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
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 375
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 9 of 26    (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, 26)
RE Msg: 453 by annasthasia:
This is coming from someone who spent most of his schooling in a cult like religious school... Priceless...
Let's get something straight. Nearly every religious teacher in my school had a PhD, the more religious ones had PhDs in scientific subjects, and some had multiple PhDs in scientific subjects.

Please, name me any secular school in your whole country, where they have more teachers with PhDs, than without.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 379
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/28/2010 11:14:53 AM

Maybe by your definition.

By the scientific definition. You mischaracterize science to set up a strawman.

I'll just comment that Abelian, in the posting quoted above, seems all confused about some things that one would expect a genuine scientist

You are really desperate to maintain your strawman arguments. The only thing that confuses me is how you could fail to grasp your own topic in any more depth than you have grasped it. You can't even define your terms in a way that makes logical sense.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 380
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/28/2010 11:28:55 AM
RE Msg: 457 by Krebby2001:
Technical Buddha, congratulations! Calculus III -- I hope that your instructor uses graphics and not just formulas to get his/her idea across. Math you'll practice immensely in the future; calculus, I've learned that it's essential in understanding theoretical concepts or patterns, but most of the derivations have all been worked out and so the task is to be able to follow the logic (unless you're in physics or something.) In either case, they're not as frightening as most students make it out to be, given a good instructor.
I am pleased that you value calculus like I do. It teaches us so much, and it doesn't care about atheism, or religion. We can learn from it without having to choose.

I've made the argument that perhaps religion could serve that role. But I'm beginning to suspect that that is an impossibility, given the current state of our "systems" of religiousity. Sure, one can take one example of one religion, perhaps a very small one, that is playing a firm hand in inculcating ideas about ethics, appreciation for Mother Earth and the universe, etc. And I'm not referring to nuancy codes of ethics or intellectual development. I'm referring to universal codes, as alluded to in Emmanuel Kant's work.
Krebby, I've made the point before, and I am still firmly of the opinion, that religion can serve such a purpose, because I know it has, in my own religion.

But it's only going to work, if we are willing to praise religion when it does do good, as well as criticising it when it does bad. Otherwise, we might as well just give up, because purely negative criticism just doesn't work at all. But positive, constructive criticism does work, particularly when it is accompanied by positive encouragement when we see even the smallest good behaviour.

Instead, it seems, we get more sophisticated about killing each other, or affecting our environment, and that's about it. Send drones into Afghanistan, operating the system via computer in the U. S. -- wow, impressive as a technological achievement but it doesn't say much about sophistry in human civilization.

We need a system for integrating acceptable ways of living just as much as we need technological development. Science is doing the latter.
I quite agree. We need more people like William Wilberforce, a very religious man, and the Quakers, very religious people, who fought together to abolish slavery right throughout the world.

Some might say they get that from religion. But, I've noticed that many of these are the same folks who turn around and say things like "Drill Baby Drill!" How odd
That's just what the media says. They like to focus only on the bad, as that sells papers, and gets high ratings.

I watched a programme on the BBC, called "World's Strictest Parents". They took 2 kids who their parents could not handle, and put them in a very strict family for a few weeks. The programme I watched was with 2 kids, one a party girl, the other a homosexual boy. Both completely ignored the rules of their parents, would smoke, drink, go out till all hours. Their parents couldn't handle them. They were sent to some extreme Bible-bashers, who believed that homosexuals were against G-d.

The first thing that I noticed, was that the parents encouraged their kids to go and help out in the local soup kitchen, that fed the homeless. I was very surprised, as it was run by a local church. But they did not force anyone to pray. It showed me that in America, if you are up against it, whether you are a Jew, or a Muslim, or an atheist, and you need to get some food, you can rely on Xians to help.

The second thing I noticed, was how the gay kid behaved. I honestly thought that the gay kid would go mad in the home of a gay-hater. But at the end, the kid hugged the father, cried, and said that he wished he was his dad. For a kid who is gay, to openly say that on British TV, where we expect the opposite, showed me that at least some of these religious extremists have something so worthwhile, that it makes their worst enemies become their best friends.

We can and should learn from them about both things. Maybe if we do, then Muslims will no longer see us as their enemies, but as their friends.

