|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2008 12:06:12 PM · #1426 |
| Dawkins Ancestor's Tale talks about this - its a fascinating book. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 12:41:52 PM · #1427 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I found this one in the dictionary beside 'irony': (and couldn't find it posted earlier in this thread)
//tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. |
Holy crap! Thanks for posting this Gordon. I needed a good laugh.
/exits thread
|
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:27:41 PM · #1428 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
...it is logical to deduce that man is older than thought - exactly what I wrote. |
No, it's not. Humans may have arrived in Europe earlier than thought, but to say that man (in general) is older than thought is a gross innacuracy that ignores significantly older finds in Aftrica. |
Yes -
1. it is what I wrote
2. it is logical to interpret the words "human" and "peopled" to mean "man".
3. Since it is a common synonym to use man=human=peopled and the article's findings are that man's origins are at least 500,000 years earlier than previously thought - equates to "man is older than thought".
I completely miss your point on Africa. (What do you mean by significantly older finds in Africa?) Are you challenging the article's findings, its conclusion, or what exactly?
Regardless, my point was that this is another example of scientists changing their conclusion on yet more recent evidence. Conclusions that were once held as fact, are now different based upon new facts. Facts gleened from a small fragment of the total, which may in themselves prove (in the future) to be false, based upon newer evidence.
An article recently (I no longer have the link) mentioned that physicists are trying to prove the "God" particle. The actual origin of all things. I hope they do. I hope it explains all the mysteries. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 04:56:27 PM · #1429 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regardless, my point was that this is another example of scientists changing their conclusion on yet more recent evidence. Conclusions that were once held as fact, are now different based upon new facts. Facts gleened from a small fragment of the total, which may in themselves prove (in the future) to be false, based upon newer evidence. |
Exactly. And? That's scientific method in a nutshell. Good to see you finally grasp it. Theories have to be falsifiable in order to be good theories. That's the very nature of good science. If a theory is not falsiable - say, claiming that there's an intelligent designer responsible for the universe - then that is very, very bad science. In fact, it is not science at all, it's mumbo-jumbo. |
|
|
|
03/27/2008 05:08:31 PM · #1430 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I completely miss your point on Africa. (What do you mean by significantly older finds in Africa?) Are you challenging the article's findings, its conclusion, or what exactly? |
I'm not sure how you could have possibly read the text and yet so completely miss the point of the article: that humans migrated from Africa to Europe earlier than thought, not that humans in general are any older. "The timing of the earliest occupation of Europe by humans that emerged from Africa has been controversial for many years. ...hominins which emerged from Africa and settled in the Caucasus eventually evolved into Homo antecessor, and that the latter populated Europe not 800,000 years ago, but at least 1.3 million years ago." |
|
|
|
03/28/2008 03:19:19 PM · #1431 |
Originally posted by Flash:
An article recently (I no longer have the link) mentioned that physicists are trying to prove the "God" particle. The actual origin of all things. I hope they do. I hope it explains all the mysteries. |
Don't get too excited. It is a very exciting area of physics, but not for the reasons you imply.
The particle in question (sometimes jokingly called the "god" particle) is the theorised Higgs Boson particle and the physicists are those operating the Large Hadron Collider. It is a theoretical particle (it has never been directly or indirectly observed) but if it it can be observed as existing then it will confirm parts of the Standard Model of particle physics theory.
It will not explain "the origin of all things", nor "all mysteries" and, most emphatically, is nothing to do with the existence or not of a god.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2008 08:41:27 PM · #1432 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Regardless, my point was that this is another example of scientists changing their conclusion on yet more recent evidence. Conclusions that were once held as fact, are now different based upon new facts. Facts gleened from a small fragment of the total, which may in themselves prove (in the future) to be false, based upon newer evidence. |
Flash, I saw this and thought of you...
|
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:07:45 AM · #1433 |
| Holy crap. This thread is still going? |
|
|
|
03/29/2008 01:47:44 AM · #1434 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap. This thread is still going? |
Silver bullets don't work, you're gonna have to put a stake through its black heart. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 08:26:09 AM · #1435 |
I can't believe that I am going to wade into this thread on the 58th page, but I guess I can't resist making a couple of statements (at the risk of who knows what).
