| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2009 03:06:18 AM · #451 |
I keep coming back to the idea that since it's so difficult to manage one's own life, that it really doesn't seem right or fair to tell someone else how they should manage theirs.
There are easily distinguishable basic morals that are societal and reasonable, i.e., don't kill your neighbor or burn his house down, but once you start getting into the more personal matters, then you really have to respect the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit, especially when their lifestyle has no bearing on yours.
It's arrogant and presumptuous to insinuate, much less come right out and state that something that is so personal, and none of your business, such as who your neighbor chooses to live their life with somehow has any bearing on your relationship with your partner.
Back to you on that......live your own life, and respect the rights of your neighbor to live his/her life without interference from you.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2009 05:41:14 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What you are saying here, to me, is that the axiomatic roots of religion feel wrong to you. All philosophical positions have axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. Rationality is merely the logical application of those axioms. Religion, therefore, can be as rational or irrational as any other philosophical construct. |
I disagree.
You seem to believe that all axioms are equally arbitrary. However, there is an obvious difference in quality beween the following two competing axioms:
(1) the rules of physics have applied and will apply consistently and predictably throughout space and time; and
(2) the rules of physics have been and may be suspended from time to time in accordance with the whim of an almighty, omnipotent and omniscient supernatural entity.
Every observation that we have made supports the first axiom as being true, yet you persevere (eg in the boxcar discussion) in asserting that the second is true on the basis of your unsupported intuition. Neither axiom is demonstrable, but based on the evidence one is rational and the other is not.
I would also disagree with the concept that a religion is based upon axioms - the concept of an axiom is that of a basic irreducible principle from which more complex truths may be discerned. A religious text such as the bible contains millions of principles, few of which are irreducible, more than a few of which conflict, and about which there is often little agreement about their import or meaning.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2009 05:57:22 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And yet, there are maths that are entirely theoretical and that are at the core of our attempts to expand our knowledge even further. The math you are talking about is pretty generic, it's been around forever, it has a one-on-one correlation with the observable; but such maths are inadequate to the complexities of modern physics and cosmological exploration.
Hell, there's a whole category of numbers called "imaginary numbers" without which higher math isn't even possible, and there's the "irrational numbers", and on and on. I'm the furthest thing from an expert in this stuff, but I know it exists...
R. |
As I understand it, exotic mathematical functions are useful because they may form the "middle" of an equation that has its roots and conclusions established in the real world. While they may seem crazy in the abstract, irrational and imaginary numbers behave in a predictable and useful fashion and have real world application.
Pi (an irrational number) is a good example of which I am sure that you have experience (but will never have been able to express numerically).
Edit to add: more relevant to a photography site, the golden ratio is another irrational number that many users of this site use regularly and can be seen in beautiful pictures like this
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 18:04:20.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2009 06:01:15 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What you are saying here, to me, is that the axiomatic roots of religion feel wrong to you. All philosophical positions have axioms that are taken as self-evident truth. Rationality is merely the logical application of those axioms. Religion, therefore, can be as rational or irrational as any other philosophical construct. |
I disagree.
You seem to believe that all axioms are equally arbitrary. However, there is an obvious difference in quality beween the following two competing axioms:
(1) the rules of physics have applied and will apply consistently and predictably throughout space and time; and
(2) the rules of physics have been and may be suspended from time to time in accordance with the whim of an almighty, omnipotent and omniscient supernatural entity.
Every observation that we have made supports the first axiom as being true, yet you persevere (eg in the boxcar discussion) in asserting that the second is true on the basis of your unsupported intuition. Neither axiom is demonstrable, but based on the evidence one is rational and the other is not.
I would also disagree with the concept that a religion is based upon axioms - the concept of an axiom is that of a basic irreducible principle from which more complex truths may be discerned. A religious text such as the bible contains millions of principles, few of which are irreducible, more than a few of which conflict, and about which there is often little agreement about their import or meaning. |
I do not think your second statement is irreducible as you say is required by axioms. Also it is contradictory to say an axiom is "supported" by anything. If it requires evidence to support it, it is not an axiom. You cannot consider an axiom to be rational "based on the evidence". You are talking about a theory or hypothesis, not an axiom. You are also, now, talking about the Scientific Method and not the Logic of Philosophy.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 18:01:54. |
|
|
|
04/14/2009 06:34:58 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do not think your second statement is irreducible as you say is required by axioms. Also it is contradictory to say an axiom is "supported" by anything. If it requires evidence to support it, it is not an axiom. You cannot consider an axiom to be rational "based on the evidence". You are talking about a theory or hypothesis, not an axiom. You are also, now, talking about the Scientific Method and not the Logic of Philosophy. |
I was using the language that you adopted, but I was probably too strong in referring to irreduction. If we want to find ultimately irreducible axioms (especially outside the realm of mathematics) then we get down to "I am" very quickly, so if you want to use the word in this discussion we'll need to use it in a less mathematical fashion.
My first statement was an example of inductive reasoning used to establish first principles in the field of physics - and an axiomatic one in that context.
My second statement is probably as axiomatic as religion gets: there is a god who intervenes outside the normal rules of physics.
I think that the comparison is awkward for your position rather than wrong.
Incidentally, there is a philosophy of science with which you may be familiar - a key aspect of which is the assessment of first principles (or axioms) including inductive reasoning (wiki: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) - I hesitate to raise it because the whole concept of science is on the one hand far less certain than it is treated in the abstract in these Rant forums, but on the other far more expansive in its self analysis and breadth of application.
Edited to be cleverer. And to fix link.
Message edited by author 2009-04-14 19:11:37.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2009 02:52:51 AM · #456 |
There are no absolute's when thinking about God. The meaning is beyond human comprehension IMHO. Therefore each person should believe whatever they want to, never should be told what to think unless they have made the thoughts for themselves first. Then, a person should never limit himself to the Dogma of one particular religion because there are many religions, all collaberations of experiences and academic research in the many millenia of human existence.
Personally, I like the philosophy of Buddha, as much as some of Christ's philosophies, and Hindu beliefs of Karma. I think Im allowed to believe in a Christ consciousness and believe in Reincarnation at the same time; regardless of which beliefs are indigenous to the particular religion. Jesus and Buddha could be the same man; and if you ask me, all places of worship should be academic research centers that explore all the religions "AND" Sciences because Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive, a Dichotomy maybe.
My personal belief is that all advanced life comes from advanced life; and God probably isn't much different from us, he just has it all figured out thats all! :)
Message edited by author 2009-04-18 02:56:47. |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 10:46:03 AM · #457 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
There are no absolute's when thinking about God. The meaning is beyond human comprehension IMHO. Therefore each person should believe whatever they want to... |
There is no way to communicate with dragons. Their language is beyond human comprehension IMHO. I believe you started with two statements that lack any support, too. |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 07:55:30 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
My personal belief is that all advanced life comes from advanced life |
There are literally millions of items of evidence that consistently and coherently say that you are wrong, and none that say that you are right. Of course you are entitled to ignore the evidence and believe what you will, but I think that it is reasonable for people to say that you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2009 10:02:14 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
There are no absolute's when thinking about God. The meaning is beyond human comprehension IMHO. Therefore each person should believe whatever they want to... |
There is no way to communicate with dragons. Their language is beyond human comprehension IMHO. I believe you started with two statements that lack any support, too. |
My last statement was my theory. All in all, I remain Gnostic, but entitled to come up with theories. Most physicists believe that all advanced life comes from advanced life. So yes, I remain Gnostic pertaining to anything that has to do with anything else except proven sciences. So if you call that support, then it's support because its a theory shared by scientists worldwide.
So even though I do believe in Creationism, I keep the belief separated from my interpretation of what God may be, because even though Man might have created man; or if one studies the origin of the medical Cadeuses, Dragons created man in their own image, another question spawns as who created the Dragons? So bureaucracy is the only constant in the universe, and I just like to stop at a certain level and admit to myself that the higher spectrums of intelligence are none of my business really.
Message edited by author 2009-04-18 22:03:55. |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 10:24:23 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Most physicists believe that all advanced life comes from advanced life. |
On what planet? You're going to have to back that one up. |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 10:48:52 PM · #461 |
Indirect evidence is there, nothing absolute of course, or it would be facts not theoretical. First and foremost, being a big Micheal Crichton fan, he wrote a little book called Jurassic Park; Dinos created in test tubes. They are less advanced than humans but advanced life nevertheless, but that didn't happen yet, but he shared the theory because of indirect evidence.
We have already cloned higher mammals, with DNA around 90% similar to ours. Sheeps, Cows, etc.
The medical Cadeuses shows twin dragons wrapped around a staff in the form of a DNA helix. Back to the Bible's Genesis, its logical to assume that If God created us in his own image, then god looks like us. there are some researchers who claim the word "God" is derived from the word "Guide" But what do I know? |
|
|
|
04/18/2009 11:19:22 PM · #462 |
Now you're just blathering.
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
being a big Micheal Crichton fan, he wrote a little book called Jurassic Park; Dinos created in test tubes. |
Read it again, Crichton fan. The dinos weren't created. They were cloned from existing DNA extracted from mosquitos in amber, with a few missing pieces replaced with frog DNA. Regardless, it's science fiction... about as relevant to evidence as warp drives and time travel.
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
We have already cloned higher mammals, with DNA around 90% similar to ours. Sheeps, Cows, etc. |
Cloning isn't creating. It's basically replacing the nucleus of an existing egg with a cell nucleus from an existing animal. Sort of like growing a plant from a clipping.
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The medical Cadeuses shows twin dragons wrapped around a staff in the form of a DNA helix. |
It's "caduceus," and they're snakes. What exactly is the point of this one, that intertwining snakes are evidence that the Greeks knew about ficus trees and Twizzlers?
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Back to the Bible's Genesis, its logical to assume that If God created us in his own image, then god looks like us. |
It's logical to assume that if Hephaestus created lightning bolts as a blacksmith they'd be made out of iron, however there's no logical foundation for the original assumption, and whatever word "God" is derived from applied to other deities long before the concept of monotheism appeared. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:05:20 AM · #463 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Most physicists believe that all advanced life comes from advanced life. |
Not sure about that...but I'd guess 99.9999% of biologists treat evolution as fact. We evolved from primates, over millions of years.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:37:13 AM · #464 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Cloning isn't creating. It's basically replacing the nucleus of an existing egg with a cell nucleus from an existing animal. Sort of like growing a plant from a clipping. |
It's exactly like growing a plant from a clipping ... check out the history of the Navel Orange, a seedless mutation, of which every single living specimen is a direct copy of a single branch of an orange tree in Brazil, which produced its abberant fruit in the mid-1800s.
Of course, Luther Burbank demonstrated that, in the plant world anyway, it was possible to hurry evolution along a bit ...
Message edited by author 2009-04-19 00:40:34. |
|
|
|
04/19/2009 12:40:10 AM · #465 |
Originally posted by david_c:
I'd guess 99.9999% of biologists treat evolution as fact. |
Pretty close. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 08:14:20 AM · #466 |
I think it's funny that just like every forum I've ever been a part of this thread has strayed extremely far from the OP's intent because it has to do with the topic of religion.
It always turns into a debate between faith vs. fact, science vs. religion, etc...
What's the point of debating about it in a forum? Chances are that nobody is going to be "converted" or change their mind about their beliefs because of what someone says in a photography forum.
Some people try to argue that science and faith can agree with each other and be friends. I don't see how. Faith is believing in what you can't see. Science is based on observation and experimentation which is believing it what can be seen. They are polar opposites.
Why waste your time arguing about it here? Why can't we just answer the OP's question and leave it at that? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:10:15 AM · #467 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think it's funny that just like every forum I've ever been a part of this thread has strayed extremely far from the OP's intent because it has to do with the topic of religion.
It always turns into a debate between faith vs. fact, science vs. religion, etc...
..
Why can't we just answer the OP's question and leave it at that? |
Oh the irony. The OP's intent question wasn't about science and faith, but you're continuing that path.
Of course science and religion can be friends. Where did the scientific method come from? How sustained the scientific method through the dark ages. Who created schools to study science? The church. Look it up.
Science brings us to a closer to God.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:26:28 PM · #468 |
Geee, I tought we were over that "My God is stronger than your god" period. To me, all religion worship the same God (God, Jehova, Yahvee, Allah, Mother earth, the great spirit, etc), they just do itin a different way.
If you live you live with love for others and respect for all and everything, there's no way God will deny you Heaven, whatever religion you may follow.
If I were God (and I'm not), I would be pretty angry to see people kill other people in my name just beacause they gave me another name!
My relation with God is a private and perosnnal relation. I talk to him when I need to, when I feel bad or need consel, or even when I feel great. He may not answer in words, but he answers. The bible and service are pretty good moral guides, but in the end, it's just between me and Him. When I meet Him (as later as possible, please), I'll have clear conscience and a heart with no secrets from Him.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:14:54 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Of course science and religion can be friends. Where did the scientific method come from? How sustained the scientific method through the dark ages. Who created schools to study science? The church. Look it up. |
Actually that would be the Arabic/Islamic scholars who preserved what scientific knowledge there was (mostly from the Greeks) while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. Then, when science began to return to Europe at the beginning of the Renaissance, it was the (Christian) Church which fought virtually every scientific advance practically to the present day (c.f. Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, etc.). |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:55:47 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually that would be the Arabic/Islamic scholars who preserved what scientific knowledge there was (mostly from the Greeks) while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. |
Maybe so, but during the Dark Ages, the education infrastructure of Europe was overseen, if not managed, by the Church.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Then, when science began to return to Europe at the beginning of the Renaissance, it was the (Christian) Church which fought virtually every scientific advance practically to the present day (c.f. Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, etc.). |
That was 500 years ago, and Bruno, Copernicus, and Galileo held to same theory (Copernican system of astronomy). I don't see those as every scientific advancement.
Also, in 1992, the church said it was sorry. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 03:06:27 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually that would be the Arabic/Islamic scholars who preserved what scientific knowledge there was (mostly from the Greeks) while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. |
Maybe so, but during the Dark Ages, the education infrastructure of Europe was overseen, if not managed, by the Church.
|
...Might be the reason why it is still referred to as the "Dark Ages"
Ray |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 03:25:18 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually that would be the Arabic/Islamic scholars who preserved what scientific knowledge there was (mostly from the Greeks) while Europe languished in the Dark Ages. |
Maybe so, but during the Dark Ages, the education infrastructure of Europe was overseen, if not managed, by the Church.
|
...Might be the reason why it is still referred to as the "Dark Ages"
Ray |
The public idea of the Middle Ages as a supposed "Dark Age" is also reflected in misconceptions regarding the study of nature during this period. The contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a "time of ignorance and superstition", the blame for which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly "placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity", and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.[16] For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century[17] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that all people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. According to Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, this claim was mistaken: "There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[17][18] Ronald Numbers states that misconceptions such as "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy" are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research.
From Wiki
R. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 03:56:55 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Also, in 1992, the church said it was sorry. |
Yeah, after almost 400 years -- kinda makes my point, don't you think?
Anybody have a guess as to how many Nobel Laureates in the Sciences have been awarded to those who performed their groundbreaking work at a religiously-sponsored university? I'm sure there are some, but I wonder how it compares with the proportion of religious and secular universities overall.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 16:00:47. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 04:02:18 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Ronald Numbers states that misconceptions such as "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy" are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research.[/i]
From Wiki
R. |
From Wiki.
Come on. If you check the reference, Numbers also use the same people (Copernicus and Galileo)
He also adds Darwin, Freud, and John Scopes.
With Darwin, the church doesn't say you can't believe in evolution.
Didn't know Freud was persecuted by the church.
As for John Scopes, he was convicted by the state of Tennessee, not the church. |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 06:48:14 AM · #475 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think it's funny that just like every forum I've ever been a part of this thread has strayed extremely far from the OP's intent because it has to do with the topic of religion.
It always turns into a debate between faith vs. fact, science vs. religion, etc...
..
Why can't we just answer the OP's question and leave it at that? |
Oh the irony. The OP's intent question wasn't about science and faith, but you're continuing that path.
Of course science and religion can be friends. Where did the scientific method come from? How sustained the scientific method through the dark ages. Who created schools to study science? The church. Look it up.
Science brings us to a closer to God. |
I think the OP's question could be answered by discussing it in a broad way since of the complexity of the topic.
Religion and Science are definitely not friends. They just need eachother to exist, as s Dichotomy as I explained on this thread. The Church controls the education because it has to limit Science in order to keep it on the right pace; I think as Religion as Heart, and Science as mind. Ill explain why it controls infomation in a bit.
To the OP'er Ill answer to the best I can. During my academic research for one of my current papers im working on, I found that the Catholic church is the one and only true faith in a way. I used to think otherwise, but realized why it could be the monopoly of religion. It is the most complex of religions, and takes from each of the previous big religions and re-tells the same story. From the simple Taoism, to Buddhism to Judaism, Catholic faith takes them all, including Christianity which is separate; and gives them all a new age edition. Christ didn't write the bible. All witness accounts; From Noah and angels to the Seraphim, down to the Nephalim and the Buddha; it is much more complex than the simple Paganism, which defines God as energy, spirit, electricity, magnetism, elements, deriving from stars and star dust. The Bible doesn't go back too far in universal history and it was written by 66 men I believe. It even has overtones compatible with Creationism as well; since most of the Gods mentioned in the book were described as Giants, and psychic mediums depicting a flimsy veil between the divine and man, and when looked at in a subliminal manner, could mean alot of things. and it could be pretty hardcore when it defines trans-dimensional entities and the spirit world.
Back to the info control, its to keep the Mind balanced with the Heart, like eve when she ate from the tree of good and evil which is only a parable. Galileo, Newton, etc. were known to give to mankind things that aren't needed for the betterment of the species at the time. Jesus would never use science as a means of gaining physical power. So to have Jesus in your heart, is to live simple.
Message edited by author 2009-07-15 07:09:50. |
|
