|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/18/2009 8:28:11 PM | | ...and Science is the beginning and possibly the end of of our stupid, urban myths. Science has only a token appreciation of reality. Science has guided the industrial revolution and everything that followed. I understand Science. It has no respect for where it originated from. A care and wonder for the Universe. No humility or respect for consequences and a terrible disregard for where it is leading all to. For sure. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/18/2009 9:10:08 PM | Now, with all this said, it should be pointed out that some in science hold rather strongly to the belief in the "rightness" of their conclusions, even if the evidence leads away to those conclusions. Einstein had a hard time believing in the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics, for instance.
I've heard it said that it takes about one generation (25 years) to see a significantly revolutionary idea in science become more "mainstream" and for its predecessors to lose their grip.
That is not "faith," however. That's simply stubbornness. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 12:00:25 AM | It all began as a simple question,
a perplexing thing to be testing,
the origins of the universe,
and the definitions of faith.
correlating causation,
with POF menstruation,
I delve into the minefields,
where logic was second rate.
To stand outside the proverbial box,
and shout from highest of rooftops,
that science is self-correcting,
and can never receive the blame.
Seems a bit unfair in debates debeunair
where twisting and writhing was the name of the game
and many ad hominems went from scorn to shame
and seekers refuse to approach the middle way
Is there a necessary contradiction
between the truths the other holds as fiction
or can we bind the thoughts that collide
and believe the truth sustained after collision?
It's 2:56am and theological concerns,
spread like STD's that burn,
but I find it more rewarding,
then dreaming of sleep where I toss and turn.
With that said, let us keep in mind that we are obviously all seeking the truth, whether our methods are spiritual, or mental, or both. We owe it to eachother to keep an open-minded discourse and not to become so hateful in tone towards one another. We are all learning.
Good night. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 3:25:48 AM | Belief in anything is a kind of faith - whether it's religious or in science. Or a belief in people; a friend, a partner. It's all faith-based. When it comes to science then obviously that's far easier to prove than some invisible entity or spiritual matters. We know that many drugs have been invented via science; chemotherapy, painkillers and various other scientific inventions. We are shown footage of space shuttles travelling through space; all scientific developments. We believe they placed a man on the moon because we saw the footage - therefore our faith is based on what we see there.
There was an interesting case study I once read about whereby a group of individuals were given drugs for a condition; a medical trial. Some were given a genuine drug and others were given a placebo; a fake. Something akin to a vitamin pill. But because those people participating in the study believed that they were given a working chemical drug a percentage of those therefore reported feeling 'better' for having taken the placebo.
This proves that a given mindset has a powerful effect and manipulation of the mind can be a powerful tool indeed. In the case of placebo studies obviously those people were duped and therefore their faith/belief in the drug was based on being misled and the truth being hidden from them - what they heard. I would imagine some of the participants were then surprised and shocked on being informed that they had infact taken a 'dummy' drug.
So in answer to the header "It takes faith to believe in science" I'd say "Yes!".
Similarly if you take medicine and have already decided "This probably won't work or help me" then you are more likely to find it doesn't because you have already convinced yourself in your own mind that this is the case. Someone more open-minded may try the drug and think "It's worth a try - see if it works" and they will be more likely to feel the benefits than the sceptic. Faith is a mindset. Sometimes we create our own mindsets, other times other people manipulate what we think and believe, in turn also manipulating our emotional state and responses. With the placebo experiment the power of suggestion that the dummy drug would work and was infact genuine was enough for the ones given the dummy drug to believe that it was something entirely different from what it actually was. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 6:36:43 AM | RE Msg: 314 by andyaa:
Notwithstanding what Scorpiomover says which is all good stuff and am reading up on and not giving any knee jerk response to. Try not to knee-jerk around the rest.
I was just amazed by the comparison to what the Old Testament presents as the beginnings of time and how science describes it. The ancients Hebrew's clearly could not comprehend abstract but understood what 'bara' meant. This can be further seen by them not understanding what YHWH meant, as each word means something. So they sent Moses up to find out, I am what I am?? OK . YKVK is symbolic of the 3 tenses of time, past(haYaH), present(Hoveh), future(yihyeH).
There are plenty of cases in Judaic literature about the changing nature of time. One is a story about Choni Ha-Magel. He questioned how the Psalm 126 could say that the 70 years of the Babylonian Exile was as if we were dreaming. So G-d made him sleep for 70 years. He was already an old man at the time, so he didn't literally sleep for that long. Either he was in suspended animation, or time literally passed much slower for him than for us. It seems as if the ancient Jews knew that time was not purely linear, and that it could pass faster and slower for different places and times.
FYI, G-d never said to Moses "I am that I am". G-d said to Moses "Ehyeh Asher Eyheh", "I will be that which I will be".
The Old Testament reminds me of a story George Lucas wrote back in the '70s. White knight battles black knight to save princess locked in a tower with the help of a wise old man...classic. However, now 30 years on, a religion has formed around it 'the Jedi'. You do know that George Lucas said that he built the Star Wars stories around the story of Jesus, don't you? Anakin born of a virgin mother, having superpowers, a prophecy about the one who will come and save the universe.
The first 2 chapters of the Old Testament were written down from ancient understandings of the universe, unfortunately a religion has formed around it. Chapter 2:4 and onwards is written in a different style and appears to be older. Chapter 1 - 2:3 is just reiterating what 2.4 onwards is saying. As we do today and as in the bible, we often say things 3 times for emphasis. My old adage was, tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. I am sure the creation of the universe would have been written like this. Unfortunately I think the 3rd (in more detail) part has been lost to history. Maybe the ancient Hebrews simple didn't understand it so dismissed it preferring the creation ex nihilo. Jews consider that the different stories of the first few chapters of Genesis each teach different angles about the story of creation. Jews say that the story of creation is so complex, that a human could only grasp a part of what actually happened, and many books have been written to explain it. It's considered one of the parts of the Bible that are almost beyond human understanding. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 11:44:35 AM |
how many times in our history has science been wrong
Science has been wrong far less often than the rightwing xtian fundies, who are wrong about almost everything. That's what happens when you worship a false god. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 12:07:47 PM |
FYI, G-d never said to Moses "I am that I am". G-d said to Moses "Ehyeh Asher Eyheh", "I will be that which I will be".
Hmmm...so you're telling us you believe in a god that doesn't exist yet? But it has a voice? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 12:11:22 PM |
Science has been wrong far less often than the rightwing xtian fundies
No. Not correct at all. Science is 'wrong' and revised all of the time, while ideologies resist all oposition with logical stalemate. Having the notion that science is somehow a demographic, diametrically opposed to ideological faith is just incorrect. While this means ideologies 'lose' less often than sciences, it still leads to the same conclusion, making science a much better vehicle for truth than ideological faith.
Truth is not a tangible thing that can be looked at head on anyhow. It is a quality ascribed to aspects of a model. The more variation in models we are able to play with, the more details we are able to collect about the illusive, transient truth. When a model is revised, or superceded, even the things that arent true for the model are more fully understandable. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 12:43:44 PM | I can't help, re-reading this discussion, recalling the first classroom scene from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'...
"Science is the search for FACT! Not TRUTH. If you want to talk about truth, try the Philosophy class down the hall..." | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:12:33 PM | RE Msg: 376 by moon.baby:
FYI, G-d never said to Moses "I am that I am". G-d said to Moses "Ehyeh Asher Eyheh", "I will be that which I will be". Hmmm...so you're telling us you believe in a god that doesn't exist yet? But it has a voice? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:32:34 PM |
"Science is the search for FACT!
Agreed...
Not TRUTH.
Don't quite see it your way, but I see where you are coming from...
If you want to talk about truth, try the Philosophy class down the hall..."
It is a science and philosophy forum. If you cannot see why the two might overlap, then you might want to look up Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:37:00 PM | | Unfortunately for Indiana Jones, and very shallow hollywood empericism, facts are model dependent as well. They are 'true statements', about a model. Where you may refer to 'truth' in the romantic absolute sense, it is not the only way in which it can be used. It is part of the definition of a fact. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:39:33 PM | | So how can your god know and practice anything if he is yet to be? And if you truly believe in not sweating what is yet to happen, then why are you religious at all? Wouldn't it be more logical to be an atheist? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:49:28 PM | RE Msg: 382 by moon.baby:
So how can your god know and practice anything if he is yet to be? The Bible doesn't say that G-d said he wasn't, only that what G-d will be, will be.
And if you truly believe in not sweating what is yet to happen, then why are you religious at all? Wouldn't it be more logical to be an atheist? Nope. Kafka pointed out the view of atheism, that the real world has many dangers, but with atheism, there is no reason why that could not happen, and that it only makes sense to worry about them constantly.
Being religious means to acknowledge that to NOT sweat about the future, one has to do stuff to keep one in line with natural law, and then to trust that nature will follow a pattern that will be in general beneficial. Kind of like in order to not worry about having enough money to eat, one must hold down a job, pay your bills, and then just trust that things will work out.
FYI, alcoholism and other addictions are rooted in worries about the future, and yet the most successful tools we have in dealing with addiction, all seem to revolve around a belief in a higher power, doing one's best, and then trusting that higher power will take care of the rest. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:52:24 PM | I feel like science uses the word knowledge to loosely, actually the term science gets used to loosely.
One of the few things I can actually KNOW in life is that I exist. How do I know?
As St. Augustine tells us, even if I were to be mistaken about my existence, that would mean that I do exist and am therefore correct about my existence.
I couldnt be wrong unless I exist, I couldnt be anything unless I exist; non-existence is the absence of all. By definition, non-existence iteself does not exist, so there is no such thing as non-existence. So existence must be infinite without seperation from itself, because the only thing that can stop existence is non-existence and its impossible.
So if non-existence is impossible, then not only is existence never stopping, it could have never been started either. There could never have been non-existence , because it doesnt exist. even if you wanna say theres no proof that non-existence cant be(which is simple-minded at best), non-existence could never turn into existence. 0+0=0. Non-existence plus non-existence could never equal existence. What property would non-existence have that could "create"? If it did, then it couldnt infact be non-existence.
So we KNOW there was always ONE existence. but how did it change into what we are today? 1+0=1. there couldnt have always been 2 that exist, because there is nothing to seperate them. The only way mathematically the system could work is if the ONE "desired" change and therefore willed it into existence.
What ever that ONE is (which im not even speculating) becomes GOD- -the ONE which from ALL comes.
So to say that some form of GOD does not exist is to go against mathematics, WHO'S SIDE IS SUPPORTED BY REASON AND SCIENCE? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:53:19 PM | RE Msg: 382 by moon.baby:
So how can your god know and practice anything if he is yet to be? The Bible doesn't say that G-d said he wasn't, only that what G-d will be, will be.
And if you truly believe in not sweating what is yet to happen, then why are you religious at all? Wouldn't it be more logical to be an atheist? Nope. Kafka pointed out the view of atheism, that the real world has many dangers, but with atheism, there is no reason why that could not happen, and that it only makes sense to worry about them constantly.
Being religious means to acknowledge that to NOT sweat about the future, one has to do stuff to keep one in line with natural law, and then to trust that nature will follow a pattern that will be in general beneficial. Kind of like in order to not worry about having enough money to eat, one must hold down a job, pay your bills, and then just trust that things will work out.
FYI, alcoholism and other addictions are rooted in worries about the future, and yet the most successful tools we have in dealing with addiction, all seem to revolve around a belief in a higher power, doing one's best, and then trusting that higher power will take care of the rest.
RE Msg: 381 by jesser83:
Unfortunately for Indiana Jones, and very shallow hollywood empericism, facts are model dependent as well. They are 'true statements', about a model. Where you may refer to 'truth' in the romantic absolute sense, it is not the only way in which it can be used. It is part of the definition of a fact. Very true. It's something that a lot of people forget, that any scientific theory's veracity is based on the models it relies upon. When you realise that even these axiomatic models are only verifiable in terms of probability and likelihood, and factor THOSE probabilities into the veracity of any theory they are build upon, the probability of those theories reduces significantly. Once you realise that even those models are built upon other models, and you factor THEIR probabilities in as well, the probability of any scientific theory being true can go way, way down. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:56:24 PM | So how can your god know and practice anything if he is yet to be?
Since words have multiple definitions and ranges of meanings, it's hard to be sure of the correct English meaning without actually reading and understanding the original Hebrew in context.
However, it seems clear that this is NOT what is intended by the Hebrew phrase. I would take it to be more a statement of intent than existence:
I will become what I need to become
I will do what I need to do [become the "doer"]
I already am and I will continue
All it really says to me is "I will continue to exist, in whatever way I wish". Certainly nothing there about coming into existence.
So to say that some form of GOD does not exist is to go against mathematics, WHO'S SIDE IS SUPPORTED BY REASON AND SCIENCE?
This fallacy has been addressed. You're shoe-horning "god" into whatever tangible definition allows you to "prove" it, even though there are no standard, accepted, tangible definitions of "god" which haven't been disproven.
As St. Augustine tells us, even if I were to be mistaken about my existence, that would mean that I do exist and am therefore correct about my existence.
You jump through an awful lot of hoops, in my opinion, to reach your conclusion. You're far from alone in that. My take on it is, the question is pointless.
How do you achieve your definition of existence? In your mind? If so, the definition of "existence" [and "reality"] is rigidly tied into that existence. Therefore, if you are able to question your existence, you exist. You must exist in order to have a concept of existence. You must have some kind of reality in order to define a reality. These would seem to me to be tautologies. For some reason, philosophers seem fascinated by such things. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 2:30:42 PM |
I couldnt be wrong unless I exist, I couldnt be anything unless I exist; non-existence is the absence of all. By definition, non-existence iteself does not exist, so there is no such thing as non-existence. So existence must be infinite without seperation from itself, because the only thing that can stop existence is non-existence and its impossible.
Assuming that causality and awareness is nesessary for existence is just a guess, and since there are things that are generally considered to exist that have never talked about their own awareness of existence, the human existential argument doesnt work for everything. Also, just because things exist after we create them, does not mean creation is the only precondition to existence, or that one is even necessary at all. What if there were 5 things that have infinite existence? Are they all 5 omnipotent god concepts? And what if those 5 things really don't have complete control or influence over everything else? From what I have seen of nature, it is very nebulous, and nothing is really created... they are just refashioned into different shapes. A tree in detroit, has no idea about acorns falling in austin texas. And none of this shares any significant connection to the weather paterns on jupiter... so absolute influence of original creating force doesn't seem likely either.
0+0=0. Non-existence plus non-existence could never equal existence. What property would non-existence have that could "create"? If it did, then it couldnt infact be non-existence.
So we KNOW there was always ONE existence. but how did it change into what we are today? 1+0=1. there couldnt have always been 2 that exist, because there is nothing to seperate them. The only way mathematically the system could work is if the ONE "desired" change and therefore willed it into existence.
arithmetic and existentialism are NOT compatible. And imbuning mathematical objects, (which technically, are not noun objects, and do not really exist in a temporal physical way like people, gods, unicorns, and luggage) with emotions (parenthetical or not), is niether existential, nor arithmetic, it is pure fantasy. The properties of natural numbers do not hold for mathematical objects of completely seperate methematical systems, so even if you had a sound intuitionistic argument, it is completely unpursuable mathematically, or existentially. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 2:51:05 PM |
How do you achieve your definition of existence? In your mind? If so, the definition of "existence" [and "reality"] is rigidly tied into that existence. Therefore, if you are able to question your existence, you exist. You must exist in order to have a concept of existence. You must have some kind of reality in order to define a reality.
This is a rare moment. This is as close to a philosophical post, that I have ever seen you post, Frogo...
These would seem to me to be tautologies.
I am guessing you mean this in the rhetorical sense...
For some reason, philosophers seem fascinated by such things.
For some reason, the pragmatic seem fascinated by pointing out fallacies...
Okay, I am just yanking your chain a little bit. I feel like philosophy is fun to explore...I really enjoy reading the different viewpoints. Each have their place, and sometimes the two will overlap.
@airbornemedik
Your entire post made zero sense to me... | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 4:02:12 PM |
The Bible doesn't say that G-d said he wasn't, only that what G-d will be, will be.
Here's a quote from one of your earlier posts:
FYI, G-d never said to Moses "I am that I am". G-d said to Moses "Ehyeh Asher Eyheh", "I will be that which I will be".
Now if he didn't say "I am", but did say "I will be" then that means he "wasn't" at the time he spoke to Moses. Now how can something that "isn't" have spoken to Moses?
Kafka pointed out the view of atheism, that the real world has many dangers, but with atheism, there is no reason why that could not happen, and that it only makes sense to worry about them constantly.
Yes, the world has many dangers. So what? Religion has not stopped all the bad things from happening. I'm an atheist, and I assure you I do not constantly worry about all the dangers of the world.
Being religious means to acknowledge that to NOT sweat about the future, one has to do stuff to keep one in line with natural law, and then to trust that nature will follow a pattern that will be in general beneficial. Kind of like in order to not worry about having enough money to eat, one must hold down a job, pay your bills, and then just trust that things will work out.
Being an atheist is not much different. The basic difference is that we know we are accountable for our actions. We don't do bad things to others and then claim we are doing the work for god.
FYI, alcoholism and other addictions are rooted in worries about the future
Actually, they are not. Some religions on the other hand may be rooted in worries about the future. Some Christians are constantly worried about going to hell. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 4:10:39 PM | I feel like philosophy is fun to explore...I really enjoy reading the different viewpoints. Each have their place, and sometimes the two will overlap.
It's my observation that philosophical discussions sometimes tend to the absurd, like a schoolyard discussion of 'Superman versus Emperor Palpatine'. Often any point which might have been gained, is lost because it gets wrapped up in 15 layers of increasing unliklihood. Such as, discussions of reality and existence in these fora, which are in most cases fallacious. Ultimately, they're irrelevant because not only are the definitions created WITHIN the reality discussed, but the discussions all take place there as well. Least common denominators can be excluded, but they all too often become tangents with lives of their own. As in this thread and at least a couple of the other active ones here.
Now if he didn't say "I am", but did say "I will be" then that means he "wasn't" at the time he spoke to Moses. Now how can something that "isn't" have spoken to Moses?
Same faulty argument. You're skipping a couple very important words for the context: "that which". | |
|
| |
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 6:29:07 PM |
It's my observation that philosophical discussions sometimes tend to the absurd, like a schoolyard discussion of 'Superman versus Emperor Palpatine'.
Funny you should use the term "absurd". Absurdism is branch of philosophy, that stems from existential thought. I loved Camus, even though he was depressing as h@ll.
Tangents are fertile ground for learning, through organic discussion.
But I do see your point. And within the preservation of the purity of science, I agree.
Emperor Palpatine FOR SURE. Superman is alergic to his own planet... what a wus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll put $20 on Superman any day of the week!
Oh, puh-lease...  Jean Grey could kick both of their butts at the same time...
Gosh, I am such a geek...
Within the philosophical connotations of science, it requires a certain measure of faith. As been stated, about every third or fourth post. But remove philosophy, and science becomes a tool, for endeavorment and achievement. (Endeavorment is a word, I don't care what my spell check says.) However pragmatism should not diminish imagination, and I feel like questions should be encouraged, and not derisively discounted. There are some posters who understand this, and I admire their patience. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/19/2009 9:30:24 PM | RE Msg: 389 by moon.baby:
Now if he didn't say "I am", but did say "I will be" then that means he "wasn't" at the time he spoke to Moses. Now how can something that "isn't" have spoken to Moses? By the same logic, anyone who said to a friend that they will be in London next week, but neglected to say where they are now, ceases to exist. Seriously, it just make sense with language to claim this.
Kafka pointed out the view of atheism, that the real world has many dangers, but with atheism, there is no reason why that could not happen, and that it only makes sense to worry about them constantly. Yes, the world has many dangers. So what? Religion has not stopped all the bad things from happening.
I'm an atheist, and I assure you I do not constantly worry about all the dangers of the world. I'm sure that you don't. Kafka wasn't saying you HAVE to worry. Kafka was saying that it's an inevitable conclusion of atheism, once you follow it through to all of its conclusions. But there is nothing stopping the mind from schisming about things, like the guy who cheats on his wife and thinks to himself that he'll never get caught.
Being religious means to acknowledge that to NOT sweat about the future, one has to do stuff to keep one in line with natural law, and then to trust that nature will follow a pattern that will be in general beneficial. Kind of like in order to not worry about having enough money to eat, one must hold down a job, pay your bills, and then just trust that things will work out. Being an atheist is not much different. The basic difference is that we know we are accountable for our actions. We don't do bad things to others and then claim we are doing the work for god.
FYI, alcoholism and other addictions are rooted in worries about the future Actually, they are not.
However, fundamentally, they only seek to solve their problem, because they feel they are unable to cope with it, and worry terribly about the outcome. Once they are able to accept that the problem is something they can cope with, and isn't going to make their lives a disaster either now or in the future, then it isn't a problem. It's obviously not a problem this second in the now, or they'd be IN disaster, and wouldn't have the opportunity to turn to drink or drugs. So the reason they do it, is that the problems they see, are not a disaster this second, but they believe could or would cause a disaster very soon in the future, or even later on in the future, but that they cannot deal with it to solve it now, or to deal with it in the future, and try to drown their sorrows in drink/drugs to forget about it, hoping that miraculously, it will go away when they sober up. But it almost never does.
Some religions on the other hand may be rooted in worries about the future. Some Christians are constantly worried about going to hell. Some people are constantly worried. I've met quite a few. But I can honestly say that pretty much every person I ever met who was worried about going to hell, was worried about a lot of other things in their life that had nothing to do with religion per se, and everyone I met who wasn't worried about things in their life in general, was pretty sure that they weren't going to hell, or just refused to think about it. From what I've seen, worrying about things tends to be a habit that some do, and some don't. But having faith can help a lot with that. It's a lot easier to not worry about things, if you think that someone all-knowing, and all-powerful, loves you, and has got your back. | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