I am always surprised at the God vs. Science skirmishes, as it seems to me that both sides of the aisle are speaking a different language. Those with a faith-based point of view are not in the business of "evidence" and "proof". Those with a science-based point of view are not in the business of adopting ideas beyond the realm of "falsifiable" knowledge. For someone steeped in the scientific point of view to demand "proof" and "evidence" of the existence of God is to indulge in a false premise. God, by definition, is infinite and as such is not measurable and is beyond the scope of proof. To insist that God fit into the proof box is a contradiction of terms. It is equally invalid for a faith-based person to expect someone who limits their viewpoint to what can be proven to accept a faith-based point of view. In short, both factions stand on opposite sides of the aisle and talk to each other in different languages, with each expecting the other to adopt their particular premises and language. It's all a bit like the fellow who holds onto the ball and claims that if you can't play by his rules he'll take the ball and go home.
Now there are many people who have an ability to embrace both points of view and are able to live with the ambiguities where there are gaps. For example, science can say much about the big bang and everything that came after the initial singularity. However, science stands mute on whatever may have preceded it because its tools are incapable of falsifying what, if anything, came before the big bang. Some scientists are content to leave the door open to the possibility of a Creator because science does not deal with the precursors to the singularity. They recognize that science doesn't extend that far and is ill-equipped to say anything on the topic. They are either agnostic or in some cases embrace faith traditions as well as science because they care about what science cannot resolve as well as what it can. By the same token, some faith-based people are content to accept a scientific inquiry into the "how" of the universe without suffering any diminution in their faith as to the questions of purpose, intelligent design, Creator and the like. They are not threatened by whatever science produces as a current state of understanding, because science does not seek to answer the faith-based questions. It is reasonable to look at the world with both sensibilities because the universe, life and relationships encompass a broad spectrum of ideas to which both sensibilities speak, at least in part. Neither faith-based thought nor scientific reason corners the market on truth. The unwillingness to embrace both ways of looking at the universe, life, and relationships is a self-imposed limitation, and of course we are all free to impose such limitations on ourselves if we so choose. However, to stand on opposite sides of the aisle and think those on the other side are wrong, ignorant, insensitive, etc. displays a lack of respect and a form of arrogance or intellectual myopia.
As for those who think that religion is somehow a travesty on mankind because religion has been used by those who want to go to war as an excuse or justification ought to be careful about what they want to rid the world of. The "causes" and "excuses" for war are extensive and have included all of the following: abundant resources owned by someone else, political points of view, the love of a man for a woman, the bond between brothers and family, tribal loyalty, economic advantage, etc. Should we get rid of all of those because they were "causes" or "excuses" for war? And what about science's intricate involvement in the creation and manufacture of weapons of war throughout history or a government's desire to obtain scientific secrets of an opponent? When those are part of the equation of war should science be abolished? To paraphrase the well-known phrase, "Guns don't kill, Men do" -- Religion doesn't cause wars, men do. For every idea and system of belief and scientific advancement there are always some men and women who manage to abuse them. That does not justify rejection of the idea or system of belief or science; it may justify the condemnation of those who promote the abuse.
As for those speakers and authors of books on both sides of the aisle, just remember that they are making a buck on this debate. The more strident they become the more books they sell and the larger the audience at their speaking engagements. They are not in the business of balanced thinking. They are advocates with a substantial personal windfall at stake and they are making hay while the sun shines. Now there is nothing wrong with making a living (even a lucrative one) by presenting one's point of view. I just don't lose sight of the fact that there is a great deal of self-interest going on in the process. I would be more impressed if I learned that the speakers and authors on both sides of the aisle were giving the bulk of their profits to the poor.