Something to consider, eh?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 381
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/28/2010 1:41:32 PM

If you have the time to actually view all the six series of the colours of the infinity, you will find that in the last two, there are now practical applications using fractal geometry.

Get a copy of ``The Fractal Geometry of Nature,'' by Benoit Mandelbrot. It contains a number of practical applications and it was written in 1982.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 384
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/29/2010 2:03:45 AM
RE Msg: 460 by annasthasia:
Krebby, your words resonate with me...

But why look at the Mandelbrot set to see cool fractals. A forest does just fine.
I just want to clarify. I wasn't disagreeing or ignoring Krebby's point about Mandelbrot sets. As a kid, we were fascinated by them. However, I just have known them for so long, that I just didn't feel that it needed to be said, that I appreciated them. Their beauty is clear to all.

Now, our galaxy, in a way reminds me of a celluar type of set... It has a nucleus, a sun and the planets all lined up, obeying the fabric of time evolves around the sun.

Our universe is one huge cellular system...

All this to state that somehow, we are all connected. In my view and my own observation only, it is my belief that through this connection we resonate with what we cannot explain because we are connected in the most infinitaly small way.
Now you are starting to see the realisations that I had, several years ago. It was something that I mentioned to friends several years ago.

I do not want to bore the readers. I am truly trying to understand and I simply cannot warp my head around any type of "religious" people that go to their rabbies, priests, or any other type or religious title you want to add ... on their worshiping days...
Then I will try to explain to you.

My view is that truth is truth. It doesn't really matter where it comes from.

When I watched the cowboy films of yesteryear, and I saw how the Native Americans lived, in their teepees, living off the land, using all of the buffalo, even their skin, to make their clothes, and their huts, I saw the beauty in that, that they used things only sparingly. I thought "What a wonderful way to live! Not wasting anything." It made me think that I should do the same.

You see, I don't distinguish. I don't need a theory of evolution to tell me that Native Americans, or Africans, or anyone else, are my brothers under the skin. They have the same limbs and other body parts I do. It is as plain as day to me.

When it comes to religion, I don't need to be told that my religion doesn't have to apply to you. I use my brain. If G-d had wanted you to do as I do, then G-d would have spoken to your ancestors, like G-d did mine. That G-d didn't, means that G-d wanted my people to follow the way G-d told my people, and G-d wanted your people to follow the way G-d told your people. But those ways do not have to be the same. Although we are all similar, we are not identical, and we should not be forced to be. We each have our path to follow.

and yet, these same people have no issues bombing, maiming, molesting and raping either their own people or the people they consider to be their enemies...

In all this, they actually justify killing by stating that it is the will of their god.
You may not realise this, but you have an advantage over most people. You went to university. So you know what they think. Most people haven't been to university. So they think they know what university people think, but you know what is the truth.

When I was a kid, I went to a religious school. That gives me the same advantage over people who didn't, that going to university gave you. I got to know what the religious actually believed, and not what the media told you they believed.

Now, just to make it fundamentally clear, committed traditional religious Jews believe that the State of Israel was set up according to secular law, by secular Jews, and so has no connection with a Jewish State. It is a secular state, nothing more than that. There is no reason to support it.

However, now that it has been set up, and many Jews live there, it is a fait accompli, and it has to be respected as a place where many Jews live, just like parts of America, Canada and the UK.

If you are a true student of the university, and a true academic, then you will not trust to propaganda. You will investigate the history of the area yourself. You will read about the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Arab Revolt, the promise of the British to establish a single Arab state. You will read Allenby's speech.

You will read about the religious Jews who lived there for generations in peace with the Arabs. You will watch interviews of Arabs who lived in that time, and who testified that the Jews and the Arabs lived that closely, that they described themselves as having 2 sets of grandparents, one Arab, and one Jew. You will realise that it was the religious Jews and the religious Arabs who lived in harmony for centuries, in Israel, but also all over the Middle East. You will read how the Jews call the time that the Muslims ruled Spain, the Golden Age of Spanish Jewry, because in the Middle Ages, it was the best time and place you could possibly have lived as a Jew. You realise that religious Jews and religious Muslims have almost always got on. So the war cannot have been a war between religious Jews and religious Muslims.

