Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 136
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.Page 5 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

Oh yea, and the religious are so very concerned with observations.
Just lumping all religious in like this renders your words as more fable than fact. SOME religious are primarily concerned with objectivity over subjectivity because the "feeling" that emanates from within SOME of the scientifically inclined is hardly objective. Good thing that this is not a black and white issue, as you suggest, or there would be no hope.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 1:45:46 PM
Actually, Andy, insisting on parallels where none exists really seems like a pointless exercise. I see the parallel you're tryingto make. I just find it flawed.

It's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, used specifically to support the argument. Spade.


However, each Hebrew word is related to a concrete idea, a substance of action. A good illustration of the differences is the word anger which, from a modern perspective, is an abstract idea. The Hebrew word for anger is awph but literally means "a flaring of the nostrils" a substance of action. In fact, the word awph is also the same Hebrew word for the nose.

So like I said 'create' didn't exist...it is a modern, miss-translation of the bible.

None of which establishes that abstract thoughts or intents were not there. There's ample evidence of abstract thought stretching well back into our prehistory. The use of symbols and concrete terms to communicate abstract thoughts is still widespread. Ancient Hebrew didn't have the million+ words to use that modern English now does. They used what they had to communicate what they wished. They could certainly use metaphor, analogy, hyperbole and any number of other techniques to convey abstract thoughts where words were not available.
Scorpiomover - what's your take on abstract meanings in ancient Hebrew biblical writing?

Almost forgot...
Some of the postulated causes for the Big Bang are also suggested to have additional effects which could be detected and observed within our universe. As stargazer expounded - a "fingerprint".
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 139
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 2:14:14 PM
You have not established in any way a causal link. Your repeated use of the comparison is a clearly fallacious argument. Clinging to that argument seems suspiciously faithful.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 140
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 2:19:08 PM
stargazer;

no way should anyone ever trust preachers!
especially PAID ones.

god? for creating the universe and all in it.

well, why is there disease?

disease, death, and disasters, don't fit in this otherwise nice place. why?
like sesame street, which doesn't belong with the rest?

you have to go along with me here, hypothetically of course.
I go along with evolutionist, just to understand THERE case.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 141
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 2:22:45 PM

you may think that it is a coincidental correlation, however in something as important as this to the ancient hebrews and then to science, coincidence doesn't cut it with me.


And some correlations can be quite illusory, such as attempts to correlate the construction of pyramids in ancient Egypt with those in South America. The real correlation was...none at all. Build for entirely different purposes.

There is no correlation with modern cosmology and ancient creation mythology.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 142
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 2:24:29 PM
aremeself..go along with you? I have no idea where you're going or even coming from. Was there a question there?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 2:56:26 PM
sorry star, mess 185
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 145
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 3:39:34 PM
Still not sure what you're asking aremeself.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 146
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 4:53:33 PM
RE Msg: 218 by andyaa:
If you want my opinion again, the word 'bara' used in the bible doesn't mean created, as I have said in other threads create is an abstract word which the shepherds would not have understood so could not have been used like we use the word create today. Bara means carved or moulded.
You're thinking of Yatzar, a word that is also used in context with creation, and is a word that means to shape a formless mass into a distinct shape, like a Yotzeir, a potter, who carves a pot out of clay. The word "Bara" exclusively means to create ex nihilo, out of nothing.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 147
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 5:03:38 PM
Science is the opposite of faith. Faith is beleving without seeing. Science is not believing even when you see it.
Apples and oranges. Faith, or any form of spirituality for that matter, offers an opportunity to explore one's self in supernatural (?) dimensions not typically seen but sometimes felt and often known in application with other living beings. Science offers us an opportunity to explore our world and all that's in it as knowledge is gained about matter in the natural world--and that's a huge difference in what both practices have to offer someone, if you ask me, which you did not, so I'll just keep watching all of these terrible simplifications fly around... ho hum...
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 148
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 8:58:40 PM


All these can help you to believe all sorts of things. But you still need faith in yourself, that you are right.

The example that shows this to be true, is people suffering with high levels of anxiety. They doubt everything they think all the time. They have no faith in themselves, and question themselves so much, that they are so unsure if they ar doing the right thing, that they are unable to act.


They need courage, not faith.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 149
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:05:41 PM

Science is the opposite of faith. Faith is beleving without seeing. Science is not believing even when you see it.