I think there is much of value on both sides of the God vs. Science discourse. When it gets vitriolic, however, those who lack an appreciation for the other point of view might be better served to expand their mind a bit and consider what is valid on the other side of the aisle. I am reminded of the years I was involved in scholastic debates. As with all good debates, the protagonists might be better served if they were required to change sides in the discussion and advocate the opposite point of view for a while.
(edited to correct spelling)
Message edited by author 2008-03-30 08:28:02. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 08:44:37 AM · #1436 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So are there any others who feel the same as I do; that there is a balance in the big picture that leaves room for both faith and science?
|
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
I will not reply to this thread
OK, I will.
Generally speaking....
I sincerely do not think there is room for both because one does not accept the other. Science accepts the fact that humanity is still in its infancy and may not have the education to completely dissociate itself from religion. As for the religious circle, they mostly contend that science is god and cannot accept an argument to the contrary because it goes against their beliefs and that's a sin according to their religion. Many religious leaders see science as a way to disprove their beliefs so how can you expect them to accept it?
Edit, I just read Chalice's post and I want to say I agree with it almost entirely. Well said Chalice.
Message edited by author 2008-03-30 08:49:42. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 11:17:02 AM · #1437 |
Originally posted by chalice:
For someone steeped in the scientific point of view to demand "proof" and "evidence" of the existence of God is to indulge in a false premise. God, by definition, is infinite and as such is not measurable and is beyond the scope of proof. To insist that God fit into the proof box is a contradiction of terms. |
I find this part of your post the most interesting, as it contains a critical flaw that makes your motivations suspect. By whose definition is God infinite and so on? Yours? Established religions'? What has led to this definition? I don't accept your definition at face value; convince me. In short, what proof do you offer that yours is the correct definition of what a god is?
This is the basic problem with the theistic position. The assumptions that need to be made in advance of any discussion paradoxally make any discussion pointless. If you are now to suggest that this is the case with, for example, theories of the singularity, you would be mistaken, since the big bang theory is just that -- a theory open to revision and posited in order to be changed in future.
Regarding the big bang, you're correct in that science stands mute on what preceded it -- currently. The difference between science and non-science is that science is open to the possibility that the big bang is not the best way to describe the origin of all things pending better evidence. That hypothetical better evidence has every potential to also point to theories about pre-singularity reality. Who says otherwise? That's the hope of any scientific theory -- to be modified into oblivion in the cause of furthering knowledge.
Non-science is not open to such thinking, since such thinking represents its very demise.
Originally posted by chalice:
It is equally invalid for a faith-based person to expect someone who limits their viewpoint to what can be proven to accept a faith-based point of view. |
I also find your motivations interesting in light of how this is presented. Why haven't you said something like, "It is equally invalid for a faith-based person to expect to be absolutely and incontrovertibly correct about their beliefs since there is no possibility to prove anything they say." That would have been a more balanced statement to make, given that you subjected the atheistic, or scientific, position to this treatment immediately before.
Originally posted by chalice:
As for those who think that religion is somehow a travesty on mankind because religion has been used by those who want to go to war as an excuse or justification ought to be careful about what they want to rid the world of. |
I think there are very few people who would argue that religion is the sole cause of misery for the human race. Likewise, I would think there are very few people who would argue that religion has always been a refuge of peace, love, and mutual understanding and respect for the human race.
Originally posted by chalice:
As for those speakers and authors of books on both sides of the aisle, just remember that they are making a buck on this debate. |
As far as the atheists' side goes, if you have read Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al., I would be surprised to learn that you think such men are not in the business of balanced thinking. It is precisely because they are balanced thinkers, and because there is such an imbalance in the approach to science, particularly in America, that their books needed to be written. The fact that they posit their views emphatically and with passion does not diminish the worthwhileness of their arguments, or their arguments' role of counter-balancing the noise from the other side. As well, to suggest that the only true measure of an individual's commitment to their own convictions would be to eschew all monetary gain arising from them, to donate it all to the poor as it were, is a tad utopian. It's a completely unrealistic way to characterize the true measure of one's commitment to their own words and deeds. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 12:16:11 PM · #1438 |
I am quite impressed with Chalice's essay. Very well spoken position allowing room for both sides.