You will read about the people chosen by the British to lead that land. You will read their history. You will realise that they, being Eastern Europeans, with an entirely different mindset from the Mediterranean mindset, being anti-religious, the total opposite to the Arabs, and being communists, even more different than the Arabs, that you would have to be the biggest moron in history, not to realise that putting these people in charge, would lead to war. You would have to consider that the natural choice, would have been to put the indigenous Jews and Arabs in charge. You would have to then consider the British history, and realise that this is not the actions of madmen, but of clever people, intent on conquest, who were very good at manipulating others, and thus, such actions as in the choice of the leaders of the state of Israel, had to be deliberate, and that the conflict between Jews and Arabs was engineered.

You then have to look back at the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and realise that since it was an agreement by the Allies, and that it was established BEFORE the Balfour Declaration, that this deliberate engineering of war, must have been decided by the Allies as an informed group.

Then if you read just how deeply America was involved in World War I, and how much it was needed to win the war, that if the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, and the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs, had been brokered without the previous consultation and assent of the USA, then the USA might have pulled out of the war, with disastrous consequences for the Allies, and it was simply not worth taking the risk.

As a result, any academic will be left with one, and only one, conclusion. The war between the Jews and the Arabs has nothing to do with their respective religions, but is a war that has been deliberately engineered by the Allies of Europe and America.

This is not one of those cases where we lack the information on the history of the last 100 years of the region. The fact are not ambiguous, or ambivalent. It is very, very clear.

The simple truth is that Western countries have caused these deaths, just like the deaths of Africans they caused, and just like the deaths of Native Americans that they caused, and just like the deaths of Indians they caused. The only difference here, is that right now, this generation has accepted that the actions of Americans and British people of the 18th and 19th Century were atrocious, and they are yet to accept that the actions of the 20th Century were just as atrocious. It is no different than the deliberate arrangements of the West to foment conflict in Africa, for their interest as well.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 389
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/1/2010 2:49:51 PM

I'm not saying that the fact that Abelian is expressing unsupported opinion proves that what he's saying isn't true.

No, like other internet crackpots, you aren't saying anything. Since you already balked the first time I mentioned ontology and epistemology, there really is nothing about reality that you are capable of discussing at a high enough level to make the topic worth discussing. Come back when you read a little more.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 392
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/2/2010 10:48:08 AM
I read that****oaches depend completely on humans, and would become extinct if we did.


Why should they? Besides, there's thousands of species of c 0 c k roaches. Only a fraction are associated with human habitation. Even fewer are recognized as pests. Of those, I'm sure not all members of those species have moved into the cities and representatives can still be found in the wild.

But if you have a source for that, I would love to see it.

Edit:

“We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” - Carl Sagan
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 395
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/2/2010 8:05:35 PM

Yes, and it's among the most ignorant and scientifically illiterate that we find cargo-cult science-worshippers.


Oh, Appy, you little scamp! I knew you couldn't resist!

 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 396
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/3/2010 4:27:33 AM


-- the scientific method is the only game in town, isn't it?

No it's not. In fact, 95% or more of humanity do not believe so.

You really like to pull numbers out of your posterior without any citation, source, or explanation of where you came up with the figure, don't you? Sloppy.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 397
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/3/2010 8:04:48 AM

Religious doctrine is "peer" reviewed, by by the similarly faithful.


And that is the biggest part of the problem, isn't it...? The whole 'reviewed by the SIMILARLY FAITHFUL' part, that is. Scientific ideas are reviewed by *skeptics* of the idea, not those who already agree with you.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 398
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/3/2010 6:33:16 PM

The other 97.5% believe in something beyond the material bounds of what can be explained by science.


And an incorrect idea, no matter how widely held, is STILL incorrect.

If widespread belief constituted evidence... then Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, men didn't go to the Moon, and 9/11 was an inside job.

And you're right - I have NOT been following the AGW debate, because I've seen dogmatic undertones emerging in it. The difference, however, is that the climate researchers are arguing the significance of the facts presented to them... rather than discounting them altogether. (Religions are good at that...)
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 399
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/3/2010 6:40:34 PM

Religious doctrine is "peer" reviewed, by by the similarly faithful.


And this is possible how? (Fallacy of argumentium ad populum)

Religion is not a process of hypothesis -> test -> data ->conclusion -> reproduce data and test again. Religions are belief system with no process of testing and no falsifiability.

You cannot peer review something if there is no means to test or reproduce data.

Your faith and feelings are entirely subjective and cannot be resolved into "truth"...only "whatever makes you feel good"

Now if you are satisfied with that result, whatever floats your boat. Can you truly say you have learned something new about the universe? I don't think so. You cannot say you have learned something unique as your "test" will reveal nothing that cannot be similarly "tested" by someone of a completely and perhaps radically different faith system and methodology than your own...perhaps of a completely differing morality than your own, but may yet arrive at the same conclusion.

We know that our senses are highly subject to being altered and confused in a variety of ways, as are our feelings. Is THIS the basis for a test and "peer review" system for arriving at truth?

Leaves me feeling a bit cold, sorry. Hoping for a better explanation.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 400
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/3/2010 10:07:40 PM
Yeah uh, how about instead of leveling criticism at your fellow posters you put your money where your mouth is and actually put up a convincing set of arguments instead of just trolling the thread?

Some of us have indeed gone beyond introductory, first year philosophy courses and can also recognize weaseling when we see it.

I won't wait up for the response I will assume by morning you'll have pulled something out of your sleeve or hat

But just in case anyone is a little slack on their ideas of what constitutes a good argument (it's not just the automatic gainsaying of someone else's position) and unlike what this poster seems to be demonstrating it is not abuse... that's down the hall next to "getting hit on the head" lessons...

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm


Inductive Inferences

When an argument claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference. The standard of correctness for inductive reasoning is much more flexible than that for deduction. An inductive argument succeeds whenever its premises provide some legitimate evidence or support for the truth of its conclusion. Although it is therefore reasonable to accept the truth of that conclusion on these grounds, it would not be completely inconsistent to withhold judgment or even to deny it outright.

Inductive arguments, then, may meet their standard to a greater or to a lesser degree, depending upon the amount of support they supply. No inductive argument is either absolutely perfect or entirely useless, although one may be said to be relatively better or worse than another in the sense that it recommends its conclusion with a higher or lower degree of probability. In such cases, relevant additional information often affects the reliability of an inductive argument by providing other evidence that changes our estimation of the likelihood of the conclusion.


It should be possible to differentiate arguments of these two sorts with some accuracy already. Remember that deductive arguments claim to guarantee their conclusions, while inductive arguments merely recommend theirs. Or ask yourself whether the introduction of any additional information—short of changing or denying any of the premises—could make the conclusion seem more or less likely; if so, the pattern of reasoning is inductive.


So where's the support for the claim being made through inductive reasoning? Data...you cannot make bricks without straw, as Holmes remarked, yet you seem to be attempting it frantically.

See the area in bold. So far, we have bupkiss that is actually connected to your main proposition. About as loosely connected as a cobweb. So far we have nothing that even makes the conclusion even remotely likely, not to say even more or less.

Maybe a restatement of the argument into something coherent would help instead of trying to string it along over a half dozen posts...this just leads to obfuscation and trying to paint one's self out of corners. Good luck with that.
 JP1111
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 402
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 12:00:41 AM

we are either left with a paradox or epic circular arguments


To me, all of this is wayyy out there as I see the FACTS in all of this. What are they? Let's see, science has abled us to make new discoveries, find new ways of doing things etc... and god... there has been no concrete proof or facts to prove god exists. Short of OFTEN being told “read the bible all the proof is there”, I'm sorry but I put absolutely no faith in ANY of what is in the bible as factual. There are also many books about Santa Clause :)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 403
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 3:07:53 AM
RE Msg: 468 by annasthasia:

For some reason, my previous post was deleted, so I'm going to keep it shorter and keep it much clearer:
I cannot wrap my head around someone who actually believes that an invisible god talks to his people... Oh... you mean telling the sociopaths amongst your people things like this?


http://www.evilbible.com/

Taken from an other poster on an other thread, but it applies here.

snip..


...After all, if God says it's all good to do an occassional genocide, who are we to argue?


It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.

For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!

In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.


You are talking about THAT god of yours right?
A few problems:

1) It is totally unacceptable to hold mentally ill people accountable for their actions that are the result of their mental illness, including murder. If someone kills because of a delusion, they are ill, and you cannot charge them with murder. If you regard theists as delusional for their beliefs, then yo cannot hold them accountable for any deaths that were caused as a result of that delusion.

2) If you think that G-d doesn't exist, then you don't believe in most of the Bible, and you cannot hold it an accurate document. So you cannot claim that murder happened based on what is written in the Bible.

3)
In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!
If you bothered to read Judges, then you'd have read that the whole reason the people went to war with the tribe of Benjamin, was to bring rapists to justice. It is impossible to suggest that any man would bring his own sons to war, and have them die, to defend the victims of rape, only to allow his own daughter to be raped.

Quoting material, without bothering to read the whole story contained in the text, is something an ignorant person does. It's not something an academic does. You simply cannot be an academic and do this.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 404
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 5:08:35 AM
Inquisitive dummy that I am I looked up 'inductive reasoning'. One particular item on the site changingminds.org caught my attention in describing it...

"It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations."

Try as I might, I fail to see how you can use that to go from "97% of the worlds' population believe in some form of higher power" to "Therefore, God Exists"... or even the lesser conclusion of "Therefore, religion is true".
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 405
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 10:23:04 AM


The only claim I have had thus far is that religious claims (and any ethical or moral claims) are not subject to empirical proof and deductive reasoning. If you bother to actually read the other posts in the thread (or read just about anything by Richard Dawkins) the gist of the argument against religion and in favour of some sort of materialism is because of that very fact. The implication is that inductive reasoning, which cannot present an airtight argument ever, has no merit.

I am simply saying that notion is incorrect.

If you will concede that I am right, then we can move on, I suppose.


Why ever would I do such a thing as that?

Religion and morality show a very clear trail of breadcrumbs that anyone with a library card can follow back to their earliest origins to our earliest behaviors as tribal peoples through deduction and empirical observation of ancient records and law codes religious and secular, tribal taboos, etc. right back to primate group behavior...

One does not need to postulate invisible men living on clouds or watery tarts distributing scimitars, etc.

For inductive reasoning to work, you need support. Produce a supported argument and people conceding to it will surely follow.

In the meantime, your basic premise remains unsupported. You have a numerical equation, you have yet to show how it relates to the existence or non-existence of deity.

Rotsa Ruck.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 407
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 11:32:55 AM
probably, because science encourages thinking and religion discourages it, preferring rote regurgitation of 'faith'

faith by definition means suspending critical thought and accepting what you are told
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 408
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 1:54:02 PM
^^

and it is so obvious that most religious writing/teaching is geared at controlling social behavior.

which just HAPPENS to be the behavior that would most profit the rich, controlling elements of society. (you know, the same ones that wrote the teachings.bible, etc. and claim they "received word from God")

thous shall not steal, you should work hard for your employer, you should take one wife and be with her for the rest of your life, you should not eat this with that, etc., etc.

why doesn't "God" just speak to us directly?

why is it always that some 'wise man' sneaks off into the wilderness ALONE , no witnesses (ever) and then claims that God spoke to HIM and has many things to say to all people?

many of us can see that Joseph Smith , founder of the Mormons was a fraud when he claims to have talked directly with God & received instructions about how the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, etc.this all happened in the 1800's

but when Moses claimed to have gone off & had a burning bush talk to him, THAT is 'more believable" ?

why? because it happened a longer time ago and thus is harder to check up on?

how do we know that Moses was not just a scam artist trying to gain a little social control?

we believe that people used to routinely live to be 900 or 1,000 years old? bush-wah!

makes no sense, even the bible says that lives were constrained because of the 'sin' of Adam & Eve" but that was long before these Methuselahs were around.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 409
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/4/2010 1:54:13 PM
^^

and it is so obvious that most religious writing/teaching is geared at controlling social behavior.

which just HAPPENS to be the behavior that would most profit the rich, controlling elements of society. (you know, the same ones that wrote the teachings.bible, etc. and claim they "received word from God")

thous shall not steal, you should work hard for your employer, you should take one wife and be with her for the rest of your life, you should not eat this with that, etc., etc.

why doesn't "God" just speak to us directly?

why is it always that some 'wise man' sneaks off into the wilderness ALONE , no witnesses (ever) and then claims that God spoke to HIM and has many things to say to all people?

many of us can see that Joseph Smith , founder of the Mormons was a fraud when he claims to have talked directly with God & received instructions about how the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, etc.this all happened in the 1800's

but when Moses claimed to have gone off & had a burning bush talk to him, THAT is 'more believable" ?

why? because it happened a longer time ago and thus is harder to check up on?

how do we know that Moses was not just a scam artist trying to gain a little social control?

we believe that people used to routinely live to be 900 or 1,000 years old? bush-wah!

makes no sense, even the bible says that lives were constrained because of the 'sin' of Adam & Eve" but that was long before these Methuselahs were around.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 413
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/5/2010 3:21:20 PM
religion, depending on 'faith' and 'unprovable' 'facts would be analogous to a scientist declaring that he had done an experiment using hydrogen gas and lead to produce gold -and wants you to believe that 'on faith' - he cannot, of course reproduce the experiment, nor can anyone else, but if you don't believe it, you are a 'bad person' lacking in 'faith'.

or perhaps more relevant to religion, he claims that his ANCESTORS, 100 + generations ago, did such an experiment and wrote down the results, thus 'proving' that it can be done.

or that he (or better yet, his 100+ generation-ago ANCESTOR) went off into the wilderness, far from any witnesses, and 'the voice of God' told him it could be done, thus he believes it can be done.

most people when they say they hear voices talking to them when no-one is there, are considered insane. but if one claims it is 'the voice of god" this is perfectly normal?

how does one know that the people who claim they talk to god are not at least mildly insane?

or using drugs - I'm convinced that when Moses heard 'god' talking to him from the 'burning bush' it's because the burnign bush was a high-grade sinsemilla plant.

I've talked with God while I'm high before, too ;)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 414
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 4:03:48 AM
RE Msg: 502 by annasthasia:

annasthasia, it seems that although we have argued vociferously, you have shown me that we do have a lot more in common than I believed possible. Given what you wrote in msg 502, I am inclined to think that you are a very intelligent person, but one that still has strong emotional feelings about religion. However, I've experienced more than enough pain in my life to understand how easily we can develop such strong feelings about things. So I'd like to take the chance here, to say that if I in any way gave you or anyone else a negative impression of you or your capabilities, then I was wrong to do so, and I very much wish to apologise for any hurt that I might have caused.


Coincidence?... Then again, these non explainable events happen sort of regularly and I am sure it is common but no one wants to share because maybe it is taboo... I have no clue really.
It's very interesting that you wrote this, annasthasia. A good friend of mine told me and another good friend that one night while abroad, he had tremendous pain, unlike any he had experienced before, and the very next day, his mother rang him and said his father had suffered a heart attack and gone to hospital.

He too said he didn't tell anyone else, because they wouldn't understand. But he seemed OK to tell me. But then, I tend to think that almost anything could happen, and I'm usually willing to listen to anyone's story, as it rarely hurts, and usually enriches my life for gaining more information about the world.

I've seen and heard quite a few things like that, enough that I know that it happens a lot more than we might imagine. I don't really try to put them in a scientific context, because they don't really fit. To expand science to include these kinds of phenomena, would require that science allow for the meta-physical. That would require a huge reworking of current scientific concepts, and would probably open it up to all sorts of pseudo-scientific claims that aren't based on any actual meta-physical experiences at all. So I'm happy to leave science mostly as it is, but with the proviso that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5).

I swear a complete repulsion of the bible... I am a bit ashamed of that because my mother ( the most catholich person I know), did her d a m n e d best, pardon the pun, to make a good catholic woman out of me. She event sent me to a sort of boarding place with catholic nuns. I believe she was hoping I would get the calling and become a nun ... I do not regret those years but boy did I ask questions and believe me... It was a complete education onto itself... (This is for an other thread I believe... Let's just say that the spirit world and the confines of a "convent" type of setting do not mesh well with each other... All this to say that I know a lot more about the bible and religious customs than I ever cared to know. )
You remind me again of my friend. Although we met in Yeshiva, he told me that before he went, he was going to be a Xian missionary. He had the Jewish religion rammed down his throat, and it made him want to go the other way.