Uhm...does this make any sense, to anybody else?

I thought not.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 150
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:15:36 PM
he picking on those who don't believe, when science shows something to be so.

is that just as bad?

hey!

watching the news?

little bit of fudging going on in the scientific world.
tip of the iceberg?
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 151
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:38:58 PM

he picking on those who don't believe, when science shows something to be so.


Uhm...please correct me if I am wrong...

By your own logic, to quote Dr. Phil..."There are two sides to a pancake. Everyone has their fill."

I have no idea what the feck that means, but it makes about as much sense as you do.

Faith and science...both are constructs of the mind...

No one will disagree with me on this.

It must mean I am right.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 152
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 9:52:28 PM
'science is not believing even when you see it.'

ya, something wrong with that, wonder what he meant to say.

If nobody disagrees with me, it doesn't mean I am right.
 Peripheral Visionary
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 153
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:21:37 PM
Of course X caused it to happen, it's X I am trying to identify, like you say you need faith for this. To know that something goes from point A to point B in t=0, with no evidence of how it did it requires faith.


I'm sorry, but I just don't see that. Not having evidence as to what the cause was doesn't mean we don't have evidence that there was a cause. We're standing in it. Ignorance, (in the truest, non pejorative sense of the word) doesn't require faith.

Now, in time, maybe someone will come up with a way to prove X without being directly able to observe it. Hell, it's happened before. Even now, we only observe black holes indirectly. That is, by their effect on surrounding bodies, observing gas falling into them, and so on. Until and unless, there is only speculation, which requires no faith until someone starts claiming that their speculation is proof. Which hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

I can understand that. After all, there is always possible bias amongst the members of the Church. But who else would we trust? Politicians, who lie to us so often, that people say that you know if they're lying because their lips are moving? Lawyers, about whom people say that, and worse? Businesspeople, who mainly vote only for what will make them money soon, and care nothing about the environment, or horrific side-effects? Do we leave scientists to judge themselves, making them a body with absolute power over science? Isn't it said that absolute power corrupts absolutely?


Well, precisely. This is why I said people need to decide. Government would have (indeed was supposed to) accomplish this, but instead got absorbed by business. As societal constructs for this purpose go, it's probably still the best of the bad lot of options we have for the moment, but that may not be saying much.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 154
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:26:24 PM
aremeself, I think you'd find people understand you more often were you to take the time and effort to construct complete, grammatically correct sentences and paragraphs which describe your ideas sufficiently for the average person to understand what the hell you are saying.

Relying on internet readers to intuitively grasp the underlying assumptions you have made and fill in the obvious gaps in your explanations is ... foolish, at best.

What often works well is to quote whatever text it is to which you are replying, making statements regarding your interpretations, reactions, and concerns related to that text, then presenting your conclusions in one or a few complete sentences which can reasonably be parsed in standard English usage.

Just saying, is all.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 155
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:42:59 PM
desert, your right.

can't copy and paste either, must learn!
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 156
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:08:49 AM

well for a science and philosophy forum you sure don't understand philosophy


How much faith do you have in your statement?



which one of these do you think gives you a belief in science.


None of the listed.

I believe in science for it's rigorous experimentation, verification, demonstration, and its desire to get it right. More specifically, I believe in people (scientists) who make a claim, and provide or show the means by which one can prove the claim to one self - I'm talking about verifiable results.



oh and you need to have faith in your brain working in every one of those cases too to actually hold the belief.


No sir, you just need a working brain. For you to have faith in your brain working, you first have to have a working brain. And if your brain is working, you don't need faith in it working.... it's working.



delusions still require faith in them even if you don't understand what faith is.


Delusions wouldn't be called delusions if one required faith to believe them. And if it is true that one requires faith to believe delusions, then what good is faith? If faith is partially responsible for one's delusions, then I rather not have faith, for I wish not to believe my delusions. If faith is required for everything, then it's good for nothing.

Try a different argument.
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 158
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 8:30:34 AM

total ... if you continue to not understand that one simple premis


I don't understand philosophy because you think I don't understand YOUR version of faith or your "simple premis"?



without faith in your thought you have nothing.


Even with faith in your thoughts you still got nothing - or nothing more than if you didn't have faith in your thoughts. Perhaps you might want to understand this "simple premis".

My thoughts don't always serve me well. Sometimes when I think I'm right, I'm actually wrong, and sometimes when I think I'm wrong, I'm actually right. Having faith in my thoughts is as good as not having in my thoughts.



all that you think you know is built from the faith that your thoughts can prove anything. ... that anything you see can prove anything ... that anything you read can prove anything ... its all built on faith in your thought being real.


Perhaps that's why Socrates claimed to know nothing as one can argue that you need faith in faith - which is "blind belief"... and if you realize that, then you realize you can't claim anything with certainty. To have faith in your thoughts, you first must have thoughts of faith. That is, you must have thoughts (among many another things) before faith.

What makes my thoughts "real", or "real to me" is that I have them, and not that I have faith in them.



faith is one of the first things you develop in that working brain .... without it it doesn't work.


Without faith my brain won't work? Okay. You go ahead and believe that.



as I said you need to understand what faith is .... you have it even if you don't.


And you understand what faith is?



for you to believe in those scientists ... who you read about
you have to have faith in the honesty of the publications and the experiments etc.


No I don't have to have faith. I can treat their publications as mere hypothesis until there is such a time I can prove them to myself. I don't believe in scientists because they are scientists. As I said, I believe in people (scientists) who make a claim, and provide or show the means (evidence, reasoning, etc) by which one can prove the claim to one self.



you need faith in so much of all the things you say you believe because you never did the experiments and don't' know the people ... etc.
hearsay ... is all you have and faith is needed to believe it.


As I already said, delusions are just as good as faith in the "believe-me-you-department" - I already gave my argument for that claim. When or if you debunk it, I might consider your claim in more detail.



you did a couple of little experiments in school and work and home and now you believe all of science ... lol .... if you think that doesn't take faith .... your wrong.


Show me that I'm wrong. Anyone can claim "You are wrong" as it doesn't take much.

Also I never said I believed in all science.



ten pages of arguments over not understanding the basic definition of a word [hard to believe ... but true]


Enlighten us with your definition.

Faith, as defined by the "wiser creationists" is the ability to believe without evidence - which a human being is certainly capable of. The problem is that mad men are just as equally capable.

Technically speaking, what distinguishes scientific beliefs from other beliefs is evidence - verifiable results.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 161
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 9:57:06 AM

Science says the earth is round.

Are you SURE?


Ummm... YES.

It's evident from viewing the curve of the horizon, while flying in an airliner at 30,000 feet. It's evident from the way shadows fall at different angles - at the same time of day, at the same longitude, but at varying latitudes.

 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 167
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:29:09 PM

It's entirely possible that the curve of the horizon is an optical illusion. It's entirely possible you don't actually fly anywhere, rather you're in an elaborate flight simulator with televisions for "windows", and the flight time is the amount of time it takes "them" to redecorate the sets.


You would have to be over-the-top paranoid to think that, though...


Unless 'they' can tear down, remove, and reconstruct state-sized 'sets' in a matter of hours, the 'entirely possible' becomes 'exceedingly improbable'.

It's not faith to say that I'm certain that an aircraft is traveling from one place to another. It *could* be called faith to say that I'm sure that the pilot won't go crackers and drop us into a wheat field because he read the altimeter wrong... because that IS something that is entirely within the realm of possibility - in that it can and has happened.

Like it's been said before - faith is the certainty of something in lieu of evidence. I don't read the flight log of every pilot of every flight I take, nor do I examine the maintenance records of the aircraft. I have faith that the pilot and the maintenance crew are capable of doing their jobs. (And even that isn't *entirely* true... because I can see the evidence of their capabilities whenever I watch aircraft land and take off safely at my local airport...)
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 168
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:48:36 PM
The appropriate definition was essentially defined by the very first post, and clarified with the second. Adhering to a single definition of faith which does not fit the context of the first post, and which is so broad and pervasive as to negate a meaningful answer to the OP, is not only incorrect in the context of the thread, but is a reductive fallacy.