Louis, your posting that Dawkins is "balanced" reveals you are just dogmatically refuting his point. Dawkins is about as balanced as Billy Graham. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 01:02:43 PM · #1439 |
| Yes, with your reappearance, I fully expected you to take up that point. Your previously admitted prejudice against Dawkins, which you have said probably prevents you from reading anything of his, blinds you to his arguments. A position put forward with passion is not routinely one of dogma. And Dawkins is merely one author in many to put forward cohesive and balanced arguments against unanalytical acceptance of faith. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 01:32:17 PM · #1440 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, with your reappearance, I fully expected you to take up that point. Your previously admitted prejudice against Dawkins, which you have said probably prevents you from reading anything of his, blinds you to his arguments. A position put forward with passion is not routinely one of dogma. And Dawkins is merely one author in many to put forward cohesive and balanced arguments against unanalytical acceptance of faith. |
Maybe we're just using the word "balanced" differently. I would consider a balanced writer as someone open to the opposing point of view. In that regard I would not consider, as mentioned, Billy Graham as balanced. He has cast his lot and really he couldn't care less what the opposing view says, he has made up his mind and will preach his view with gusto. I would consider Dawkins to be the atheist's Graham.
I think I did catch you saying that such an author can "balance" the argument (by having dogmatic atheist authors we balance dogmatic theist authors). I can agree with that. It doesn't, however, make each author, in my use of the word, "balanced".
As an example, I would consider Gould to be more balanced. He obviously falls onto the side of science (as he should), but is willing to leave religion its realm. Dawkins wants to invade that realm and destroy it until no vestige is left. To him, leaving such a place can only do harm.
Still, let's not get lost on semantics. I do like what chalice said and I agree quite firmly with him. Science obviously has its place in the world. A big place. Religion, however, has a place as well. A place which can be good and provide aid and shelter at times Science cannot.
With that, I'm off to church.
Message edited by author 2008-03-30 13:33:13. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 06:43:49 PM · #1441 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
For someone steeped in the scientific point of view to demand "proof" and "evidence" of the existence of God is to indulge in a false premise. God, by definition, is infinite and as such is not measurable and is beyond the scope of proof. To insist that God fit into the proof box is a contradiction of terms. |
I find this part of your post the most interesting, as it contains a critical flaw that makes your motivations suspect. By whose definition is God infinite and so on? Yours? Established religions'? What has led to this definition? I don't accept your definition at face value; convince me. In short, what proof do you offer that yours is the correct definition of what a god is? |
Louis, you prove my point. My initial post takes the position that science and faith-based positions are cast in different languages so that each side of the aisle looks at everything from a different point of view. Your insistance that God be proven simply tells me that you are on the science side of the aisle and your premise is that God must be "proven". Your demand that I "convince" you is evidence of my point. From the faith-based side of the aisle God is infinite and by definition does not fit in the "proof" box. Neither side is speaking the same language. As for "by whose definition is God infinite" the answer is "by God's definition" as handed down by cultural tradition and religious writings. God is also defined as infinite by everyone who stands on that side of the aisle. It is only non-believers who, if they admit to the possibility of the existance at all (ie agnostics), think of God in finite terms. There is no "critical flaw" as you suggest. There is only a different way of looking at things.
If one chooses to limit his or her thinking so that only falsifiable knowledge is deemed worthwhile, then one should simply ignore what's happening on the other side of the aisle. That self-imposed limitation deprives one of a broader way of thinking and experiencing the world around us. (The same can be said for religious people who are unwilling to embrace the value of scientific thinking because they are locked into their "beliefs".) Both sides of the aisle do not need to be mutually exclusive. One simply needs to be able to think outside the box in order to appreciate what is being said on the other side of the aisle. Many people are able to embrace both points of view and are able to live with the ambiguities where there are gaps. However, to dogmatically and repeatedly insist that those on the other side of the discussion satisfy one's own set of premises (eg to require that God be "proven" when, by nature, God is infinite or, alternately, to require a "faith-test" as a prerequisite to the discussion of the origins of the universe, the meaning and composition of life and the notion of relationships) is pointless. To be able to embrace both points of view requires one to be bilingual -- to speak both the language of faith-based traditions and the language of the scientific traditions. Plenty of bona fide scientists can speak both languages and plenty of religious people can do the same.
Originally posted by Louis:
Regarding the big bang, you're correct in that science stands mute on what preceded it -- currently. The difference between science and non-science is that science is open to the possibility that the big bang is not the best way to describe the origin of all things pending better evidence. That hypothetical better evidence has every potential to also point to theories about pre-singularity reality. Who says otherwise? That's the hope of any scientific theory -- to be modified into oblivion in the cause of furthering knowledge. |
I would suggest that it is not only "science" that is open to the "possibility that the big bang is not the best way to describe the origin of all things". Certainly "faith-based" positions admit to that possibility. (Incidently, casting the discussion in terms of "science" vs. "non-science" is not an accurate way of describing the discussion in my opinion because there are legions of "faith-based" thinkers who also embrace "science" and as we all know, science's historical antecedents are from the religious community - at least in the Western tradition.) Also, don't lay the the "big bang theory" at the feet of "non-science" or "faith-based" people. Science came up with the prevailing big bang theory. The fact that the big bang admits to the possibility of the existence of God is one of the possibilities that science has to wrestle with. That is perhaps the chief reason that so many scientists are now turning to faith-based ideas as an adjunct to their scientific ideas. Science now admits the possibility (but not the proof) of the existance of God.
As for the "hope of any scientific theory" (leaving aside the curious use of "hope" in a scientific context) that science will "point to theories about pre-singularity reality", this may simply mark one more step in the chain of scientific discoveries that leads ultimately to God's door. It is plausible (to me at least) that there is a completely different "physics" (to borrow a scientific term) that presages the singularity. If God created the universe, then he may have created the physics that science is investigating. Science may be exploring the inside of a box, quite unable to discover what is outside the physics that it contains, or (hopefully) someday to find enough "proof" to suggest that there is another, different, perhaps grander physics that presages the singularity. I am quite prepared and eager to see what science postulates about that pre-singularity physics. That pre-singularity physics may very well cause the current schism between faith-based and scientific thinking to disappear "into oblivion in the cause of furthering knowledge" as you say. And in the end, science may lead to a prevailing "theory" (falsifiable, of course) of the existence of God. In the meantime, I see enough value on both sides of the aisle to embrace faith-based and scientific ideas simultaneously because neither rules out the other and I don't choose to limit the scope of my thinking to only one set of ideas. A scientist who dogmatically rules out the existence of God or who is unwilling to explore that possibility is simply presupposing the results of the scientific inquiry. Science should have big enough shoulders to leave the bias aside and simply continue the experimentation. A faith-based individual who believes in an infinite God should have big enough shoulders to let science run its course. Both sides of the aisle have something of value to contribute.
edited to correct spelling.
Message edited by author 2008-03-30 18:55:27. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 07:00:40 PM · #1442 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dawkins wants to invade that realm and destroy it until no vestige is left. To him, leaving such a place can only do harm. |
If you need to continue to use Dawkins as an example, I would be interested to see what it is you've read, viewed, or heard tell of that would lead you to this conclusion.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religion, however, has a place as well. |
Only for those that need it. I, and I would argue Dawkins, have nothing against that. I, and I would think Dawkins, begin to have problems when those that control the realm of religion think it their duty to bring all the sheep into the fold, and to do so at any cost, even the cost of science itself and the furtherance of it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
With that, I'm off to church. |
Good. I'll go to the bookstore to talk, wearing my favourite t-shirt. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 07:36:51 PM · #1443 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Louis, you prove my point. My initial post takes the position that science and faith-based positions are cast in different languages so that each side of the aisle looks at everything from a different point of view. |
I accept that my response proves your point, even as your response proves mine.
Originally posted by chalice:
Your insistance that God be proven simply tells me that you are on the science side of the aisle and your premise is that God must be "proven". |
But I didn't insist that God be proven; I asked for a clarification of your definition of what a god is. By asking that you "convince me" of just the definition, I was illustrating that you would not have the means to do so, no matter what your argument. For example, your eventual definition that gods are infinite is inaccurate according to ancient Norse religion. To the Norsemen, the gods are not infinite, and indeed, were created to be finite. Were they wrong? Did their religion flourish for millennia based on a lie? If that's possible, what does it say for any religion, past or current?
Originally posted by chalice:
There is no "critical flaw" as you suggest. |
I was referring to your logic. You begged the question, presuming a definition of gods before any serious debate had even started. As a further example:
Originally posted by chalice:
However, to dogmatically and repeatedly insist that those on the other side of the discussion satisfy one's own set of premises (eg to require that God be "proven" when, by nature, God is infinite...) |
If your definition of a god ("infinite") is in itself meaningless, it seems pointless to try to use that as a device to discredit my argument. It really means nothing to me if, in answer to the question, "What is the nature of god," you continually reply, "Infinite." (As an aside, I wonder if even you are able to adequately relate what it is you are talking about.)
Originally posted by chalice:
I would suggest that it is not only "science" that is open to the "possibility that the big bang is not the best way to describe the origin of all things". Certainly "faith-based" positions admit to that possibility. |
Obviously.
Originally posted by chalice:
Incidently, casting the discussion in terms of "science" vs. "non-science" is not an accurate way of describing the discussion in my opinion because there are legions of "faith-based" thinkers who also embrace "science" and as we all know, science's historical antecedents are from the religious community - at least in the Western tradition. |
Yes. And? I don't really understand the relevance of the connection.
Originally posted by chalice:
The fact that the big bang admits to the possibility of the existence of God is one of the possibilities that science has to wrestle with. |
Erm... no. The "Big Bang" theory as a scientific theory does not admit to the possibility of the existence of a god. There is no part of the theory that says, "in lieu of further evidence, place god here." The "wrestling" part is the continuing advance of scientific endeavour and the further modification of theory in order to come up with a better model. It is not a hand-wringing exercise, nor is it an invitation to belief in gods. The fact that some scientists certainly can choose to put a god into the holes of this theory or that is completely concidental, and says nothing about the theory itself.
Originally posted by chalice:
Science now admits the possibility (but not the proof) of the existance of God. |
I think I'll have to call you on that. A reference is required.
Originally posted by chalice:
Science should have big enough shoulders to leave the bias aside and simply continue the experimentation. |
What bias would that be? The demand for evidence for everything? The insistence that no scientific theory in existence offers even incidental "proof" of God? The bias for facts over fiction, reality over fantasy? Reason over shrillness?
Originally posted by chalice:
Both sides of the aisle have something of value to contribute. |
Religion may have something to contribute to the realm of the individual and how s/he chooses to live his/her life, and that's all fine and well, and more power to those indivduals so long as they act responsibly and respectfully. But as it stands, religion has nothing to contribute to science. Nothing. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 07:39:05 PM · #1444 |
Originally posted by chalice:
If one chooses to limit his or her thinking so that only falsifiable knowledge is deemed worthwhile, then one should simply ignore what's happening on the other side of the aisle. |
That might be a safer and more practical suggestion were not the "other side of the aisle" committed to imposing their particular belief systems and moral codes on the rest of us through means ranging from manipulation of the legislative process to terrorism. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 08:13:18 PM · #1445 |
Originally posted by chalice:
The "causes" and "excuses" for war are extensive and have included all of the following: abundant resources owned by someone else, political points of view, the love of a man for a woman, the bond between brothers and family, tribal loyalty, economic advantage, etc. Should we get rid of all of those because they were "causes" or "excuses" for war?
|
Yes, we should. |
|
|
|
03/30/2008 09:34:46 PM · #1446 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by chalice:
If one chooses to limit his or her thinking so that only falsifiable knowledge is deemed worthwhile, then one should simply ignore what's happening on the other side of the aisle. |
That might be a safer and more practical suggestion were not the "other side of the aisle" committed to imposing their particular belief systems and moral codes on the rest of us through means ranging from manipulation of the legislative process to terrorism. |
I am inclined to agree with you when it comes to "imposing" one's ideas or viewpoint on another person. My postings are intended to address the God vs. Science discussion from the perspective of ideas in their intrinsic form. I am opposed to anyone with any ideas, whether religeous in nature (including my own) or scientific in nature (again, including my own), "imposing" their point of view on the rest of us. The greater the manipulation or terrorism, the more I oppose it.
It is men and women individually and collectively, not the belief systems or scientific system of inquiry, that is the problem. The fact that people seize upon one idea or system of ideas to justify their particular form of "imposition" does not invalidate the underlying ideas. Pragmatically, I agree you can not ignore an opposition group that seeks to impose its will on others whether through legislation or terrorism or anything in between. There are plenty of historical examples of both, where religion or science (or both) are abused in the name of some form of imposition or another, and the examples are not limited to thought systems related to religion or science either (Polpot comes to mind). The abuse of science by Marxist ideas of the scientific dialectic and the Nazi's abuse of science to support the notion of a superior race are as reprehensible as the Inquisition and the Thirty Years War's hijacking of religion. Lesser forms of these examples, from a pragmatic point of view, should be avoided as well, regardless of their underlying tenants.
In its pure form, Science involves a system of inquiry based upon a more or less endless measurement of falsifiable knowledge to arrive at a better theory and a more complete idea about a given subject. In its pure form, religion involves a system of beliefs based upon intangibles about life and where we come from as articulated by oral and written traditions and experiences of men and women who have handed those experiences down through the ages. Neither set of ideas can prove that it has the answer to all things (and dredging up Norsemen is no more persuasive in the religion context than dredging up the flat earth idea in the scientific context). Reasonable people, when considering matters of religion and science, can and do emphasize one more than the other or embrace both at the same time. Neither is a prescription for abuse, although history is replete with examples of such abuse in the name of both. GenralE, I share your pragmatic caution when "imposition" is the result. Ideally, the ideas should stand or fall on their own merits and, on a personal level, should be embraced to the extent that they have meaning for us as individuals. I don't expect you or anyone to look at things quite like I do, nor do I expect to look at things exactly like you do or like Louis does. But "imposition" has no place in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2008 10:52:12 PM · #1447 |
Originally posted by chalice:
Neither set of ideas can prove that it has the answer to all things (and dredging up Norsemen is no more persuasive in the religion context than dredging up the flat earth idea in the scientific context). |
Really? Are you suggesting that religions that came after that of the Norse did something as quantifiable as science did when it eliminated the possibility of a flat earth? Or is it merely that an uncomfortable example is best left to ridicule?
Originally posted by chalice:
Reasonable people, when considering matters of religion and science, can and do emphasize one more than the other or embrace both at the same time. |
Do you then mean to say that those who reject religion are unreasonable? |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 12:11:22 AM · #1448 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
Neither set of ideas can prove that it has the answer to all things (and dredging up Norsemen is no more persuasive in the religion context than dredging up the flat earth idea in the scientific context). |
Really? Are you suggesting that religions that came after that of the Norse did something as quantifiable as science did when it eliminated the possibility of a flat earth? Or is it merely that an uncomfortable example is best left to ridicule? |
Neither. Nor do I ridicule anyone or anything. I simply don't think that either example is representative of current thinking on either side of the aisle.
Since you bring it up, "quantifiable" is another of those terms that presupposes a scientific point of view rather than a religious point of view. It presupposes a scientific premise, which again is evidence of my overall thesis. For religious people God is "infinite". Except in the most abstract way, and almost as an opposite concept, "infinity" is not "quantifiable". To persist in using scientific concepts to challenge an inherently non-scientific notion such as the existence of God seems to me, in my humble opinion, to be fruitless. The language of science is not designed to answer that sort of question (although maybe someday it will somehow get to a theory (falsifiable, of course) that tends to support or refute the notion of a Creator). For now, science is mute on the subject of what, if anything, went before the singularity.
It is interesting that mathematics contains a concept of the infinite, just as does religion. One, of course, deals with numbers rather than theology, but it is an interesting parallel. It is also interesting to note that mathematics is largely responsible for the notion of the concept of a singularity since at present no other science is able to actually measure the singularity. The theory is largely mathematical in its construct. (I don't mean to imply that mathematics proves the existence of God, although it is interesting to note that no less a figure than Albert Einstein was troubled by the notion of a universe that had a beginning. He preferred a steady state or static concept.) I simply point out the interesting feature of the concept of infinity in mathematics and religion, without further elaboration or implication.
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
Reasonable people, when considering matters of religion and science, can and do emphasize one more than the other or embrace both at the same time. |
Do you then mean to say that those who reject religion are unreasonable? |
No I do not mean to say that. If I did, I would have said so. The statement that reasonable people who emphasize one or the other makes no statement about people who reject religion, nor does it make any statement about people who reject science as a basis for understanding existence. The statement I made was part of a paragraph that was part of a larger post that generally agreed with the pragmatic statement made by GeneralE. It did not address people who adopt only one of the two positions.
Louis, I am not going to respond to every sentence you pull out of context to challenge. Nor do I have any intention of trying to persuade you or anyone else of anything. I entered this discussion simply to point out that people of both sides of the aisle are talking a different language and that they start from different premises that impede agreement or even understanding, in some cases. I further point out, however, that many people are able to draw from both sides of the aisle, both scientists and faith-based people alike, because neither religion nor science can lay claim to the whole truth of the universe, the meaning of life, and relationships. The range of ideas is broad enough and the questions are extensive enough to give both sides of the aisle a fair hearing. And reasonable people will come to their separate conclusions and live with the outcomes associated with those conclusions. And (with a nod to GeneralE) when those conclusions turn toward "imposition" they should be reigned in by legitimate means.
edited to add the comment about mathematics and Einstein
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 00:36:31. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:12:39 AM · #1449 |
Originally posted by chalice:
It presupposes a scientific premise, which again is evidence of my overall thesis. ...For now, science is mute on the subject of what, if anything, went before the singularity. |
Religion presupposes some pretty hefty scientific premises of its own... necessitating miracles of alternate dimensions and physics to explain the existence of unseen entities. The very idea of an infinite God presents a conundrum for religious history. Modern religions only date back a few thousand years, a small fraction of human history, and before that the prevailing belief systems were polytheistic. If the same God had always existed, then why did it take so long for most people (and certainly not all) to even believe that there was only one? The point of Louis' reference to the Norse is that since there IS no scientific basis for religion, there's really no evidence to suggest a current religion is any more real than a discarded myth that used to be followed by millions. They are all based upon faith in oral and written traditions passed down from unknown authors, and simply assumed to be true.
You go to great lengths to explain the concept of infinity, yet seem to automatically assume there was something "before the singularity." Why couldn't the singularity itself be infinite?
Message edited by author 2008-03-31 01:28:36. |
|
|
|
03/31/2008 01:39:43 AM · #1450 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You go to great lengths to explain the concept of infinity, yet seem to automatically assume there was something "before the singularity." Why couldn't the singularity itself be infinite? |
You know, Scalvert, I think the idea of an infinite singularity is one of the possible scenarios. I've always read and heard the idea of a singularity as a "beginning" point rather than a continuum. I think the notion of "beginning" as a point in time (or perhaps as the beginning of time) is what troubled Einstein. But as I reflect on it now, I'd be willing to consider your idea as a possible explanation. I'll have to look into it. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:47:58 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 12:47:58 PM EDT.
|