Why he went to Yeshiva, I don't know. But it totally changed his perspective on Judaism. I think that he met enough open-minded people, and he actually learned enough about what Judaism actually says, that he realised that his experiences were not due to the religion itself, but were due to the attitudes of the people who happened to be his teachers.

It reminds me much of what John Locke said, about our minds being a "blank slate" that are formed by our personal experiences.

Again, I keep having this weird idea. Maybe people created religion in order to put these spiritual events in a box and neatly explain them through manipulative sociopathic people.
I can relate to this, and there probably are religions that have been made to control people.

However, I've met people who quit drugs because of spiritual experiences they had, and I've met plenty of people who've changed their lives for the better because of the spiritual experiences they had. Other people have written books because of their spiritual experiences, and others have read those books, and having read those books, they have changed their lives for the better. I think that this is what religions are mostly about, having spiritual experiences that change your life, and others' life, for the better.

I think that such mystical experiences are types of epiphanies, that flash of insight when everything is clear to you, and you know how to live your life in a much better way. The problem, as someone pointed out to me, is that "epiphanies don't last". While you are in an epiphany, a mystical experience, you see things clearly, and know how to live. But they fade, and as they fade, things become less and less clear. So I think that the benefit of such flashes of insight, is not being in them, but what you can retain from them, that is logical, and does make sense, that will improve your life for the better in the rest of your life.

But as the insight fades, our old self-destructive instincts return. At that point, some who are part of that epiphany, or the movement that is based on it, find their freedom of choice returns, with the ability to use that movement for good, or for ill.

It it rather like the film "Reds", which I was watching a few days ago. The intent of those in support of the Russian Revolution, was to change the people's lives for the better, and while they were in the mass epiphany of the time, they saw things clearly. But as their mass epiphany faded, they started to change back into selfish people, and at that point, the U.S.S.R. started killing anyone who disagreed with the state, even on a small point, on the basis of "national security".

Whether it be religion, or "national security", or any other concept that is supposed to help the people, such concepts can be used to help the people, or to oppress them. It is up to us, to remember why we adopted a religion or a concept of "national security" in the first place, and to ensure that it is only used to help people, and not to hurt them. Equally, even when it is used to hurt people, it is up to us to remember why we adopted such concepts in the first place, to remember what they taught us that can help people, and still continue to use those concepts to help people, rather than just abandoning them altogether, and returning people to misery.

To me, all religion is really about, is the Golden Rule, "what is hateful to you, do not do unto others". Whether we choose to follow religion or not, let us not ever forget that. Let us encourage all people of religion and non-religion to follow this rule, and for ourselves to uphold it at all times, so that we may only ever help people, and not hurt them.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 415
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 10:41:38 AM
it is interesting to me how much profound religious or spiritual experiences seem bound up with, and intertwined with insanity, seems there is a very fine line there

e.g. the so-common-it's cliche of people suffering from schizophrenia, in mental hospital or institutions, etc, believing that they are really Jesus Christ, the original or another incarnation, or Moses, or God, etc.

also have heard of people who take the bible VERY literally- e.g. if they felt their hand caused them to sin, they cut it off.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 418
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 12:07:52 PM
Once again, App just redefines words to suit his particular take on a subject. And hey, if all you got out of this thread was various people saying, "religion Z sucks," you haven't been paying attention.

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 420
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 1:12:04 PM

"c o c kroach" is an English-speakers' pronunciation of "cucaracha". The people who coined and initially used those terms were referring to house-infesting insects.


So it's surprising that the people who came up with the nomenclature first encountered the creatures close to home and then discovered others that shared similar morphologies further afield? Okay...and?


Are all Blattidate therefore cucarachas?


Can you give an example of an exception? I know not all members of the corvidae family look like crows. However, just because they don't look like Crows, doesn't make them "not corvidae." Is this what you mean?

Again...what's the point? And how is it relevant to the thread?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >