophy. For example, Aristotelian phenomenology says things do not move by themselves and the earth is at the center of celestial spheres that contain the heavenly bodies. Galileian phenomenology says things are at rest or move uniformly when left alone, while Copernican phenomenology says the sun is at the center of the Solar System and the Earth rotates around it.The above are examples of phenomenological "truths".
By contrast, "Do unto others as you want done unto yourself", "Be nice", or "An eye for an eye" are examples of ethical "truths". They do not correspond to anything physical or objective, but are examples of ethical attitudes. In that sense they are not phenomenological "truths".
Quote
That is why I adhere to Christianity, a religion based on known historical events and supported by science and history. It impedes on my psychological makeup and spiritual comfort something awful.
I am not convinced history and science support Christianity to any meaningful degree.In any case, I cannot speak intelligently about your particular internal conflicts ( or lack thereof). But, I have observed that many people just get scared by the implications of our modern scientific knowledge and capabilities. For the past 500 years, modern science has been on a steady march of explaining ever increasing fractions of our universe, and most importantly producing practical results with immediate unquestionable consequences that steadily increase the power of humankind and its control over its environment.
Under such circumstances, the divine seems superfluous and largely irrelevant, quite frankly simply unnecessary in explaining virtually everything. The downside is that if science killed the divine, then it seems quite likely that we all are just a bunch of lumbering biorobots whose primary function in our short lives is to preserve and propagate particular sequences of macromolecules. So this looks like a cold, empty, threatening, meaningless universe, a form of biomolecular prison for the fancy names people like to give to their cortical bioelectric activity. All of the above might hold a grim fascination for inquisitive minds, but is downright scary for the general, feeling public. So, they avert their eyes and soothe their emotions by a web of technical inaccuracies, leaps of faith, and moralization, all present to different degrees in particular individuals.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2006, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: fistful
Your faith in science is touching, but unconvincing.
If you have a problem with what I said, why not mount a logical attack upon it? The above is both disparaging and non-contributive.Quote
If you accept the scientific method as you claim, why do you abandon it when trying to tackle the divine? Do you not recognize the inherent discontinuity/inconsistency in your belief system? The only way to reconcile the two is to apply the same standards and expectations. This means no deity without measurable reproducible evidence.
The evidence reproduces itself. That is, you, me and every life form on earth are evidence of a creator. Until we find a reasonable, believable, non-theistic explanation for life and for the universe, the discerning intellect will believe in a creator-god of some sort. I don't expect such a theory. What makes you think I am inconsistent? How do you claim to know I abandon science when contemplating "the divine"? Rather presumptuous, no?
Quote
Quote
This rant is a complete denial of the evidence produced by modern technology, that shows us the complexity of living things - a complexity of which Darwin could have had no clue.
Please explain what you are referring to. Modern understanding of biochemistry in no way undermines Darwin's general idea of evolution from the simpler to the more complex through interaction with the environment and adaptation to ecological niches. If anything, it is reinforced. Subtle complex control mechanisms naturally arise from the chemical properties of molecules, which are based on atomic interactions, which are based on physical interactions and governed by the laws of physics and probability.Quote
Quote
Moreover, your musings imply a greater understanding of the natural world than anyone can claim. No logical space? What arrogance.
Please identify for me the gap in the edifice of our current scientific knowledge, where the divine might lurk.What do you mean by this kind of thinking? With all due respect, it's a stupid question. We understand that lightening is a matter of static electricity, so we don't believe in Olympian thunderbolts. But we still question who created these things.
"Thunder isn't caused by God's footsteps, so we don't need him for that. Rain aren't God's tears, so we don't need him for that. Hey, we've explained every physical phenomenon, so we don't need God anymore."
Why does it exist? How does it exist? Why does it hold together as it does? Are you claiming to fully understand subatomic particles, dark matter, string theory, etc? Are you claiming to understand how life came to be?
Quote
All of the above might hold a grim fascination for inquisitive minds, but is downright scary for the general, feeling public. So, they avert their eyes and soothe their emotions by a web of technical inaccuracies, leaps of faith, and moralization, all present to different degrees in particular individuals.
People were a lot more likely to do that in the ages before science.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 21, 2006, 07:24:57 PM
Quote from: fistful
That is, you, me and every life form on earth are evidence of a creator.
How is that evidence of a creator? New molecules form from other molecules all the time. Do the new molecules have a creator? Uranium decays into a number of elements, such as lead, xenon, strontium. Hydrogen forms helium, carbon etc. by fusion. Do the results have a creator? Do they have to?The universe is governed by physical laws, and they seem to be sufficient. If experimental evidence arises that does not fit the current theories, we simply do further study and expand the body of knowledge.
Quote
What makes you think I am inconsistent?
The scientific method bases everything on experimental evidence and observation, plus logical methods like Occam's razor. There is no measurable, reproducible, incontrovertible evidence, observation, or experiment that proves the existence of the divine. It is simply not enough to say "just look around you" when so much has been successfully explained by completely secular means. If you truly apply the scientific method, the only reasonable conclusion would be:"There is no evidence of existence." Instead you are convinced in the opposite.Quote
That's pretty poetry you wrote there, but neither Darwin nor the generations that made his theory a holy gospel had access to the technology we now have to understand the complexity of what Darwin considered simple forms of life.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you say that Darwin is wrong about evolution because he did not know about DNA or molecular biology in general? That is like saying Newton was wrong about gravity because he did not know about relativity.Quote
Modern biochemistry "supports" Darwinism, because it will allow itself no other option. That is why the Intelligent Design center at Baylor University was shut down.
ID was shut down because it is unscientific. It is not a scientific theory because it simply does not meet the standards already established. If you or anybody else has biomolecular evidence that controverts Darwin, please put it forth. We'd be happy to look at it. Other than that, it is simply non-serious to give a political bash to a scientific theory because you oppose it on the ethical/religious level.Quote
Why does it exist? How does it exist? Why does it hold together as it does? Are you claiming to fully understand subatomic particles, dark matter, string theory, etc? Are you claiming to understand how life came to be?
We have gone a very long way towards answering those questions without the need of referring to anything divine. Why do you assume we cannot finish the job without it? Maybe we can, maybe we can't. Based on what we already know, it seems we can. If the divine indeed at all exists, it may only lurk at the subnucleonic level and only because we have not yet understood everything about it, but we are moving. There is little mystery in the basis of any interactions above the atomic scale. In fact, all new discoveries in chemistry and molecular biology are just new permutations of the same building blocks and basic interactions.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 21, 2006, 08:32:11 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: fistful
That is, you, me and every life form on earth are evidence of a creator.
How is that evidence of a creator?Quote
New molecules form from other molecules all the time. Do the new molecules have a creator? Uranium decays into a number of elements, such as lead, xenon, strontium. Hydrogen forms helium, carbon etc. by fusion. Do the results have a creator? Do they have to?
No, but the original molecules and elements had to emerge from something.Quote
The universe is governed by physical laws, and they seem to be sufficient. If experimental evidence arises that does not fit the current theories, we simply do further study and expand the body of knowledge.
Quite right, and quite beside the point. Christianity posits an orderly, comprehensible universe; made by a rational God. You seem to think God is dead or at least unemployed because certain phenomenon are better understood than previously. This does not follow.Quote
The scientific method bases everything on experimental evidence and observation, plus logical methods like Occam's razor. There is no measurable, reproducible, incontrovertible evidence, observation, or experiment that proves the existence of the divine.
Funny you should bring up Occam's Razor - it should have cut down evolution long ago. It is a lot of tap-dancing to avoid the obvious conclusion - design. If you want measurable evidence for the existence of God, the ID researchers will be glad to provide some. I.e., highly complex organisms and interactions that make evolution very long odds, indeed. On the next point, I will reproduce Special Creation when you reproduce one organism evolving into another. Whenever you're ready. Quote
If you truly apply the scientific method, the only reasonable conclusion would be:"There is no evidence of existence." Instead you are convinced in the opposite.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you left out a word.Quote
Quote
That's pretty poetry you wrote there, but neither Darwin nor the generations that made his theory a holy gospel had access to the technology we now have to understand the complexity of what Darwin considered simple forms of life.
What does that have to do with anything? Do you say that Darwin is wrong about evolution because he did not know about DNA or molecular biology in general?Quote
ID was shut down because it is unscientific. It is not a scientific theory because it simply does not meet the standards already established. If you or anybody else has biomolecular evidence that controverts Darwin, please put it forth. We'd be happy to look at it. Other than that, it is simply non-serious to give a political bash to a scientific theory because you oppose it on the ethical/religious level.
I oppose it on a scientific level - I don't have enough faith to believe that time, chance and natural selection can create new organisms and I don't see any evidence for it. What "political bash" are you talking about? What standards does ID fail to meet? If you want the evidence that controverts Darwin:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
It's not as if it is hidden.
Quote
Quote
Why does it exist? How does it exist? Why does it hold together as it does? Are you claiming to fully understand subatomic particles, dark matter, string theory, etc? Are you claiming to understand how life came to be?
We have gone a very long way towards answering those questions without the need of referring to anything divine. Why do you assume we cannot finish the job without it? Maybe we can, maybe we can't. Based on what we already know, it seems we can.Quote
If the divine indeed at all exists, it may only lurk at the subnucleonic level and only because we have not yet understood everything about it, but we are moving. There is little mystery in the basis of any interactions above the atomic scale. In fact, all new discoveries in chemistry and molecular biology are just new permutations of the same building blocks and basic interactions.
It is very amusing that you think you may find some mysterious energy in the nucleus of an atom. "Here is the divine!" you will say, as you diagram it on a whiteboard. Again, you only have a use for God when it explains something you don't understand. This is not the only view of the nature of God. I understand that I fall down because of a force called gravity. Hopefully, we will someday understand more of how it works. Does that mean that God will no longer be in the gravity business? Not at all. HE CREATED IT. He made the universe to work as it does so that you could study it and see how it works and praise Him for it. Not so that you could claim to be the master of it, and that you no longer need the supernatural.
Post by: LAK on September 22, 2006, 01:38:07 AM
Quote
LAK wrote:
Begging your pardon; the technology we have enjoyed for a couple of centuries up to and including today has come from disciplined minds within predominently Christian civilized society.
[CAnnoneer]Before I can respond, you have to embelish your argument. Right now, the relevance of the above is not clear.
Embellish? Relevence?Begging your pardon; the technology we have enjoyed for a couple of centuries up to and including today has come from disciplined minds within predominently Christian civilized society.
[CAnnoneer]Before I can respond, you have to embelish your argument. Right now, the relevance of the above is not clear.
You asserted that:
Quote
What many religious people do is accept the gifts of technology but reject the science upon which they are based, because its implications carry a heavy emotional cost. To accept the scientific view of the world is to also accept that based on the little we know, we live in a mechanistic uncaring universe fundamentally governed by a few faceless "inhuman" laws of physics and the resulting mathematical permutations. Such a view is fundamentally at odds with the cuddly warm feeling religious people get from believing there is somebody watching over them.
Now read my reply again. I was quite specific; it has been from the disciplined minds of predominently Christian civilized society that the gifts of technology you refer to have come about. How many other ways can I put it?------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 06:21:41 PM
Quote from: LAK
it has been from the disciplined minds of predominently Christian civilized society that the gifts of technology you refer to have come about. How many other ways can I put it?
You are saying "It was Christians that created Western science". Except how dogmatic-Christian were they when they said "I trust my eyes and reason more than I trust the teachings of the Church."? Because that is exactly what Copernicus, Galilei, Bruno and others said and had to say, thereby laying the foundation of the scientific method. Where does one draw the line between dogma and reality? If the infallible Church is clearly wrong about some things, why are we so damn certain they are right about everything else? Why they can't be completely and utterly wrong about everything? How Christian are you really if you disagree with even the smallest piece of the edifice of the dogma?
The reality is that religion came about to explain what people could not. People had to fill in the blanks, which were pretty big at that time, with what might seem reasonable to them. Ergo, the anthropomorphic deities in many cultures lacking particularly dangerous predators and the animal deities in others who had such. As people's tools and knowledge of the natural world improved, it became inevitable that larger portions of old beliefs had to be abandoned in the face of mounting counterevidence. Thus indeed western science naturally arose from religion. People have been trying to reconcile the expanding science with the shrinking religious dogma ever since. It is not a coincidence that the divine continues to lurk in areas yet poorly understood, because people naturally want to fill the void with something, and religion is already available.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 07:33:12 PM
Quote from: fistful
Non-theistic theories have not adequately accounted for the existence of the universe, the order therein, or the life forms that we see around us.
Correction: science has accounted for an enormous amount and far better than any religion ever has. No religion ever produced reproducibility or controlled experiments. No religion can predict anything. What they do not know they call "mysterious ways". What they cannot predict, they call "divine will". What they do not understand, they call "miracle". In comparison to even the most rudimentary scientific tool or result, religious knowledge is utterly impotent. Priests cannot do jack, they cannot heal, they cannot resurrect, they cannot move mountains, they cannot even fly. Scientists and engineers put a man on the Moon, charted the planet, cured diseases, built towers into the sky, made man fly like a bird, speak, see and hear through great distances, and control his environment like never before. Priests still just talk the same old talk, just rewritten a bit so that people wouldn't wonder.Just because science still has areas to be charted while religion boldly proclaims unprovable answers, does not make science wrong and religion right. See what I wrote in response to LAK as well.
Quote
No, but the original molecules and elements had to emerge from something.
And they did. Big bang theory. Fusion. Fission. Electromagnetism. Gravity. Chemistry. "We are star-stuff".Quote
Quite right, and quite beside the point. Christianity posits an orderly, comprehensible universe; made by a rational God.
Anthropomorphism. "God must think like us". See above.Further, if you accept that the universe is governed by laws, then where is the place of the divine? If the machinery is set up and in motion, where is the "divine will"? Does the divine will break its own laws to do something extraordinary? If not, then everything, even this conversation is "divine will". But if it is, then there is no free will. And we have arrived at an irreconcilable contradiction within the dogma, because the dogma says there is free will. Otherwise people cannot be good or evil. But, if there is free will, then the divine either does not act or it acts by breaking its own laws. But, if the divine is rational and lawful, it would not break its own laws. Any ideas?
Quote
You seem to think God is dead or at least unemployed because certain phenomenon are better understood than previously.
Precisely. See the above for the explanation.Quote
If you want measurable evidence for the existence of God, the ID researchers will be glad to provide some. I.e., highly complex organisms and interactions that make evolution very long odds, indeed.
Excellent. You finally admit that it is indeed possible for everything to have been built by evolving from the simple to the complex. You just believe the odds are so small that external influence must have been involved. First, I am not convinced that it is so improbable because life is autocatalytic and self-reproducible, so that cuts down on time necessities quite quickly. Furthermore, you roll a lot of dice simultaneously, because the planet is so big and water so abundant. Finally, there is non-life related evidence that our planet is at least 5 billion years old. This amount of time is just mindboggling. If you believe that is not enough time for the combinatorics to work out, I'd like to see the calculation.Quote
On the next point, I will reproduce Special Creation when you reproduce one organism evolving into another. Whenever you're ready.
How long are you willing to wait while I subject subpopulations to different conditions, until they no longer can produce fertile crossbred offspring? 1 million years?Quote
Quote
If you truly apply the scientific method, the only reasonable conclusion would be:"There is no evidence of existence." Instead you are convinced in the opposite.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you left out a word.Quote
I'm saying that if Darwin came along and posited his theory today, it would see much less acceptance. In Darwin's time, it was easy to imagine that simple forms of life could spring from primordial goo, because Darwin and his colleagues didn't understand the complex structures necessary for even a one-celled organism. They didn't understand how much detailed information was required for DNA. They knew there were gaps in the fossil record, a lack of transitional forms, but these were expected to eventually come along. Billions have been discovered, but few that even approach the status of a transitional organism.
Darwin did not need to be right about complexity of bacteria, to be right about evolution. His observations were based on species of birds, rather than bacteria. While there are gaps beyond a certain point in time, you seem to ignore detailed meticulous overabundant evidence of evolution from one species into others all over the world in a very wide interval of time, as assembled by comparison of current species with fossil records. Am I to understand you accept evolution but reject spontaneous creation?What is the detailed information required for DNA? Required of whom? DNA is just a molecule, a cog in the biochemical machinery. There is nothing exceptional or mysterious about it. As expected, simpler organisms have fewer genes and simpler machinery. That is no surprise from evolutionary standpoint. Why is that evidence of design?
Quote
I oppose it on a scientific level - I don't have enough faith to believe that time, chance and natural selection can create new organisms and I don't see any evidence for it.
Actually, the more accurate way to put it is that you have enough faith in that such an occurrence is impossible because you judge it is extremely unlikely, therefore the divine must have done it. There is a big difference. The fundamental logical basis of your conclusion is thus faith, not observation or logic. It is faith that for you bridges the gap between "impossible" and "extremely unlikely". That is a bridge I would not cross.Quote
Why do you assume that we should "finish the job without it"?
Occam's razor. Anything superfluous must be cut. The divine would then be superfluous...Quote
It is very amusing that you think you may find some mysterious energy in the nucleus of an atom. "Here is the divine!" you will say, as you diagram it on a whiteboard. Again, you only have a use for God when it explains something you don't understand.
Actually, I have no use for it. But, I can see how many people would look for it there. Many do. And no, it would no longer be mysterious if we can chart it, categorize it, dissect it, analyze it, and get to know what makes it tick. In fact, we would then truly "kill" it for everybody else.Quote
Does that mean that God will no longer be in the gravity business? Not at all. HE CREATED IT. He made the universe to work as it does so that you could study it and see how it works and praise Him for it. Not so that you could claim to be the master of it, and that you no longer need the supernatural.
You got to decide if you believe the divine is active or not. If it is not active, then we live in a universe only governed by immutable laws and our will. If it is active, then it cannot act in any other way but by breaking its own physical laws or infringing upon our free will. The first would make it lawless and possibly irrational, the second tyrranic. Both clash with current dogma. I think you worked yourself into a contradiction.
Post by: LAK on September 22, 2006, 08:11:02 PM
Quote
You are saying "It was Christians that created Western science". Except how dogmatic-Christian were they when they said "I trust my eyes and reason more than I trust the teachings of the Church."? Because that is exactly what Copernicus, Galilei, Bruno and others said and had to say, thereby laying the foundation of the scientific method.
Not quite. Christendom has been a stable civilized culture - the fertile ground in which the sciences and technology have developed. To say that those names had a monopoly on objectivity in science is false.Modern science is divided, relies heavily on it's own matters of faith - and is as corrupt by money at it's interface with the civilization it claims to serve as all other secular institutions.
Quote
Where does one draw the line between dogma and reality? If the infallible Church is clearly wrong about some things, why are we so damn certain they are right about everything else? Why they can't be completely and utterly wrong about everything? How Christian are you really if you disagree with even the smallest piece of the edifice of the dogma?
You believe the Church is clearly wrong about some things - I do not, and nor do many others. Certainly in matters of faith and morals, it is required to accept what the Church teaches as fact. De fide.Quote
The reality is that religion came about to explain what people could not. [etc]
You might believe that - I do not, nor do many others.Quote
Thus indeed western science naturally arose from religion. People have been trying to reconcile the expanding science with the shrinking religious dogma ever since. It is not a coincidence that the divine continues to lurk in areas yet poorly understood, because people naturally want to fill the void with something, and religion is already available.
Much of modern science has been turned into somewhat of a religion itself, providing the explanations some wanted to hear - conveniently free of the moral restraints of the Church.--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 08:26:35 PM
Quote from: LAK
Christendom has been a stable civilized culture
Orthodox vs Catholic. Catholic vs Protestant. Sect vs sect. Burnings of witches and heretics. Thirty Years War. Hardly stable.Quote
- the fertile ground in which the sciences and technology have developed.
Bruno was tortured and burnt alive. Galilei recanted to be spared the torture. Both got in trouble because they disagreed with the official Christian dogma. Fertile ground indeed.Quote
Modern science is divided, relies heavily on it's own matters of faith
Explain.Quote
- and is as corrupt by money at it's interface with the civilization it claims to serve as all other secular institutions.
Corrupt in what way?Quote
You believe the Church is clearly wrong about some things - I do not, and nor do many others.
So you believe the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, while the Sun and the planets are rotating around it? Quote
Much of modern science has been turned into somewhat of a religion itself, providing the explanations some wanted to hear - conveniently free of the moral restraints of the Church.
You are mixing actual science with half-educated leftist ignoramuses trying to make use of pieces of science for their own propaganda in support of an agenda dictated by communist ethics.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2006, 09:04:02 PM
If I may, what is your religious affilliation, if any?
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
You believe the Church is clearly wrong about some things - I do not, and nor do many others.
So you believe the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, while the Sun and the planets are rotating around it?Quote
Quote
Much of modern science has been turned into somewhat of a religion itself, providing the explanations some wanted to hear - conveniently free of the moral restraints of the Church.
You are mixing actual science with half-educated leftist ignoramuses trying to make use of pieces of science for their own propaganda in support of an agenda dictated by communist ethics.Sorry if I put any words in your mouths, either of you.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 09:20:38 PM
Quote from: fistful
If LAK is Catholic, geocentrism may be embarassing for him, but I don't know of any other religions that have dictated that theory.
Other religions have other "interesting" phenomenological ideas: big world tree, flat earth on top of giant elephants on top of a giant turtle that swims in the earth ocean, etc. In fact, one of the ways to convince yourself that something is fishy is to recognize that all religions are equally likely right, but since they differ, at most only one can be right, but since they are equally likely right, they are likely all wrong. What a nice probabilistic argument for downcasting all religion.
Quote
In any case, it is not based on scripture. Even if he is Catholic, though, the Church doesn't preach that anymore.
Ah, but he said "You believe the Church is clearly wrong about some things - I do not, and nor do many others." Therefore he believes in the infallibility of the Church. If the Church changed its position, it is either wrong now or was wrong before. Either way, a contradiction. Quote
In fact, the Catholic Church teaches evolution.
If that is true, you guys will work yourselves into a big ethical problem concerning the divine intention.Quote
You think he's got global warming in mind, perhaps? He's probably talking about the morality-free implications of naturalism and the prophecies of miracle cures from embryonic stem cells.
Science does not pursue ethical implications. Non-scientists do that based on disinterested scientific facts. To accuse science of bias because of it is like accusing a gun manufacturer of murder committed by somebody else with a gun they made.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: fistful
In any case, it is not based on scripture.
You just opened a can'o'worms. If anything that is not in the scripture is questionable, then you evaporate the last 1,500 years of religious thought. Moreover, you question the infallibility of the Church, because it certainly accepted things that have been proven either wrong or questionable. But, if the Church is fallible, then those guys in Rome and elsewhere are just a bunch of jokers, no better than you and me. Therefore, all wisdom is in the scripture. But wait, the scripture was written by another group of jokers, who don't even agree on some details regarding Jesus himself. Ooops! They can't all be right, so one at most can be right, etc... You know where this is going...Further, the Adam and Eve story is in the scripture. But, the scripture says incest is wrong. But, Adam's children had to marry one another. So, are we all a product of incest?
Furthermore, we now know that there are established genetic reasons why marrying one's sister is a very bad idea. It leads to deformities etc. If indeed Adam and Eve spawned humankind, by now we'd all be green-eyed redheaded freaks with such horrible deformities that we'd never have even survived for more than a few generations.
You guys have a problem - modern objective observations directly contradict one of the very bases of the scripture.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2006, 09:55:31 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: fistful
If LAK is Catholic, geocentrism may be embarassing for him, but I don't know of any other religions that have dictated that theory.
Other religions have other "interesting" phenomenological ideas: big world tree, flat earth on top of giant elephants on top of a giant turtle that swims in the earth ocean, etc.Quote
Quote
In any case, it is not based on scripture. Even if he is Catholic, though, the Church doesn't preach that anymore.
Ah, but he said "You believe the Church is clearly wrong about some things - I do not, and nor do many others." Therefore he believes in the infallibility of the Church. If the Church changed its position, it is either wrong now or was wrong before. Either way, a contradiction.Quote
Quote
In fact, the Catholic Church teaches evolution.
If that is true, you guys will work yourselves into a big ethical problem concerning the divine intention.Quote
Science does not make ethical implications. Non-scientists do that based on disinterested scientific facts.
I knew you'd say that. Scientific theories have implications and consequences on human thought and action. The perception that science has done away with God has, for many, removed the basis of morality, freeing them from moral constraints. This is often a bad thing.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 10:17:19 PM
Quote from: fistful
What has that to do with geocentrism?
Your argument sounded like "Catholics may be wrong on this, but other religions got it right." I went ahead to show that at least some (actually all of them) are equally if differently ludicrous in phenomenology. I quite pride myself on the probability argument as well. It's very nifty.Quote
I'm not Catholic, but I would like to know what you mean concerning the divine intention.
In a nutschell, evolution basically means survival of the fittest, which guarantees demise of at least some of the less fit. That is in horrible contrast to the Christian idea of a merciful, loving, just, and generous deity. The human equivalent would be that a mother preferentially smokes and drinks in some of her pregnancies, thereby giving some of her children less chance to survive. Alternatively, a father throws all his children, weak and strong, in a pool of sharks and lets them swim to safety if they can. That is a BIG problem.Quote
I knew you'd say that. Scientific theories have implications and consequences on human thought and action. The perception that science has done away with God has, for many, removed the basis of morality, freeing them from moral constraints. This is often a bad thing.
I can reverse the argument on you by saying that religion has historically freed many from any moral constraints as well, especially regarding their treatment of heretics and infidels. If people are looking for justification for their actions, they will always find or make one. Just because people conveniently grab whatever is available, does not excuse them nor does it indict the source. Science has no ambition in replacing ethics because science does not have any to offer. Science is objective, ethics is subjective. There simply is no intersection. They are completely orthogonal. It is silly to invest science with the responsibility to "watch itself" lest some shmucks grab a piece of it and pervert it to their own unethical uses. That is a ridiculous idea.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2006, 10:26:27 PM
With all due respect, your understanding of Christian doctrine is simplistic and often incorrect. I have not opened a can of worms, because I do not think in the way that you suppose I do. Therefore, I am not saying what you think I am saying.
Everything may be questioned, even the scripture. What survives scrutiny is true, scriptural or not. Sounds good and scientific, doesn't it? Other than the Catholics after a certain date, Christians have never believed in an infallible Church. (Even Catholics don't believe that all questions are settled.) An infallible scripture? Yes, many of us believe in that (I do). But Protestants/Evangelicals have usually held that the believer interprets scripture for himself. We're less top-down.
The scripture was indeed written by fallible men, but inspired by an infallible God. That is why we regard scripture as infallible and inerrant. Or, some of us do. We could get into the alleged contradictions, but that is another thread unto itself and will be no more productive than this one. I will simply say that the Gospels contain complementary accounts that completely agree on all points.
Quote
Further, the Adam and Eve story is in the scripture. But, the scripture says incest is wrong. But, Adam's children had to marry one another. So, are we all a product of incest?
Furthermore, we now know that there are established genetic reasons why marrying one's sister is a very bad idea. It leads to deformities etc. If indeed Adam and Eve spawned humankind, by now we'd all be green-eyed redheaded freaks with such horrible deformities that we'd never have even survived for more than a few generations.
You guys have a problem - modern objective observations directly contradict one of the very bases of the scripture.
Glad you brought up the easy stuff. If I understand correctly, the deformities that accompany incest are brought on by genetic deformities shared by both parents. By contrast, in distantly-related parents, an unhealthy gene in one parent is usually corrected by a healthy gene in the other. According to the Biblical account, mankind was perfect before the Fall, containing no deformities of any kind. It seems reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the children of Adam and Eve had few, if any, genetic errors so soon after the Curse began to take effect. Therefore, deformities are not an issue. It seems reasonable to further surmise that God did not view incest as wrong under these unique conditions. Even if he did disapprove, it changes nothing. We are all the product of physically imperfect, sinful parents, going all the way back to A and E.
Furthermore, we now know that there are established genetic reasons why marrying one's sister is a very bad idea. It leads to deformities etc. If indeed Adam and Eve spawned humankind, by now we'd all be green-eyed redheaded freaks with such horrible deformities that we'd never have even survived for more than a few generations.
You guys have a problem - modern objective observations directly contradict one of the very bases of the scripture.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 22, 2006, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
In a nutschell, evolution basically means survival of the fittest, which guarantees demise of at least some of the less fit. That is in horrible contrast to the Christian idea of a merciful, loving, generous deity. The human equivalent would be that a mother preferentially smokes and drinks in some of her pregnancies, thereby giving some of her children less chance to survive. Alternatively, a father throws all his children, weak and strong, in a pool of sharks and lets them swim to safety if they can. That is a BIG problem.
Quite right. It's evolution or Christianity - they do not mix. Glad we agree on something besides immigration and killing terrorists. CAnny - I LIKE SCIENCE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. I believe it supports Christianity, if done well. I think evolution is bad science, and that is why I object to it.
I wasn't saying that science makes people do bad things, really, but that anything leading one away from Christianity does so. Islam, Darwinism, poor understandings of Christian teachings, all have been used to justify evil acts.
I wasn't accusing science of "replacing ethics," but of having an effect on people's ethics. This can be bad or good depending on the conclusions reached by scientists.
Quote
Science is objective, ethics is subjective.
My ethics are objective, in that they are based on Christianity, a belief system based on objective statements of fact (the ressurection of Christ, etc.).
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: fistful
Everything may be questioned, even the scripture. What survives scrutiny is true, scriptural or not.
Oh, boy. You'd have been burnt just for that just some 400 years ago. That's not even 30 generations.If everything can be questioned, then there are sects. If sects disagree on anything, they cannot all be right. In fact, on every issue at most only one is right. Probabilistically then, you (as a sect) must be wrong about most things. To break the even distribution, your sect must be somehow special. Objectively, what makes it special?
Also, scrutiny by what methods?
Quote
The scripture was indeed written by fallible men, but inspired by an infallible God.
Says who? The fallible men. Doh. Yikes!Quote
I will simply say that the Gospels contain complementary accounts that completely agree on all points.
Except with the one found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Ooops again. Quote
If I understand correctly, the deformities that accompany incest are brought on by genetic deformities shared by both parents. By contrast, in distantly-related parents, an unhealthy gene in one parent is usually corrected by a healthy gene in the other. According to the Biblical account, mankind was perfect before the Fall, containing no deformities of any kind.
If that is correct, then the children would be perfect too. Then they would also have perfect children etc etc down to us. Therefore, we should be free to mate with our sisters, free of any deformities. Yet, we know for a fact that that is not true.Quote
It seems reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the children of Adam and Eve had few, if any, genetic errors so soon after the Curse began to take effect.
You cannot have it both ways. If they were perfect, see above. If they were not perfect, then A&E were not perfect either and that contradicts you. If the above is true, you cannot have imperfect children out of perfect parents.If the curse is harmful genetic mutations, then the divine sentenced subsequent individuals to suffer terrible consequences of a deed they had no control over on account of being non-existent at the time. That is in direct contradiction with the dogma's assertion of a just, kind deity.
We can chart out the logical inconsistencies of any religion ad infinitum, because they are not built to be self-consistent. That is because they are ultimately based on belief, which by construction does not require evidence or logic. Starting from such a premise simply dooms the exercise from the beginning.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 22, 2006, 11:23:15 PM
Quote from: fistful
My ethics are objective, in that they are based on Christianity, a belief system based on objective statements of fact (the ressurection of Christ, etc.).
Yes, but now you assert that the resurrection of Christ is an objective fact. An objective observer would say:"I don't know about that, because I cannot measure it, observe it, reproduce it." Ultimately, we have to count on historical accounts, which come to us through a chain of fallible men. Do you see the problem?The resurrection, in fact anything concerning Christ's divinity is currently unprovable. So, the basis of your claim for objectivity is subjective itself. That is a BIG problem.
I might reconsider Christ's status by measurable evidence. For example, if Jesus comes to me and I keep shooting him dead and he keeps resurrecting, I will be forced to admit that he is special. That is measurable, reproducible, observable evidence.
Post by: roo_ster on September 23, 2006, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: jfruser
I wonder, have you spent much time in a department of science in any university? Or a research lab in any corporation? Or in an anaysis cell of a group writing a proposal in response to a gov't RFP?
Actually, I have. And the above is a low blow. By the same token, just because there are a few child molesters among Catholic priests, we should conclude Catholicism is about child molestation or a significant part thereof.There certainly are business aspects to modern science and some compromises to be made on many levels. But people that compromise the veracity of their publications either publish irrelevancies that remain ignored, or if they do something influential, they are quickly discovered because nobody can reproduce their results, thanks to the methodology of scientific inquiry. Then their careers are over in a trice and the damage is repaired relatively quickly.
Truly, your faith in science is touching
Unfortunately for your theory of self-correcting scientific practice, the data provides examples of pet theories persisting long after sufficient data had been collected to disabuse the scientific community (or other technical community) of its comportment with reality.
I find it quite amusing that you do your level best to find logical holes, contradictions, and the like in religious ventures, but present an idealized, never-yet-attained goal of scientific methodological perfectionism as current reality. Let me describe to you the City of Man and the City of God...
As to the comparison to pedophile priests, surely the scientific community can do better than those medieval, benighted mouth-breathers in policing thier own, right?
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
Oh, the humans working hard sciences try to use the scientific method and resist dogmatism. A lot of times they even succeed. Other times, they work so hard to promote their pet theory that evidence to the contrary is given little weight.
People like that quickly marginalize themselves and cease to be taken seriously. If they have tenure, they might even linger till the end of their lives, by science leaves them behind quickly enough. The overall system suffers no harm in the long run.Quote
Still others have a severe case of NIH (Not Invented Here) and won't listen to ideas or solutions developed outside thier organization.
Such organizations inevitably crash and burn because they are overtaken by other labs and companies. The overall system regulates itself nicely.Politics and power relations do not end at the lab door. If one's theory is lacking, our gov't is open to all petitioners (lobbyists) and one's theory can be elevated by an act of Congress to "reality."
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
Objectivity is possible, however, it is a difficult feat when your reputation, livlihood, and government grant are all on the line.
There are self-regulatory mechanisms against excessive politics and subjectivity. See above. Over the long run, nothing unworthy survives. That is the beauty of the system - individual failings even if they occur do not grow to be failings of the system as a whole.Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
The problem with science is twofold:
1. Science is practiced by humans. Wherever two or more are gathered, personality becomes a factor. When three or more are gathered, politics becomes a factor.
See above for control mechanisms at the system level.1. Science is practiced by humans. Wherever two or more are gathered, personality becomes a factor. When three or more are gathered, politics becomes a factor.
Quote
2. Science does not describe reality. Science describes what it can easily measure*. Kind of like the drunk who lost his car keys and insists on looking for them under the streetlight.
We do what we can. What we do, we can count on 100%. This approach is immeasurably better than accepting phenomenological "truths" on trust or because they suit our psychological makeup and spiritual comfort zone.Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
* Heck the soft sciences don't even do this. They need little or no actual data to go off and create whole new fields of "knowledge" so worthless and based in bravo sierra they need new departments to contain the intellectual sewage.
Yes, sometimes things like that happen, just like the catholic priests example. But how influential are these guys and how much do they determine the science to pass to the next generation?------------------
Yeah, I'm busting your spheres a bit. Like I wrote, your presentation is idealized. I was always a "show me" kinda guy unimpressed by theory until observation confirming it whacked me in the face. This has served me well in my present occupation. Still, even I must acknowledge taking some theory on faith (not really willing to see folks deliberately bombarded with high-energy particles to see their reaction).
I would suggest that an understanding of the reality of scientific inquiry as practiced by humans makes the practitioner more sensitive to influences of human nature on the inquiry.
Hopefully (hope, faith, idealism!), this would result in action to counter those influences...but poor, benighted me thinks that the inherently corrupt nature of humanity since hte Fall will let even some of them slip through.
We do the best we can. In 200 years even the most empirical and objective will be regarded by the majority as we regard blood-letters and alchemists today.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2006, 08:45:36 AM
I should say first of all that I am grateful for your debating style - it is much more pleasant to argue with someone who knows how. On the other hand, I am frustrated by the way we seem to be talking right past each other. I finally stopped typing and went to bed at 4.30 in the morning. It is getting very frustrating to wade through your misunderstandings about what Christians believe, and explain to you that my understanding of the interplay of science and religion is much different from yours.
Maybe I can clear up what I see as the bases of the confusion.
1. You view religion as something man-made, as man's explanation for things inexplicable. That is why you see religion and the divine withering away with the forward march of science. If you want to understand my statements, and therefore realize why I don't, won't and can't agree with you, please understand my view on the subject. That is, that God is real and that the Christian religion is instituted by Him as the way to have a right relationship with Him. (That does leave other religions out in the cold. We can discuss that in another thread, if you like, but I fear we would talk past each other in that one, as well)
2. My view is not based on "blind faith," the "dogma" of any church, or my attempt to assuage feelings of insecurity, guilt, etc. These may be powerful forces that induce others to believe, and they may have played a part in my belief in earlier life. However, as an adult I have rejected such simplistic or misleading influences. Having considered arguments and evidence for and against Christianity or generic theism, I cannot refuse what I see as overwhelming evidence, scientific, historical and metaphysical, for a divine creator and for the truth of the Christian religion as the way of that creator. I am not saying that I have seen all the evidence; no one has. I am not saying that I understand all of the evidence; no one does. As it is, though, I see no reason to embrace something as convoluted and counterintuitive as evolution or the Big Bang, when the evidence for Christianity, and Biblical inspiration and inerrancy seems more convincing.
3. It is truly unfortunate, even tragic, that many in the church took the attitude that science could be ignored and we would just believe the Bible, no matter what. This attitude is fading, perhaps even dead in the modern, western church. You seem to think that we are still in that mode. On the contrary, the Christian creationist movement came about because Christians have come around to the truth that science and religion occupy the same space - we are not in different universes. If our religion reflects truth, then science either supports it or contradicts it. If our religion doesn't fit the facts, we'd sure like to know. We no longer see science as some kind of danger to the faith, but as an ally. Just as archeology confirms that the Bible is historically accurate, the physical sciences confirm that naturalistic theories such as evolution are completely unrealistic and do not fit the evidence they claim to explain.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2006, 08:49:59 AM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Science has accounted for an enormous amount and far better than any religion ever has.
This is a problem with our communication. You think of science as some rival way of viewing the world that competes with or even obsolesces religion. I do not. Science is a method, a tool that helps us understand how the physical world works. Religion doesnt need to tell us what lightening is, or why bodies fall toward earth, unless it is has some bearing on metaphysics. Science can explain that lightening is static electricity trying to find a ground, but that doesnt dampen my desire to know who decided there should be clouds and electrons and then made them. Science can look for evidence to this question, but cannot conclusively answer it. No religion ever produced reproducibility or controlled experiments. - Why should it?
No religion can predict anything. I beg to differ. The Bible spoke of Hittites, and archeologists eventually found evidence of them. It told us of King David and Pontius Pilate long before their names were discovered in period inscriptions. Then there are the actual prophecies of the Bible. Some fulfilled, some not yet realized.
What they do not know they call "mysterious ways". And?
What they cannot predict, they call "divine will". How do you mean?
What they do not understand, they call "miracle". No. We call miracles those things which we believe were caused by the direct intervention of God. By that token, we understand what has happened.
In comparison to even the most rudimentary scientific tool or result, religious knowledge is utterly impotent. Again, why do you expect religion to help you understand how to wire your house or map the human genome? Religion has more important things to do.
Priests cannot do jack, they cannot heal, they cannot resurrect, they cannot move mountains, they cannot even fly. Strictly speaking, I agree with you. Men cant perform miracles God does that. If you dont believe they happen, thats fine, but you have no basis for such a dogmatic statement.
Scientists and engineers put a man on the Moon, charted the planet, cured diseases, built towers into the sky, made man fly like a bird, speak, see and hear through great distances, and control his environment like never before. Priests still just talk the same old talk, just rewritten a bit so that people wouldn't wonder. So, whats your point? You were expecting religion to get people to the moon? I thought religion was more concerned with getting their souls to the afterlife.
Just because science still has areas to be charted while religion boldly proclaims unprovable answers, does not make science wrong and religion right. My religion claims that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. This could have been proven wrong, and never has been. In fact, there is no other explanation that fits the facts. Christianity makes claim after claim that can be proven or disproven have at it.
Quote
Quote
No, but the original molecules and elements had to emerge from something.
And they did. Big bang theory.Quote
Quote
Quite right, and quite beside the point. Christianity posits an orderly, comprehensible universe; made by a rational God.
Anthropomorphism. "God must think like us". See above.Quote
Further, if you accept that the universe is governed by laws, then where is the place of the divine?
He set up the laws and created the stuff - thats where. Where else would you expect to find Him?If the machinery is set up and in motion, where is the "divine will"? Its in the laws, the machinery. The smallest amount of inquiry into the question would have yielded that answer. They keep the universe running as He desires.
Does the divine will break its own laws to do something extraordinary? Finally, you ask a good question. Miracles do not violate natural laws. If I am falling off a cliff and a net is there to break my fall, no laws are broken. Gravity is not offended, it is still pulling me down. However, my body was acted on by another force that overcame its pull until I slowed down or stopped moving. In the same way, gravity is not cheated when an invisible divine hand catches me and lowers me gently to the Earth. Scientific observation may not be able to explain it, but that doesnt make it wrong.
If not, then everything, even this conversation is "divine will". Of course it is. God sent me to save your soul.
But if it is, then there is no free will. Now THAT is a can of worms. An all-powerful all-knowing God who created all things, how can anything escape being in His control? Many Chrisitans do NOT believe in free will. The Calvinists are best known for this. The other side is typified by the Armenians. I belong to the latter group. So, free will is not necessarily part of this dogma. I hope this points out to you that you dont understand the Christian doctrine you are trying to debunk.
Quote
Quote
If you want measurable evidence for the existence of God, the ID researchers will be glad to provide some. I.e., highly complex organisms and interactions that make evolution very long odds, indeed.
Excellent. You finally admit that it is indeed possible for everything to have been built by evolving from the simple to the complex. You just believe the odds are so small that external influence must have been involved. First, I am not convinced that it is so improbable because life is autocatalytic and self-reproducible, so that cuts down on time necessities quite quickly. Furthermore, you roll a lot of dice simultaneously, because the planet is so big and water so abundant. Finally, there is non-life related evidence that our planet is at least 5 billion years old. This amount of time is just mindboggling. If you believe that is not enough time for the combinatorics to work out, I'd like to see the calculation.Reasons why creationists doubt dating methods can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
Mind explaining that autocatalytic thing? Cool word. Are you saying that life starts itself?
Quote
Quote
On the next point, I will reproduce Special Creation when you reproduce one organism evolving into another. Whenever you're ready.
How long are you willing to wait while I subject subpopulations to different conditions, until they no longer can produce fertile crossbred offspring? 1 million years?Quote
Quote
If you truly apply the scientific method, the only reasonable conclusion would be:"There is no evidence of existence." Instead you are convinced in the opposite.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you left out a word.Quote
Quote
I'm saying that if Darwin came along and posited his theory today, it would see much less acceptance. In Darwin's time, it was easy to imagine that simple forms of life could spring from primordial goo, because Darwin and his colleagues didn't understand the complex structures necessary for even a one-celled organism. They didn't understand how much detailed information was required for DNA. They knew there were gaps in the fossil record, a lack of transitional forms, but these were expected to eventually come along. Billions have been discovered, but few that even approach the status of a transitional organism.
Darwin did not need to be right about complexity of bacteria, to be right about evolution. His observations were based on species of birds, rather than bacteria.Quote
While there are gaps beyond a certain point in time, you seem to ignore detailed meticulous overabundant evidence of evolution from one species into others all over the world in a very wide interval of time, as assembled by comparison of current species with fossil records. Am I to understand you accept evolution but reject spontaneous creation?
No, sir. You ignore the evidence of the fossil record. An almost-total lack of transitional forms. A pre-Cambrian explosion that all but screams, This all happened at once! And the fossils are buried in strata that are frequently found in the wrong places for an old-earth theory of geology. I.e., old strata on top of younger, on top of older on top of younger. I accept natural selection, but not the evolutionary notion that it can create new species. What do you mean by spontaneous creation?
What is the detailed information required for DNA? Required of whom? DNA contains information that tells the organism how to build itself, no? Information does not come from out of nowhere especially not the very complex codes of DNA. Again, Darwins age had no concept of this.
Quote
Quote
I oppose it on a scientific level - I don't have enough faith to believe that time, chance and natural selection can create new organisms and I don't see any evidence for it.
Actually, the more accurate way to put it is that you have enough faith in that such an occurrence is impossible because you judge it is extremely unlikely, therefore the divine must have done it. There is a big difference. The fundamental logical basis of your conclusion is thus faith, not observation or logic. It is faith that for you bridges the gap between "impossible" and "extremely unlikely". That is a bridge I would not cross.Quote
Why do you assume that we should "finish the job without it"?
Occam's razor. Anything superfluous must be cut. The divine would then be superfluous... Why is the divine superfluous? Is that not an assumption you expect science to justify, rather than simply accepting the evidence as it comes? Ockhams razor butchers unnecessarily complicated and convoluted theories, such as evolution.
Post by: LAK on September 24, 2006, 02:49:08 AM
Catholic - formerly Protestant.
----------------------------
CAnnoneer
Quote
Orthodox vs Catholic. Catholic vs Protestant. Sect vs sect. Burnings of witches and heretics. Thirty Years War. Hardly stable.
Conflicts are a fact of life. Even a scientist should understand that.Quote
Bruno was tortured and burnt alive. Galilei recanted to be spared the torture. Both got in trouble because they disagreed with the official Christian dogma. Fertile ground indeed.
Giordano Bruno was not a scientist - he was a philosopher who abandoned his order, and he was condemned for heresy. Not for any scientific view. Galileo did not recant anything to escape torture and remained faithful to the Church. It was his fellow academics that had stirred things up between the Church and Gallileo. And the Church's real grievance with Gallileo was his declaration of the right of science to interpret Scripture contrary to literal texts; this at a time when Protestants had stirred up a revolution of there own over the same issue.The usual enemies of the Church - atheistic socialists - did put Antoine Lavoisier to death, and into the 20th century did more damage to science directly against the people, institutions and progress involved than any other force in it's history.
Quote
RE: Modern science is divided, relies heavily on it's own matters of faith
Explain.
It certainly is divided. And it is subject to it's own matters of faith. Carbon dating is a good example. We are told that Carbon-14 has a half life of 5,700 years, and can be used to date things going back about 50,000 years or so. This asumes that Carbon- 14 is subject to a perfectly linear decay; has anyone been around that long to actually measure and record this from start to finish? It was not really all that long ago that some of these people also admitted that there were ways that "newer" Carbon-14 could find it's way onto or into various items - thus throwing the whole process off.Explain.
Quote
Corrupt in what way?
In a nutshell; money. And there is as much rivalry in the scienific world as anywhere else. Modern science has a direct interface with the world of government and commerce; the latter two about as void of morality as can get.Quote
So you believe the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, while the Sun and the planets are rotating around it?
Nope. Why should I? I get the impression that you put much weight on popular history - introduced in increasingly heavier doses by the growing socialist secular institutions. The Capernican theories had been around in written form a long time before they got the attention of the Church. And it was not so much that the Church opposed scientific theory, as much as it did not want such theories to be applied to the interpretations of Scripture - and taught as "fact".Quote
You are mixing actual science with half-educated leftist ignoramuses trying to make use of pieces of science for their own propaganda in support of an agenda dictated by communist ethics.
And now you are implying that modern science - as an institution - is free of people trying to make use of pieces of science for their own propaganda insupport of an agenda.The half educated ignoramuses, and even communists, have been around for a long time.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2006, 08:50:43 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Hardly a low blow. Some folks might use the term "empiricism."
It is a low blow not because it is empirical, but because it is inequitable. What you said would be equivalent to me attacking fistful's arguments by bringing up the centuries of "personnel" problems in the church as well. You use this argument to attack the veracity of the result, while I say that even if part of the result may be temporarily compromised now and then, the method of inquiry itself corrects for it over time. What I am really opposed to is the religious method itself, because it seems to me it starts already knowing the fundamental answer and then looks to find supporting material.Quote
Truly, your faith in science is touching . Keep on evangelizing!
My "faith" is in the method of inquiry, not the people that do their best to practice it. Quote
Unfortunately for your theory of self-correcting scientific practice, the data provides examples of pet theories persisting long after sufficient data had been collected to disabuse the scientific community (or other technical community) of its comportment with reality.
How long is long? Science trips on an ever-shrinking scale. In the 1700s, a wrong theory might have persisted in the face of controverting evidence for maybe 50 years; in the 1800s, maybe for 30 years; in the early 1900s for maybe 20; in the late 1900s for 10 at most; nowadays, errors and frauds are exposed within 1-2 years of the initial faux pas. Compared to all other options, science seems to be light years ahead in self-correction subroutines. Quote
I find it quite amusing that you do your level best to find logical holes, contradictions, and the like in religious ventures, but present an idealized, never-yet-attained goal of scientific methodological perfectionism as current reality. Let me describe to you the City of Man and the City of God...
Are we talking methodology or results? You attack my methodology based on my attack on results. I freely admit that perfect scientific methology can produce imperfect results when wrongly applied by fallible people, but when rightly applied by fallible people, it produces right results, moreover, it produces them again and again for all to see. What is the bearing of this on my refutal of other results by logical means?Quote
As to the comparison to pedophile priests, surely the scientific community can do better than those medieval, benighted mouth-breathers in policing thier own, right?
Don't they? I think they do. The church covered up the pedophiles and let them continue, on a massive scale. Please produce an EQUAL example in science. And no, companies and government bureaucracy are not scientists.Quote
Politics and power relations do not end at the lab door. If one's theory is lacking, our gov't is open to all petitioners (lobbyists) and one's theory can be elevated by an act of Congress to "reality."
Again, this is not a problem of bad science. It is politicians, bureaucrats, and theocrats taking a result and interpreting it to their advantage. Scientists cannot be held responsible for what non-scientists do with the tools and knowledge produced.Quote
"What we do, we can count on 100%." A statement of faith as eloquent as that found in the Nicene Creed.
Eloquent does not mean wrong. One of the known observations is that correct new theories generally include correct old theories as an integral part. For example, Newton and Galilei are still right about mechanics in the special case of low velocities. Quote
Yeah, I'm busting your spheres a bit. Like I wrote, your presentation is idealized. I was always a "show me" kinda guy unimpressed by theory until observation confirming it whacked me in the face. This has served me well in my present occupation. Still, even I must acknowledge taking some theory on faith (not really willing to see folks deliberately bombarded with high-energy particles to see their reaction).
Yes, you are steampressing my brass. My guess is we are in essential agreement, but you are even more hardcore experimentalist than I am and human imperfections tick you off even more they do me.Quote
We do the best we can. In 200 years even the most empirical and objective will be regarded by the majority as we regard blood-letters and alchemists today.
So you envision further improvements to the method? Please explain.I'd like to think that our best and brightest would be the Newtons and Faradays of tomorrow.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2006, 11:20:55 AM
Quote from: fistful
I should say first of all that I am grateful for your debating style - it is much more pleasant to argue with someone who knows how.
Likewise. Quote
On the other hand, I am frustrated by the way we seem to be talking right past each other.
Our opinions are very different and we seem to look at the same but see different things. If we start from the same premise, the argument would be just a mathematical exercise. But, we start from different premises and that is why it may appear we do not communicate.Fundamentally, I get your point. If we accept that the divine is everything, dissecting each cog to find it inside seems silly. That is like looking for the forest inside each tree. I get it.
My perspective is overwhelmingly mechanistic. Moving from the simple to the complex, from the cog to the machine, I prefer to track down each interaction and see what it does in the big scheme of things. As I study the machine's subsystems, I glean what the machine is about step by step. No matter how complex the machine is, or if there is an overall intent to it, that approach allows me to predict the behavior of each known subsystem and to study the unknown subsystems. I have no need for the divine to explain the workings of the known subsystems because they seem to be working by themsevles just fine based on immutable laws. It is difficult for me to see the evidence or need for religious phenomenology within this machine.
Quote
That is, that God is real and that the Christian religion is instituted by Him as the way to have a right relationship with Him.
Yes, I understand that. Quote
(That does leave other religions out in the cold. We can discuss that in another thread, if you like, but I fear we would talk past each other in that one, as well)
That is a big problem, unless all religions meet and make some form of compromise that states each is a facet of the same stone. They'll likely never do that, because each believes they are righter than the others, otherwise they'd convert.Quote
3. It is truly unfortunate, even tragic, that many in the church took the attitude that science could be ignored and we would just believe the Bible, no matter what. This attitude is fading, perhaps even dead in the modern, western church. You seem to think that we are still in that mode.
Maybe it is a perceptional weightfunction, but I mostly see bible-thumpers, televangelists, Pat Robertson's, Hagee's, their younger reincarnations, and bishops and cardinals meddling in matters of state. In almost all religious arguments I have had, I have been whacked with a holy book or two.Quote
If our religion doesn't fit the facts, we'd sure like to know.
In which case, you will modify the relevant details but will continue maintaining the fundamental statements on the basis of:"It exists until you disprove it." Therein the key difference. See below.Quote
We no longer see science as some kind of danger to the faith, but as an ally.
Ally implies mutual need, reliance, cooperation. To function and advance, science does not need religion in any way. So, the relationship cannot be an alliance. The more accurate statement would be that such a progressive religious movement makes use of science for facts and empirical truths.Basically, I think the fundamental key difference is still one of approach.
The scientific approach is: "We cannot be certain that something, e.g. the divine, exists until we prove it to. "
The religious approach is: "We are certain that something exists, e.g. the divine, until YOU prove it to not exist."
As we know, proving a negative is often impossible, but that does not imply it is wrong.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2006, 01:32:41 PM
Quote from: fistful
who decided there should be clouds and electrons and then made them.
If I reverse your approach onto you, I must demand that you prove that "Nobody did." is a wrong statement.Quote
No religion ever produced reproducibility or controlled experiments. - Why should it?
If religious thought wants to match up to scientific inquiry, it must. You yourself said you believe in the scientific method. Then you must pony up.Quote
No religion can predict anything. I beg to differ. The Bible spoke of Hittites, and archeologists eventually found evidence of them. It told us of King David and Pontius Pilate long before their names were discovered in period inscriptions. Then there are the actual prophecies of the Bible. Some fulfilled, some not yet realized.
That is not a prediction, but a simple historical record. A scientific prediction is calculating what WILL happen based on immutable laws and the particular initial conditions. For example, predicting that a ball will not bounce higher than the level from which it was dropped, how far a bullet will travel, where a spacecraft must fire its engines to end up at a particular location, how to set up EM fields to make charged particles travel in certain ways etc.Quote
What they do not understand, they call "miracle". No. We call miracles those things which we believe were caused by the direct intervention of God. By that token, we understand what has happened.
This pushes into the "free will" problem. If the divine acts in every act, then there cannot be miracles or free will. If the divine does not always act, then free will and miracles might exist, but then there are "ordinary" things in which the divine has no part. If so, then why do we need the divine to explain most, even all, of the observed phenomena. It is a very slippery sloap beyond that door.Quote
Again, why do you expect religion to help you understand how to wire your house or map the human genome?
I will reverse the question to ask: " If a belief system is incapable of making things happen and predicting natural behavior on the commonplace scale, why does it make sense that it is capable of tackling successfully far greater and more difficult problems, such as the nature of the unverse itself?" It is like saying that a sportsman is incapable of lifting 100 lbs but can juggle 300 lbs bowling pins.Quote
Priests cannot do jack, they cannot heal, they cannot resurrect, they cannot move mountains, they cannot even fly. Strictly speaking, I agree with you.
Yet they say they understand the unverse better than scientists do, although the latter can do all those things by use of their knowledge and tools.Quote
My religion claims that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. This could have been proven wrong, and never has been.
How could it be proven wrong? Proving negative. Just because it cannot be proven wrong, does not mean it is right.Quote
In fact, there is no other explanation that fits the facts.
Historical facts are related by people, who as we know can and quite often are, wrong. Here is an equally possible explanation - the "witnesses" imagined or made it up. Please disprove that possibility. If you cannot, it must be true?Quote
I should have said they had to emerge from nothing. Where is scientific observation on that score?
Actually the microwave cosmic background is the chief scientific evidence for the Big Bang. If you doubt it, you can measure it yourself. The CMB is uniform to a mindboggling level of accuracy.Currently, I do not know what the "thing" was that blew up. But, that temporary ignorance does not prove the divine in any way.
Here is a simple (silly) hypothesis to think about: a cyclic universe that oscillates between expansions and contractions, with each new period starting with a bigbang. No beginning and no end. Where is the divine there? Can you prove we do not live in such? If you cannot, does this mean we do live in such?
Quote
No, we think like God. Created in His image, and all that stuff. Why is it bad to claim that we have some similarities to God?
Some might say that is hubris. I'd say we are weak, mortal, fallible, often ugly, sometimes sickly, etc. etc. Should we conclude that the divine shares these characteristics? If not, what do we share? Thinking patterns? Most people don't think much or well. Things don't look good for the divine.Quote
Last I knew, that was the original basis for the concept of human rights.
They can be argued with no reference to the divine but through a simple "social contract" expedient. One might argue historically they had to be argued the other way, because royal power had been based on religious annointment.Quote
If the machinery is set up and in motion, where is the "divine will"? Its in the laws, the machinery.
Then why do we need the divine? It seems laws suffice. In fact that can be considered immutable traits of the unverse itself, without sentience or intent.Quote
Does the divine will break its own laws to do something extraordinary? Finally, you ask a good question. Miracles do not violate natural laws. If I am falling off a cliff and a net is there to break my fall, no laws are broken. Gravity is not offended, it is still pulling me down. However, my body was acted on by another force that overcame its pull until I slowed down or stopped moving. In the same way, gravity is not cheated when an invisible divine hand catches me and lowers me gently to the Earth.
What would that "force" be? Is it a natural force? It seems you believe it is not. Then, do we need the divine for all natural forces? It seems like we do not. Then how do we know the natural is part of the divine? Also, if we cannot observe or measure that "force", how do we know it exists? Quote
But if it is, then there is no free will. Now THAT is a can of worms. An all-powerful all-knowing God who created all things, how can anything escape being in His control? Many Chrisitans do NOT believe in free will. The Calvinists are best known for this. The other side is typified by the Armenians. I belong to the latter group. So, free will is not necessarily part of this dogma. I hope this points out to you that you dont understand the Christian doctrine you are trying to debunk.
Then the nonfreewillers have a fundamental contradiction in their doctrine concerning good and evil, while the freewillers believe the divine is limited in power and knowledge, and so run into different problems. Are these even the same religion?Quote
Mind explaining that autocatalytic thing? Cool word. Are you saying that life starts itself?
If you have a soup of chemically-non-interacting nutrients and let it be for an arbitrary time in complete isolation, you'll still end up with the same soup at the later date. If you introduce a bacterium in the same soup, you will find a large colony of bacteria and a much more complex soup at the later date. In this sense, any particular step in evolution or "life-generation" would only need to happen once in the huge primordial ocean, for its consequences to propagate throughout it in a highly nonlinear, likely exponential, fashion. This self-promoting property of organisms significantly cuts down on the time required by combinatorics.Quote
So youre admitting that scientists cannot and have not reproduced the phenomenon they claim to have such certainty of?
We have not reproduced species-formation on the large-animal scale because we cannot accelerate time (yet), do not have an entire planet to do an experiment with, and cannot yet control all parameters in a planetary environment to reproduce all conditions. But, random mutagenesis and forced evolution are now standard tools in microbiology. If what has been done with bacteria can be extrapolated to large animals, then we have.Quote
No evidence of the existence of the divine. Thats what I thought you meant. You have already decided that science will explain away anything supernatural. I thought you said science was unbiased.
I do not know if it will in the future. But, applying the method onto the current evidence produces the stated result.Quote
No, sir. You ignore the evidence of the fossil record. An almost-total lack of transitional forms. A pre-Cambrian explosion that all but screams, This all happened at once!
As best we can tell, the explosion is a reality. But it does not prove there was nothing before it, and that seems to be your conclusion. I can offer a number of alternative explanations that have nothing to do with the divine. For example, a period of particularly strong solar winds or external radiation, a radioactive asteroid, etc. etc., can significantly increase the rate of random mutagenesis in the genetic makeup of relatively small number of species, making them expand into many new ones over what seems a minute in the big scheme of things. Autocatalysis would significantly shrink the temporal requirements.Quote
And the fossils are buried in strata that are frequently found in the wrong places for an old-earth theory of geology. I.e., old strata on top of younger, on top of older on top of younger.
You know about tectonics and you have made an omlette in your life.Quote
What do you mean by spontaneous creation?
Life generation by natural laws and probability, without divine intervention.Quote
DNA contains information that tells the organism how to build itself, no? Information does not come from out of nowhere especially not the very complex codes of DNA. Again, Darwins age had no concept of this.
Please prove why the DNA could not have appeared naturally and gradually reached its current length by mutagenesis and evolution. In fact, current molecular biology indicates that simpler organisms have shorter DNA and simpler biochemical mechanisms, which are often a subset of the ones found in more highly-evolved organisms.Quote
he basis of my conclusion is reason and observation. When confronted with various possibilities, one selects the likely explanation, not the one that is on the far edge of likelihood. Given the difficulties that natural processes would have to overcome to make evolution work, (if one even grants that evolution can explain the irreducible complexity pointed out by Intelligent Design research) the supernatural is a better, more logical, indeed, more scientific explanation than the natural.
So IDs believe in the divine because it is the more likely? Unfortunately, they are multiplying their probability estimate by a completely unknown variable - the probability of existence of the divine itself. The inequality is strongly dependent on that value. I say it is unknown because I cannot measure it. They believe in the divine and thus assign that value to be unity. That is the trick that allows them to get a final result > mine.Quote
Ockhams razor butchers unnecessarily complicated and convoluted theories, such as evolution.
Occam's razor cannot be applied to theories with unknown components. It simply compares the complexity of theories known component by known component. If we have two theories that are otherwise equally complex, but one of them also has an unknown component, then Occam discards the latter. The divine is the eternal wild card, that makes a theory that includes it unmeasurable by mathematics or probability.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2006, 02:22:20 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
If we accept that the divine is everything, dissecting each cog to find it inside seems silly. That is like looking for the forest inside each tree. I get it.
That's not what I'm saying. The idea that "the divine is everything" is more descriptive of the Far Eastern religions or Gnosticism a la The "Gospel" of Thomas. This is the idea that all things are emenations from the Divine, or that God is in all things. The Near Eastern monotheisms observe a strict distinction between creator and creation. I think the upshot of that is that we can't expect to find God lurking inside the atom or anywhere else, but we can see evidence of his handiwork in the physical universe. See below.Quote
I have no need for the divine to explain the workings of the known subsystems because they seem to be working by themsevles just fine based on immutable laws. It is difficult for me to see the evidence or need for religious phenomenology within this machine.
Yes, I agree that the universe functions without the need for constant Divine tinkering. However, if I am correctly informed, the steady state theory does not seem viable these days, so there must be a point of origin. The ID and Creation Science movements argue that natural causes are not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe, it's apparent order, or the existence, diversity and complexity of living things. They further argue that some higher intelligence must have at least guided the big-bang/evolution, or created the world according to the Biblical account. Quote
Quote
(That does leave other religions out in the cold. We can discuss that in another thread, if you like, but I fear we would talk past each other in that one, as well)
That is a big problem, unless all religions meet and make some form of compromise that states each is a facet of the same stone. They'll likely never do that, because each believes they are righter than the others, otherwise they'd convert.Post by: roo_ster on September 24, 2006, 06:14:29 PM
Quote
Yes, you are steampressing my brass. My guess is we are in essential agreement, but you are even more hardcore experimentalist than I am and human imperfections tick you off even more they do me.
Sort of. I don't have a big problem with faith & revelation, as I see a whole lotta faith used by those wearing the rationalist, secular labels with pride. Those who toot that horn many times are blind to their own faith & pieties. I think that in addition to making them insufferable to work with, it has an impact on their effectiveness.Yeah, I am kind of a "show me the data" guy. Folks demand it of me & I can tend to react in kind: What data? How did you get it? What algorithms? Have they been VV'd? and so on... I am not lke that in non-professional relations or while going to lunch with fellows.
Human imperfections can tick me off as much as the next guy. What really gets my goat is the person who admits no or miniscule role for human imperfection in their selves or organizations. I have seen human flaws derail too much good work or 86 the best solutions: pride, greed, sloth, fear, etc. The absolute worst case I have seen (in terms of effect on me & mine) was in academics, so I don't cut them any more slack than I do the time-serving bureaucratic trolls working in the Federal Department of No.
Having done some work in academe, gov't, and the private sector, don't short shrift the private sector when it comes to problem-solving. They have to make it happen or die and some actually know what their core business is. (OTOH, some have determined that their core business is "Process" or some other such means masquerading as an end.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2006, 07:09:09 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
3. It is truly unfortunate, even tragic, that many in the church took the attitude that science could be ignored and we would just believe the Bible, no matter what. This attitude is fading, perhaps even dead in the modern, western church. You seem to think that we are still in that mode.
Maybe it is a perceptional weightfunction, but I mostly see bible-thumpers, televangelists, Pat Robertson's, Hagee's, their younger reincarnations, and bishops and cardinals meddling in matters of state. In almost all religious arguments I have had, I have been whacked with a holy book or two.Quote
Quote
If our religion doesn't fit the facts, we'd sure like to know.
In which case, you will modify the relevant details but will continue maintaining the fundamental statements on the basis of:"It exists until you disprove it."Quote
Quote
We no longer see science as some kind of danger to the faith, but as an ally.
Ally implies mutual need, reliance, cooperation. To function and advance, science does not need religion in any way. So, the relationship cannot be an alliance. The more accurate statement would be that such a progressive religious movement makes use of science for facts and empirical truths.Quote
The scientific approach is: "We cannot be certain that something, e.g. the divine, exists until we prove it to. "
The religious approach is: "We are certain that something exists, e.g. the divine, until YOU prove it to not exist."
As I said, I don't see science and religion as rival systems or as two ways of doing the same thing. I think religion should be approached on a scientific basis, and in fact the Bible speaks of this, in passages that imply that the physical world gives evidence of divine creation. I don't think anyone should assume a divine being and hope it's not disproven. Just as you believe in evolution, even though you can't get in a time machine and see it happening, you will stick with it until you find an explanation that makes more sense to you, that does a better job of explaining the evidence. In the same way, one can't prove or disprove the existence of God, but so far, I can find no way around Him, for reasons already stated. To me, naturalistic theories don't seem sufficient explanations.
The religious approach is: "We are certain that something exists, e.g. the divine, until YOU prove it to not exist."
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2006, 09:08:22 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: fistful
who decided there should be clouds and electrons and then made them.
If I reverse your approach onto you, I must demand that you prove that "Nobody did." is a wrong statement.Quote
Quote
No religion ever produced reproducibility or controlled experiments. - Why should it?
If religious thought wants to match up to scientific inquiry, it must. You yourself said you believe in the scientific method. Then you must pony up.Quote
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices or a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Religion does not prove itself or prove the existence of God. That is for science to do. If a religion is to be proven or disproven, then its claims must be tested against the world we see around us. If you are expecting, however, to simply test God by telling him to move a mountain, or see what happens if you put "holy water" on a wound, then you certainly can't expect reproducible experiments. You cannot control God like other factors in an experiment, or think that He will do what you expect. It does seem it would be in His interest to perform miracles whenever we doubt His existence, but we can't think like Him. Miracles don't necessarily convince people.
More later. I'm going to actually sleep tonight.
Post by: 280plus on September 24, 2006, 11:55:47 PM
Post by: cosine on September 25, 2006, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: 280plus
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
Yeah. Sorry I woke you up prematurely.
Post by: 280plus on September 25, 2006, 03:11:20 PM
You boys play nice now...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2006, 07:20:57 PM
Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote
No religion can predict anything. I beg to differ. The Bible spoke of Hittites, and archeologists eventually found evidence of them. It told us of King David and Pontius Pilate long before their names were discovered in period inscriptions. Then there are the actual prophecies of the Bible. Some fulfilled, some not yet realized.
That is not a prediction, but a simple historical record. A scientific prediction is calculating what WILL happen based on immutable laws and the particular initial conditions. For example, predicting that a ball will not bounce higher than the level from which it was dropped, how far a bullet will travel, where a spacecraft must fire its engines to end up at a particular location, how to set up EM fields to make charged particles travel in certain ways etc.If we want to know whether Mr. Jones had murdered Mr. Smith, we can't bring Mr. Smith back to life to see if it will be Jones that murders him. But we can collect facts about the case that establish a certain theory about the crime, beyond reasonable doubt. Given facts a, b, c, d, e&z, we know that a1 has taken place and we deduce which variables, such as Mr. Jones, contributed to it.
So when an ancient, or purportedly ancient, historical document describes people, cultures, buildings, etc., it makes predictions that can be investigated. When the Book of Mormon describes very large ancient cities in North America, we look at the supposed sites of these cities. When very few artifacts are found, and the city does not correspond with our picture of pre-Columbian America from other sources, this bodes ill for the veracity of the BoM.
When the Bible mentions the Hittites, the city of Nazareth, King David and Pontius Pilate, it predicts that we will find evidence of at least some of these things. (All of the above examples were people and places that skeptics complained they could find no evidence of such evidence has since been found.) Secular history need not agree with the Bible on all counts, though of course gross disagreement would degrade the Bible's credibility on any subject, not just history.