Whether or not one does the research onesself, science depends on empirical support. Creationism does not [although it claims to]. Creationists attempt to support their position by allowing one definition of "faith" to apply to themselves, reducing that term to an absurd alternate definition, and then claiming that "faith" applies at least equally to science. As they say, "apples and oranges", or "moving the goalposts". It is unimportant whether an individual believes anything on the basis of unreasoned faith, or on evidence. The OP question is one of a systemic nature: science and creationism, not Bob the builder and Pope Gregory XXXIII. Can a single definition of "faith" be applied to everyone everywhere, across the board? Sure, but that was never the question, was it?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 170
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 5:17:11 PM
RE Msg: 237 by x_file_:

All these can help you to believe all sorts of things. But you still need faith in yourself, that you are right.

The example that shows this to be true, is people suffering with high levels of anxiety. They doubt everything they think all the time. They have no faith in themselves, and question themselves so much, that they are so unsure if they ar doing the right thing, that they are unable to act.
They need courage, not faith.
People who are feeling situations that are a little difficult, and get a bit depressed as a result, need courage to face those challenges. People who ARE depressed, are so 100% sure that their life is always going to be a complete nightmare, that they have very little fear of death, and will happily put themselves in the most difficult challenges, for what they see is that life holds nothing good for them, and death is a sweet release. People with depression have courage in abundance. They take on things that would scare you silly. What they DON'T have, is faith, and without that, what is an easy task for you, is unbelievably hard for them.

RE Msg: 243 by Peripheral Visionary:

I can understand that. After all, there is always possible bias amongst the members of the Church. But who else would we trust? Politicians, who lie to us so often, that people say that you know if they're lying because their lips are moving? Lawyers, about whom people say that, and worse? Businesspeople, who mainly vote only for what will make them money soon, and care nothing about the environment, or horrific side-effects? Do we leave scientists to judge themselves, making them a body with absolute power over science? Isn't it said that absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Well, precisely. This is why I said people need to decide. Government would have (indeed was supposed to) accomplish this, but instead got absorbed by business. As societal constructs for this purpose go, it's probably still the best of the bad lot of options we have for the moment, but that may not be saying much.
The people HAVE decided. They vote for what they want. They just don't want to make the hard decisions. They want someone else to tell them what to do. Governments do exactly what the people want them to. We just don't like facing it.

RE Msg: 249 by andyaa:

I'd like to begin by commending you for making the effort to study Hebrew. It's quite an honour to debate more than on the surface level.


You might we be asking "why?", well let’s look at how they come to use “fattened.” Let us first examine the context of the Hebrew word bara. The word “create” is an abstract word (as I have mentioned) and as the Ancient Hebrew did not think in abstract terms, we need to find the concrete meaning of the Hebrew verb bara. The following verses use the exact same verb bara but is translated with its concrete meaning (in bold).
It might help if we use some examples of Hebrew, such as "Oznaim", ears, which also mean handles for objects, because a handle is often shaped like an ear. "Oznaim" also means major rules of a subject, for they too are "handles" with which to grasp a subject.

"Shaar", means a gate. It also means a rite of passage of some kind, for one must pass through a "gate" to achieve what is to be gained.

"Delet", means a door. It also means an opportunity, a method by which one might gain something, either something physical, or some great knowledge.

"Panim", means a face. It also means an attitude, for one expresses an attitude in one's face. It also means a way of understanding a subject, for a way of understanding something, is an attitude to that subject.

"Etzem", means a bone. It also means the essence of something, that which is left when everything else is stripped away. Hence, Atzmaut, means the independence of a people, their defining moment, the thing that makes that people who are they are as a unique entity. Hence, Yom Ha-Atzmaut, "the day of bone", means "the day of essence", the day of independence, which is why Yom Ha-Atzmaut is the word for "day of independence" for a nation. The 4th of July is the Yom Ha-Atzmaut of Americans, their "day of bone", their day of defining their essence as an independent people.

The ancient Hebrews did not think like we do. They thought of the abstract as something that was ever-present and always part and parcel of who we are. They didn't NEED to invent new words to describe new concepts. They saw that all concepts could easily be described simply by looking at existing words, and extending their meaning, far beyond what we might take for granted. Their abstractness was a given, but it was also part and parcel of all of life.

Why then look with greedy eye at my sacrifices and my offerings which I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves upon the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ (RSV 1 Samuel 2:29)
The word is "Le-Havria-Chem", in the Hiphil (causative) conjugation, meaning "to cause to make you healthy". Bara means to create, and life is created, as first, one is not alive, and then one is. So, the common Hebrew expression "Tihyeh Bari", means "(Hopefully) You will be caused to be alive", meaning that "(Hopefully) your life is caused to be increased", and so the expression means "(I wish) that you will be healthy". "Bari" means healthy. "Havriachem", comes from the same conjugation of the same root, and so it means for the animals to be healthy, to be well-nourished, and in some contexts, this could mean to be fattened, especially in places where being skinny meant malnutrition, as it do in so much of the world, but particularly in Europe for nearly all of the last 2000 years.

If you “fatten” something up, you are making it “full” and this is the idea behind the word bara in Genesis 1:1. Throughout this chapter, we see Elohiym “filling” the water with fish, the sky with the birds, and the land with plants and animals.
The word "full" is Maleih is Hebrew. To cause something to be full, is conjugated in the causative, the Hiphil, which makes it Himli. Fattening is only applied to barah, when it means a type of life-giving nourishment. However, when an animal has reached natural healthiness, and one continues to fatten an animal, then it is called Shamen, "oily". An oily fruit like an olive is so overflowing with its goodness, that it starts pouring out naturally. So to fatten an animal beyond what is good for it, or to eat and drink beyond what is healthy, is called "Le-Hashmin", to cause to be oily, to cause to be overflowing.

Now let’s examine the etymology of the verb bara. This word is derived from the parent root bar meaning grain, which is used to feed animals that are to be “fattened” for the slaughter or a sacrifice.
Bar also means wild, as in a wild animal, for they tend to live in the wild, eating what is most natural and healthy for them. Grain naturally grows in the wild, hence this is one reason why it might be called Bar. Or, it might be a borrowed word from other languages, for this happens as well in Hebrew. But Bar is NOT the main word for grain at all. The normal word is Dagan, used all over the OT, and in much of Hebrew literature. At other times, it is called T'vuah. It's very, very, very rarely called Bar. So what this word might be, I don't know. But it's not the regular or even irregular word for grain. The Chapters in Genesis dealing with Joseph and the brothers uses some odd words, and odd expressions, like "Lishbor Bar", to buy grain, when the normal word for buying with money is "Liknot", and in 42:25, it says "And Joseph commanded, and they filled their vessels, "grain", when the normal expression would be "WITH grain", even in Hebrew. Given the passage is dealing with Joseph in Egypt, when Joseph is currently speaking Egyptian, it might even be that Bar is being used, because it is a word the ancient Egyptians were more familiar with. I don't know why it was used here. What I do know, is that this is one of the rare occasions when it is used here. But most times, Bar means wild.

The ‘hypothetical’ ancestral language of the Nostratic family is called Proto-Nostratic, following standard linguistic practice. Proto-Nostratic would necessarily have been spoken at an earlier time than the language families descended from it, which would place it toward the end of the Paleolithic period
I gather that the Nostratic category is quite controversial, and a lot of people disagree with this nomenclature.

And the gaunt and thin cows ate up the seven sleek and fat cows. And Pharaoh awoke. (RSV Genesis 41:4)
Let's be a litte more accurate:

"And the cows that were of bad appearance and thin of flesh, ate the seven cows that were of beautiful of appearance and healthy. And Pharaoh awoke."

It makes more sense to say that the animals were healthy, and not fat, because they are described as the opposite of the second group of cows, which really look very, very sickly. The second group of cows are all skin and bones, and look generally unpleasant. The first group of cows, are the opposite, really great-looking, and really in very good shape.


What do other people think of using ‘Create’…
They are entitled to their opinion. They are entitled to claim that the moon is made of green cheese. If they can prove it, then by all means, for I have never been there to be 100% sure that it isn't. But, to claim something, and to prove it, is another thing entirely.

So to say to me that creation means puff and there it all is, is meaningless, you might as well tell me the moon is made of cheese then argue that it isn’t. You’re the one that is telling me what YOU think the word means (not you scorpiomover) then arguing that it is not???
Many people don't know that the term "ex nihilo", is a very old expression, that is just meant to mean something spontaneous, anything that doesn't come from a clear and direct cause, such as when you feel happy for no reason, that's ex nihilo. Now, you might put it down to brain chemicals, or somehing else. But that's also ex nihilo. It's just a very common expression for sponteneity, because people used to like using Latin expressions often. Nowadays, people prefer direct speech, so a lot of people might get misled by this.

When it comes to the conflict between the ancient Hebrews that were traditionalists and the ancient Hebrews that were modern Hellenists, the Hellenists were all against any sort of spontaneous creation. They favoured more Hellenistic ideas, that were more grounded in physicality. It was the traditionalists who were more of an esoteric and open-minded viewpoint, that life did not necessarily have to come from life, and that things could spontaneously begin, simply because there is nothing saying that life cannot.

Even in welsh (my home country) we use the word Bara…It means bread, seeds (wheat) that expands (Same in old Cornish).
In Spanish, Barra means loaf

So for me, coming from Wales, when someone says Bara, I think a grain (wheat) that expands…bread.
I have Welsh friends too. When I hear Welsh, I am reminded of how similar it is to the word "welch". That doesn't mean I assume that the Welsh are called that, because they never pay their debts. I'm not Welsh. I might hear a word in Welsh, but that doesn't mean I automatically understand it. I'm willing to try. But it would be foolish of me to think that I definitely know Welsh, when I'm not Welsh.

Even so, in English we do not use the word ‘create’ in a strictly ex nihilo manner. We often say ‘he created a work of art’. We don’t mean he conjured it up out of thin air.
You're right, that we don't use the word "create" to be ex nihilo, NOW. Back when I was a kid, we'd say he painted that, or he drew it from his mind. We would NEVER say that someone created a work of art, not unless it was so majestic, so stunning, that we could not imagine anything close to it, so much so, that for us, it came "out of the ether", from nothingness, for there was nothing to be in the same room as it. THIS was what used to be meant by "an act of creation".

The same is true of "genius". A "genius" USED to mean someone who was just so good at what he did, that no-one else could come close, maybe 1 or 2 people in a generation used to be called a genius. But rest of us were smart.

Now, back in the 30s and 40s, with the advent of the welfare state, people who were formerly called thick, or stupid, were told that they were not only capable of greatness, which they were, but were told that THEY WERE ALREADY GREAT! They were told that they were already worthy of a Nobel prize, without having done anything at all. Why? Because the generation that was trying to help them, felt that they had been downtrodden enough, and didn't want to pull them down, but help them up. However, they didn't appreciate, as any hard-working man or woman of the working classes knew, that it's not the ability that matters, but the effort, day in, and day out, that gets you to be great. Without that, all those loving endearments are just flattery, telling you what you want to hear, and not the truth, and in the process of believing it, you get lulled into a sense of false security. You begin to believe that you ARE great, and not just that you CAN be. But if you already ARE great, you're already at the top. You have nothing to achieve and nowhere to go. Your only direction is DOWN. So, despite the welfare state being set up to support the underclasses, it ended up undermining them, because it flattered, rather than complimented, and told white lies, rather than the truth that stings, but heals and lifts you up.

As a result, when the underclasses started to believe this, then any time that they saw someone do something pretty good, that they admired, like sports, they called him a "genius". Pretty soon, almost anyone in sports who did fairly well was called a "genius". Conversely, because the underclasses never really valued high education all that much, as it didn't seem to them that it helped them, they stopped calling people of great intelligence and intellectual achievement, a "genius", and even started to disparage them.

This is what is known the rise of "being average", which many modern music groups have often complained about, and even Pink Floyd alluded to this in The Wall, for if everyone is forced to be ordinary, then your creativity and natural ability that lies within each one of us, is stifled, and crushed. Thus began the destruction of the value of excellence.

Now, almost any halfway decent piece of art might be called a "creation", not by virtue of it, but simply because someone thought of something that someone else likes, and lacks the awareness that if they spent five minutes using their imagination, they would have come up with something equally great, and in 10 minutes, far greater.

I can understand this confusion. But the way you are using these words, is the way people NEVER used to, but only do in the last century, and that only because of a desire to flatter others in good intent, but one that is doing more harm than good.
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 171
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:11:56 PM
ScorpioMover:

Have you ever considered making a long, rambling post? I'm just thinking that if you want to never make a point to the audience here, you could make such huge posts that most people won't want to invest the immediately obvious large time investment to read it.

If you do, try to go off on a tangent completely unrelated to the OP, like deciphering Hebrew in a discussion of faith in science.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >