What do you say to those of faith that must defy the powers that be in the heirarchy of their church and continue to teach evolution? What to say to those men of reason who continue to have faith in the divine despite not having any evidence.
Are seriously asking those of us that respect reason to give up what we know in our hearts? There are those of us that feel that the three greatest gifts that God gave us were compassion, reason and faith. Too bad many fail to use all three, they often completely forsake compassion and chose either reason or faith and deny the other.
For someone who is supposed to be a man of reason I think you're very un-reasonable.
What do you say to those of faith that must defy the powers that be in the heirarchy of their church and continue to teach evolution? What to say to those men of reason who continue to have faith in the divine despite not having any evidence.
Are seriously asking those of us that respect reason to give up what we know in our hearts? There are those of us that feel that the three greatest gifts that God gave us were compassion, reason and faith. Too bad many fail to use all three, they often completely forsake compassion and chose either reason or faith and deny the other.
For someone who is supposed to be a man of reason I think you're very un-reasonable.
well, you know, we just had a great big thread on Creationism, and you know what, not one Creationist posted anything that hasn't already been proven to be a lie, deception or dishonest a thousand times over.
And then we have a new thread, and guess what?
And then you know, from a certain few persons posts, its perfectly clear, that they have never read a science book in their entire life, or it must go right over their head, or they just choose to pretend it doesn't exist, because some of the statements from a certain person are just so stupid, and demonstrate such a clear lack of understanding of some of the very basics of Science, that all I can really do is LMAO, and take the piss.
I'm sorry you find this unreasonable, but I have stated many many times in the past, that I have no issue with spirituality, except those with a right-wing-fundamentalist-Creationist idealogy.
And then acting all sweet and innocent and persecuted, and asking for understanding and compassion doesn't wash, because I have very real everyday experience of the sort of people they are, what they teach in their Churches, what they think about 'naturalists', what their goals are, what deceitful arguments they use, how they 'discuss', what is written in Creationist books, how they truly believe they are on the verge of proving evolution wrong.
Thank God, he gave me a brain, and birthed me in a country where being a simplistic self-deceived ignorant twat is not a national ambition of a significant strain of an OK religion.
What an interesting thread... I will read thru everything a bit more carefully later, bit would nevertheless like to say the following:
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
Compare this to Platon, who believes in an outer world, but that world can only be detected in its full form thru our logical senses.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
This, on the other hand, is not an argument for religion and against science; actually it is the other way. For us to understand what the Bible (e.g.) says, we need to use #1 and #2 above. For us to understand the bible, we need scientific method. Scientific method is more or less a pre-requisite for religion.
For example, if #1 and #2 above were not correct, then this book the Bible could not a) be understood by us because we would not be able to know it, and b) the bible would not exist (#1) as a bok becasue there is no world outside our own brains...
The other argument against a creationist/religious understanding/explanation ofthe world compared to science (newton/einstein...) is that to ask who has the burden of proof. We will never be able to falsify the idea that there is a God (he/she might be hiding!), however, we do not need it to expalin anything. The respons to this is then: but how do you explain the time before Big bang (for example). Well, like this:
How do you explain the creation of God?
-> God needs no explanation
How do you explain the time before BB?
-> use anser above.
Christians are simply making it easy for them by defining God as the definite answer and then asking of scientists not to do the same. Unfair and without reason.
However, there is one argument for religion. A colour-blind man sees the world differently, and he cannot see the world as we do. So, when we use #1 and #2 above, we should be aware that there is a risk that we don't see everything. I still believe that even in this case, it is the rreligiojs person who has the burden of proof.
Ok, sorry for the long answer... will take a deeper look and perhaps give a deeper answer next time.
And you don't see where language like this adds fuel to the fire?
Zealots are spoiling for someone to attack them, doesn't matter how illogical their argument is, or how logical your's is. Not only do you show them that you have buttons to push, but you show them where they are.
If you are going to fight ignorance, do it in a way that will make a difference. The more venomous you get with them, the more they redouble they're efforts. (Newton's second law applies to more than just physics) Fight smarter, not harder. Learn to use semantics, discretion, feints, subtlety, wit and humor. DO NOT take it personally. You become only dangerous to yourself and your cause when you fight with anger.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
Just like the basic axioms of mathematics or geometry?
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
Compare this to Platon, who believes in an outer world, but that world can only be detected in its full form thru our logical senses.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
Interesting post, but I don't really agree with this. The scientific method is really about results. I bet I will observe X under these conditions. Look, there it is, I was right. Now let's try Y and see if I still observe X. That doesn't rest on any underlying belief about empiricism. It's simply a process of seeing what happens when you mess with this or that. I think it's an internally consistent enterprise. I don't think there's any external information that could somehow "disprove" the scientific method. And I am BRussell, so I should know.
I do think that religion originated as a kind of science - people were trying to understand their world, and they made guesses. It doesn't seem to be that anymore, though. Not sure what happened during the last several hundred years.
Oh, and the theory of evolution says nothing of the origins of life or the universe and doesn't challenge the first paragraph of genesis.
Big bang theory which isn't the only origin theory out there mind you challenges the first paragraph and says nothing of the rest of genesis.
So if you created a theory called Big Bang/Evolution, then all of genesis would be challenged. But none such theory exists.
Big Bang theory has two hypotheses that have been observed: that galaxies far away travel faster away than galaxies closer and that there should be some level of cosmic radiation -- that is that "empty space" should have a temperature. Nothing else of big bang theory will probably ever be confirmed. Beyond some fanciful thought experiments it is faith.
Evolution on the other hand has the possibility of being directly observed, and has a metric fuckload of supporting evidence to back it up. It is a scientific theory at its very core, and taken like any scientific theory requires knowing that it explains what it can explain and makes predictions about things that may have yet to be observed. It is a theory because it does explain things and has predictions. It does not require faith for use. (Newton's theory of gravity for instance has not been applied in all situations yet it is an accepted theory because of the overwhelming support of it in known situations and it doesn't require faith for use).
Creationism doesn't make observable predictions, and certainly doesn't explain the lion share of data we have collected with regard to things that evolution deals with. It is entirely faith based.
In conclusion, what is the most important part of genesis? The first paragraph or the long winded diatribes about how human kind came from one man and one woman?
What an interesting thread... I will read thru everything a bit more carefully later, bit would nevertheless like to say the following:
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
.
At a first glance I thought you where right. In a philosophical point of vue you may be right, but not in the real world.
Medecine, via people who suffer of diseases teached us that :
- there is no life out of organic support for us. We are not a dream (that was suggest your premise number one). There is billions of observations of this fact around the ages. None said the contrary. Observations are not belief.
- there is no world inside ourselves (people with lock in syndrome, only able to communicate via a slight movement of the eye have explained their feelings : there is no real world inside us, just dreams)
World can be detected by many others means than our senses. We have tons of scientific measures to detect the world in an accurate way. Our senses can teach us what is hot and cold, but it's not sufficiant. Science do not use our senses : science use measures. Science demonstrated many times, that our senses fool and mislead us in many particular cases.
1. axioms come in diffrent forms, some are logical, some are just presumptions, some have empirical support etc etc. don't know about maths and geo...
2. science can be about results, need not be (or did I misunderstand you?)
3. evolution; this is evolution in a nut-shell
A.
a) there is such as a thing as genes
b) some of these genes change
c) genes can be passed to next generation
d) the only genes that are passed to the next generation as those genes involved in the actual conception (i.e.: femal egg and male sperm)
B.
a) to survive one needs to function in the environment
b) in case of limited supplies from the environment, that individual who has the best capabilites have a higher chance of survival
c) some of these capabilities are genetically driven
A + B leads to what Darwin called natural selection. This works quite fine when the environment does not change too much, because, remember, the selection is done when two individuals create an off-spring. The fact that these two individuals were well adapted to THEIR environment does not mean that their offspring is wel adapter to ITS environemnt.
Evolution is a product, a result of something having occured.
--
Yea, religion was probably a combination of our first science + our need for social/psychological/personal explanation and so forth. The troublesome thing with Judaism/Christianty/Islam is that a lot of things are based on other earlier religions and at least for Christianity (don't know about Judaism and Islam) it changed so much during the roman era, more or less becoming a roman religion. One example of Judaism &c taking from others is the idea of Noach's ark. the same story is presented in earlier mesopotanian religions, where flooding does occur. Recall also the current disaster... few animals died, too many people died. If only a few humans survived + all animals, then we have the bottom of this cover-story.
--
To Powderdoc:
I agree with you from your point of view, but recall films like Matrix. Have your ever been high on something... you see and feel unreality just like it were reality. Nobody can be 100% sure that we are not always like that... but for all practical purposes, you are right. Just saying that there is a possibility... science is nothing else but our senses, thus, they cannot prove that our senses are real or not, science depends on our senses.
This past weekend I happened to come across the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, who's cover article is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" (of course the headline of the lead article...in big bold letters says "No!"...so I'm not sure about the point in reading the article...but I did anyway.)
Anyway...one of the interesting statements from the article (it may have been a quite from some scientist but I cannot recall) was..."the fossil record is like a motion picture of evolution...where 999 of every 1000 frames is missing."
This past weekend I happened to come across the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, who's cover article is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" (of course the headline of the lead article...in big bold letters says "No!"...so I'm not sure about the point in reading the article...but I did anyway.)
Anyway...one of the interesting statements from the article (it may have been a quite from some scientist but I cannot recall) was..."the fossil record is like a motion picture of evolution...where 999 of every 1000 frames is missing."
so what - if thats true, and I very much doubt it. It still doesn't mean God did it in accordance with the contradictory books of Genesis. Seeing as we know beyond doubt that there are very real errors, contradictions, and the sources of Genesis are very non-divinely inspired, what's your point?
so what - if thats true, and I very much doubt it.
Well, I don't know if it is true or not...but not sure why someone would say it as they were attempting to bolster the case FOR evolution. It just seems thety wouldn't say anything...remain silent.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
It still doesn't mean God did it in accordance with the contradictory books of Genesis. Seeing as we know beyond doubt that there are very real errors, contradictions, and the sources of Genesis are very non-divinely inspired,
First, I didn't say it did. Second...if you'd like to enumerate the contradictions...we could discuss them rationally (wait...look who I am talking to)...we could reason out whether they really are contradictions or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
what's your point?
Well...my point it...if the statement is true (or even close)...then at least one leg (fossil evidence) that evolution stands on is rather weak..wouldn't you agree? I mean to carry that analogy...is seems quite reasonable that if you watched only 1000th (or even 100th) the contents of a film (or a book)...that you might get a considerably different impression than if you were able to see ALL of it?
I agree with you from your point of view, but recall films like Matrix. Have your ever been high on something... you see and feel unreality just like it were reality. Nobody can be 100% sure that we are not always like that... but for all practical purposes, you are right. Just saying that there is a possibility... science is nothing else but our senses, thus, they cannot prove that our senses are real or not, science depends on our senses.
Some schizophrenic people live in their own world and are disconnected with reality.
This question : do we live in a dream, or are we real ?, is one of the favorite subject of Philip K Dick. This is one of the greatest writer of Science fiction, and I recommand you to read some of his books (but perhaps you already know this writer).
Matrix was an interesting idea (living in the virtual world) but the reason they gave to make us living in a dream was a joke. Using a human being (or any animal) like an electric generator is a joke. You will waste way more energy in maintenance, than what you will get in exchange of such maintenance. It's an entropic non sense.
The question of our sense do not question the existence of science, but our own existence : Are we a dream or are we real ?.
Descartes replied to this question " I think therefore I am" some centuries ago. The Cartesian way of thinking was born. This was a great revolution in the way people use to think.
Even if you assume that you are not real, that we are a collective dream, the way we percieve the world is done via our supposed senses. And our supposed senses allow us to percieve the world and to guess what laws rules this world.
So real or not, science allow us to percieve the real or dreamed world in an accurate way. No signs have shown that this dream is a bugged software, like in Matrix. When the dream is perfect, it become reality.
PS : I love the way you wrote my name PowderDoc. There is more poetry in it, than the display name I use who is a contraction of Power(Mac) and doc(tor)
It doesn't matter. regardless of whether everything is real, imagined, false, fake or a simulation.
The simulation/imagination, has rules and laws, and Science is about trying to understand them.
Where does God stand if everything is a big simulation or just his imagination? He would be the great deceiver.
I think you are missing the point about The Matrix's theology...the point (as I see it anyway) is that what the people IN the matrix experience IS real...it is just that there is something outside of what they can see/fully comprehend. Now, of course I am ignoring a lot more about the film...like the purposes for the matrix, etc...but the point still remaind...the idea of a reality that we all see/feel/touch/smell/hear/know...and (perhaps) something outside of that which we cannot (so easily) see/feel/touch/smell/hear.
And I don't know if it is (necessarily) a point of deception (though in the movie it is).
This past weekend I happened to come across the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, who's cover article is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" (of course the headline of the lead article...in big bold letters says "No!"...so I'm not sure about the point in reading the article...but I did anyway.)
I read some excerpts from that. I think the point is clear: that there is a definitive answer to the question. Truth isn't subjective, post-modern, all-sides-are-equally-true, and it's a good thing they didn't play to that nonsense.
I read some excerpts from that. I think the point is clear: that there is a definitive answer to the question. Truth isn't subjective, post-modern, all-sides-are-equally-true, and it's a good thing they didn't play to that nonsense.
I just though it was...that's all.
And on the topic of truth NOT being subjective...we agree.
powerdoc: sorry, glad that you liked my mis-spelling anyway!
science is ONE WAY to understand things, religion is an other. Which one is the best? Well, I believe science is, BUT one cannot be 100% sure it is the right way, that is my point. We cannot be 100% sure that we do not live in matrix or in the world that Platon described. Maybe it is the scizo who live in the real world... is it simply because more people are not colour-blind that the colour-blind don't see the correct world?
anyway, i do not believe in the christian god for these reasons:
1. we do not need it to expalin ourselves
2. there is no set up meaning of life (in the Aristotelian sense)
3. the christian/jewish/muslim religion has too much borrowed from other religions to make it sensible to believe in that, one could just as much be a believe in roman/mesopotanian religion
Comments
Man, you guys suck some serious ass.
Does this venom do any good?
What do you say to those of faith that must defy the powers that be in the heirarchy of their church and continue to teach evolution? What to say to those men of reason who continue to have faith in the divine despite not having any evidence.
Are seriously asking those of us that respect reason to give up what we know in our hearts? There are those of us that feel that the three greatest gifts that God gave us were compassion, reason and faith. Too bad many fail to use all three, they often completely forsake compassion and chose either reason or faith and deny the other.
For someone who is supposed to be a man of reason I think you're very un-reasonable.
What do you say to those of faith that must defy the powers that be in the heirarchy of their church and continue to teach evolution?
I would approve of their defiance on this matter.
What to say to those men of reason who continue to have faith in the divine despite not having any evidence.
Disbelief in Creationism is not disbelief in the divine.
Originally posted by LiquidR
posted by MarcUK
Does this venom do any good?
What do you say to those of faith that must defy the powers that be in the heirarchy of their church and continue to teach evolution? What to say to those men of reason who continue to have faith in the divine despite not having any evidence.
Are seriously asking those of us that respect reason to give up what we know in our hearts? There are those of us that feel that the three greatest gifts that God gave us were compassion, reason and faith. Too bad many fail to use all three, they often completely forsake compassion and chose either reason or faith and deny the other.
For someone who is supposed to be a man of reason I think you're very un-reasonable.
well, you know, we just had a great big thread on Creationism, and you know what, not one Creationist posted anything that hasn't already been proven to be a lie, deception or dishonest a thousand times over.
And then we have a new thread, and guess what?
And then you know, from a certain few persons posts, its perfectly clear, that they have never read a science book in their entire life, or it must go right over their head, or they just choose to pretend it doesn't exist, because some of the statements from a certain person are just so stupid, and demonstrate such a clear lack of understanding of some of the very basics of Science, that all I can really do is LMAO, and take the piss.
I'm sorry you find this unreasonable, but I have stated many many times in the past, that I have no issue with spirituality, except those with a right-wing-fundamentalist-Creationist idealogy.
And then acting all sweet and innocent and persecuted, and asking for understanding and compassion doesn't wash, because I have very real everyday experience of the sort of people they are, what they teach in their Churches, what they think about 'naturalists', what their goals are, what deceitful arguments they use, how they 'discuss', what is written in Creationist books, how they truly believe they are on the verge of proving evolution wrong.
Thank God, he gave me a brain, and birthed me in a country where being a simplistic self-deceived ignorant twat is not a national ambition of a significant strain of an OK religion.
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
Compare this to Platon, who believes in an outer world, but that world can only be detected in its full form thru our logical senses.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
This, on the other hand, is not an argument for religion and against science; actually it is the other way. For us to understand what the Bible (e.g.) says, we need to use #1 and #2 above. For us to understand the bible, we need scientific method. Scientific method is more or less a pre-requisite for religion.
For example, if #1 and #2 above were not correct, then this book the Bible could not a) be understood by us because we would not be able to know it, and b) the bible would not exist (#1) as a bok becasue there is no world outside our own brains...
The other argument against a creationist/religious understanding/explanation ofthe world compared to science (newton/einstein...) is that to ask who has the burden of proof. We will never be able to falsify the idea that there is a God (he/she might be hiding!), however, we do not need it to expalin anything. The respons to this is then: but how do you explain the time before Big bang (for example). Well, like this:
How do you explain the creation of God?
-> God needs no explanation
How do you explain the time before BB?
-> use anser above.
Christians are simply making it easy for them by defining God as the definite answer and then asking of scientists not to do the same. Unfair and without reason.
However, there is one argument for religion. A colour-blind man sees the world differently, and he cannot see the world as we do. So, when we use #1 and #2 above, we should be aware that there is a risk that we don't see everything. I still believe that even in this case, it is the rreligiojs person who has the burden of proof.
Ok, sorry for the long answer... will take a deeper look and perhaps give a deeper answer next time.
originally posted by MarcUK
self-deceived ignorant twat
And you don't see where language like this adds fuel to the fire?
Zealots are spoiling for someone to attack them, doesn't matter how illogical their argument is, or how logical your's is. Not only do you show them that you have buttons to push, but you show them where they are.
If you are going to fight ignorance, do it in a way that will make a difference. The more venomous you get with them, the more they redouble they're efforts. (Newton's second law applies to more than just physics) Fight smarter, not harder. Learn to use semantics, discretion, feints, subtlety, wit and humor. DO NOT take it personally. You become only dangerous to yourself and your cause when you fight with anger.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
Just like the basic axioms of mathematics or geometry?
Originally posted by dividend
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
Compare this to Platon, who believes in an outer world, but that world can only be detected in its full form thru our logical senses.
The thing is, no scientist can prove either #1 nor #2 above, it is simply a belief. This is quite well-known among those who deal with the philosophy of science. nothing problematic really, but nevertheless a belief, just like religion.
Interesting post, but I don't really agree with this.
I do think that religion originated as a kind of science - people were trying to understand their world, and they made guesses. It doesn't seem to be that anymore, though. Not sure what happened during the last several hundred years.
brussell is dead.
Big bang theory which isn't the only origin theory out there mind you challenges the first paragraph and says nothing of the rest of genesis.
So if you created a theory called Big Bang/Evolution, then all of genesis would be challenged. But none such theory exists.
Big Bang theory has two hypotheses that have been observed: that galaxies far away travel faster away than galaxies closer and that there should be some level of cosmic radiation -- that is that "empty space" should have a temperature. Nothing else of big bang theory will probably ever be confirmed. Beyond some fanciful thought experiments it is faith.
Evolution on the other hand has the possibility of being directly observed, and has a metric fuckload of supporting evidence to back it up. It is a scientific theory at its very core, and taken like any scientific theory requires knowing that it explains what it can explain and makes predictions about things that may have yet to be observed. It is a theory because it does explain things and has predictions. It does not require faith for use. (Newton's theory of gravity for instance has not been applied in all situations yet it is an accepted theory because of the overwhelming support of it in known situations and it doesn't require faith for use).
Creationism doesn't make observable predictions, and certainly doesn't explain the lion share of data we have collected with regard to things that evolution deals with. It is entirely faith based.
In conclusion, what is the most important part of genesis? The first paragraph or the long winded diatribes about how human kind came from one man and one woman?
Originally posted by dividend
What an interesting thread... I will read thru everything a bit more carefully later, bit would nevertheless like to say the following:
Science is, as many here have said, something that tries to say something aobut the world. However, this is not enough to distinguish it from religion, since religion is a statement of fact too. Many have said that religion is a belief while science is not. This is not true; science is a belief too. Science requires a belief in the following (at least):
1. there is such a thing as a world outside ourselves
2. this world can be detected &c by our senses (empiricism)
.
At a first glance I thought you where right. In a philosophical point of vue you may be right, but not in the real world.
Medecine, via people who suffer of diseases teached us that :
- there is no life out of organic support for us. We are not a dream (that was suggest your premise number one). There is billions of observations of this fact around the ages. None said the contrary. Observations are not belief.
- there is no world inside ourselves (people with lock in syndrome, only able to communicate via a slight movement of the eye have explained their feelings : there is no real world inside us, just dreams)
World can be detected by many others means than our senses. We have tons of scientific measures to detect the world in an accurate way. Our senses can teach us what is hot and cold, but it's not sufficiant. Science do not use our senses : science use measures. Science demonstrated many times, that our senses fool and mislead us in many particular cases.
2. science can be about results, need not be (or did I misunderstand you?)
3. evolution; this is evolution in a nut-shell
A.
a) there is such as a thing as genes
b) some of these genes change
c) genes can be passed to next generation
d) the only genes that are passed to the next generation as those genes involved in the actual conception (i.e.: femal egg and male sperm)
B.
a) to survive one needs to function in the environment
b) in case of limited supplies from the environment, that individual who has the best capabilites have a higher chance of survival
c) some of these capabilities are genetically driven
A + B leads to what Darwin called natural selection. This works quite fine when the environment does not change too much, because, remember, the selection is done when two individuals create an off-spring. The fact that these two individuals were well adapted to THEIR environment does not mean that their offspring is wel adapter to ITS environemnt.
Evolution is a product, a result of something having occured.
--
Yea, religion was probably a combination of our first science + our need for social/psychological/personal explanation and so forth. The troublesome thing with Judaism/Christianty/Islam is that a lot of things are based on other earlier religions and at least for Christianity (don't know about Judaism and Islam) it changed so much during the roman era, more or less becoming a roman religion. One example of Judaism &c taking from others is the idea of Noach's ark. the same story is presented in earlier mesopotanian religions, where flooding does occur. Recall also the current disaster... few animals died, too many people died. If only a few humans survived + all animals, then we have the bottom of this cover-story.
--
To Powderdoc:
I agree with you from your point of view, but recall films like Matrix. Have your ever been high on something... you see and feel unreality just like it were reality. Nobody can be 100% sure that we are not always like that... but for all practical purposes, you are right. Just saying that there is a possibility... science is nothing else but our senses, thus, they cannot prove that our senses are real or not, science depends on our senses.
Anyway...one of the interesting statements from the article (it may have been a quite from some scientist but I cannot recall) was..."the fossil record is like a motion picture of evolution...where 999 of every 1000 frames is missing."
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This past weekend I happened to come across the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, who's cover article is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" (of course the headline of the lead article...in big bold letters says "No!"...so I'm not sure about the point in reading the article...but I did anyway.)
Anyway...one of the interesting statements from the article (it may have been a quite from some scientist but I cannot recall) was..."the fossil record is like a motion picture of evolution...where 999 of every 1000 frames is missing."
so what - if thats true, and I very much doubt it. It still doesn't mean God did it in accordance with the contradictory books of Genesis. Seeing as we know beyond doubt that there are very real errors, contradictions, and the sources of Genesis are very non-divinely inspired, what's your point?
Originally posted by MarcUK
so what - if thats true, and I very much doubt it.
Well, I don't know if it is true or not...but not sure why someone would say it as they were attempting to bolster the case FOR evolution. It just seems thety wouldn't say anything...remain silent.
Originally posted by MarcUK
It still doesn't mean God did it in accordance with the contradictory books of Genesis. Seeing as we know beyond doubt that there are very real errors, contradictions, and the sources of Genesis are very non-divinely inspired,
First, I didn't say it did. Second...if you'd like to enumerate the contradictions...we could discuss them rationally (wait...look who I am talking to)...we could reason out whether they really are contradictions or not.
Originally posted by MarcUK
what's your point?
Well...my point it...if the statement is true (or even close)...then at least one leg (fossil evidence) that evolution stands on is rather weak..wouldn't you agree? I mean to carry that analogy...is seems quite reasonable that if you watched only 1000th (or even 100th) the contents of a film (or a book)...that you might get a considerably different impression than if you were able to see ALL of it?
Originally posted by dividend
--
To Powderdoc:
I agree with you from your point of view, but recall films like Matrix. Have your ever been high on something... you see and feel unreality just like it were reality. Nobody can be 100% sure that we are not always like that... but for all practical purposes, you are right. Just saying that there is a possibility... science is nothing else but our senses, thus, they cannot prove that our senses are real or not, science depends on our senses.
Some schizophrenic people live in their own world and are disconnected with reality.
This question : do we live in a dream, or are we real ?, is one of the favorite subject of Philip K Dick. This is one of the greatest writer of Science fiction, and I recommand you to read some of his books (but perhaps you already know this writer).
Matrix was an interesting idea (living in the virtual world) but the reason they gave to make us living in a dream was a joke. Using a human being (or any animal) like an electric generator is a joke. You will waste way more energy in maintenance, than what you will get in exchange of such maintenance. It's an entropic non sense.
The question of our sense do not question the existence of science, but our own existence : Are we a dream or are we real ?.
Descartes replied to this question " I think therefore I am" some centuries ago. The Cartesian way of thinking was born. This was a great revolution in the way people use to think.
Even if you assume that you are not real, that we are a collective dream, the way we percieve the world is done via our supposed senses. And our supposed senses allow us to percieve the world and to guess what laws rules this world.
So real or not, science allow us to percieve the real or dreamed world in an accurate way. No signs have shown that this dream is a bugged software, like in Matrix. When the dream is perfect, it become reality.
PS : I love the way you wrote my name PowderDoc. There is more poetry in it, than the display name I use who is a contraction of Power(Mac) and doc(tor)
It doesn't matter. regardless of whether everything is real, imagined, false, fake or a simulation.
The simulation/imagination, has rules and laws, and Science is about trying to understand them.
Where does God stand if everything is a big simulation or just his imagination? He would be the great deceiver.
Originally posted by MarcUK
RE the matrix theology.
It doesn't matter. regardless of whether everything is real, imagined, false, fake or a simulation.
The simulation/imagination, has rules and laws, and Science is about trying to understand them.
Where does God stand if everything is a big simulation or just his imagination? He would be the great deceiver.
I think you are missing the point about The Matrix's theology...the point (as I see it anyway) is that what the people IN the matrix experience IS real...it is just that there is something outside of what they can see/fully comprehend. Now, of course I am ignoring a lot more about the film...like the purposes for the matrix, etc...but the point still remaind...the idea of a reality that we all see/feel/touch/smell/hear/know...and (perhaps) something outside of that which we cannot (so easily) see/feel/touch/smell/hear.
And I don't know if it is (necessarily) a point of deception (though in the movie it is).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This past weekend I happened to come across the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, who's cover article is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" (of course the headline of the lead article...in big bold letters says "No!"...so I'm not sure about the point in reading the article...but I did anyway.)
I read some excerpts from that. I think the point is clear: that there is a definitive answer to the question. Truth isn't subjective, post-modern, all-sides-are-equally-true, and it's a good thing they didn't play to that nonsense.
Originally posted by BRussell
I read some excerpts from that. I think the point is clear: that there is a definitive answer to the question. Truth isn't subjective, post-modern, all-sides-are-equally-true, and it's a good thing they didn't play to that nonsense.
I just though it was...that's all.
And on the topic of truth NOT being subjective...we agree.
science is ONE WAY to understand things, religion is an other. Which one is the best? Well, I believe science is, BUT one cannot be 100% sure it is the right way, that is my point. We cannot be 100% sure that we do not live in matrix or in the world that Platon described. Maybe it is the scizo who live in the real world... is it simply because more people are not colour-blind that the colour-blind don't see the correct world?
anyway, i do not believe in the christian god for these reasons:
1. we do not need it to expalin ourselves
2. there is no set up meaning of life (in the Aristotelian sense)
3. the christian/jewish/muslim religion has too much borrowed from other religions to make it sensible to believe in that, one could just as much be a believe in roman/mesopotanian religion
4. 1+2 is enough not to believe.
5. RESPECT to all who do believe