Thanks for the spelling lesson, but that was not the foremost thing that you had to say. Love is not a chemical reaction, because it is of spirit, not chemistry. True love goes far beyond that which most people are born with, because that kind of love is comprized mainly of vanity, and being attached to those things that feed it. True love is caring more about someone else than one's self. This kind of love is alien to people, until they acquire it in life. But, as long as you persist in reducing everything to a "science", you will never really understand anything that I say.
Thanks for the spelling lesson, but that was not the foremost thing that you had to say. Love is not a chemical reaction, because it is of spirit, not chemistry. True love goes far beyond that which most people are born with, because that kind of love is comprized mainly of vanity, and being attached to those things that feed it. True love is caring more about someone else than one's self. This kind of love is alien to people, until they acquire it in life. But, as long as you persist in reducing everything to a "science", you will never really understand anything that I say.
If I do not agree with you then I do not understand you, is a logical fallacy. Love, besides being a chemical, is an idea. You cannot prove an idea without someone physically testing something to prove it. Whether an idea exists outside of intelligent life forms is a philosophical question with no definite answer. Humans eventually learned that metaphysics accomplished nothing and slowly turned to natural philosophy.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Oh please... you use the word "reasoning" as though you've defined when you've done nothing of the sort.
Not surprisingly, you don't know WTF you're talking about. Why did primitive peoples insist that their gods required sacrifice? When I used the word "belief," I clearly implied the idea of sacrifice, i.e. give up a little now with the hope of getting a lot more later. There's no "reasoning" in that, and no "logic" whatsoever, especially (and this is important) if you're the first one ever attempting for a particular goal. That's a leap beyond all "experience," beyond all "reasoning," and the crucial step in evolution that makes humans human.
You can keep up with your stupid "not surprisingly there's plenty of research in that area" pseudoscience internet nerd sh!t as long as you want. It's not science, but it is as ugly as the worst of any religion ("we know it all! we know it all!" :roll: )
Estrella,
We have reached an impasse, because we shall never agree on anything in essence. All that is left is argument, and I do not argue. Therefore, I shall leave you to your perceptions.
Instead calling names at an idea of mine, why don't you deconstruct it and say what is wrong with it. I did not say I knew this as truth or even good theory. I never claimed we knew everything nor did my language indicate so earlier. And again, religion? I laid claim to no such thing.
Let me go back to your sharp-stick scenario to show you why you're wrong: You think that some individual long ago "believed" a sharp stick would get him more food, so he tried it and everyone followed. Whether the thinking was conscious induction or unconscious pattern-matching, hardly matters - the point is no matter which type it is, that is the most important thing. Now, if you insist on calling unconscious pattern-matting "belief" go ahead, but do provide a link to Vic's New English Dictionary so others can understand you.
In a way you mysterians are so much harder to talk with. One has to spend an eternity just trying to figure you out.
Yes, when one lacks evidence I will refute their claim for lack of evidence. The aforementioned will not keep one from believing though, but nor can it make a man of logic and learning believe.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Your statements are broad generalizations that imply we have knowledge of things we do not have actually have knowledge of. "Everything" this and "everything" that. As such statements are self-evidently false, yet you are convinced of their validity, I can only deduce that the basis from which you make such statements is faith.
After reading some more of the comments in this thread...I might read Dawkins book just for the hell of it.
I have read many editorials and pieces written by scientists about the futility of religion...I honestly expect Dawkins' book to be more of the same.
My general opinion of editorials that I have read in the past is that they put a "spin" on physics and science in general and draw more conclusions than science actually supports... the average reader/audience (even those with scientific B.S.'s) don't catch the "spin" because they are not intimately familiar with particle physics, advanced quantum mech., string theory, astrophysics & cosmology...I am very familiar with all of those topics and use some of them in my research.
I also find interesting to note that many, many great scientist of recent past became increasing philosophical, dare I even say "religious", as they became older.
To me, it patently obvious that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God... science simply unravels the mechanisms of our universe. The mechanisms by which our universe operates do not scientifically state anything about God.
Every major breakthrough has done nothing to disprove the existence the God. When it was proposed and later discovered that the earth is round... that said about "God". That just made "man a liar" once again and soiled the reputations of those who said the world was flat. It seemed that sort of thing happened a lot with religious entities, namely the Roman Catholic Church. But again, the idiocy of man say nothing about God per se.
Anyhow...cheers all!
I have read many editorials and pieces written by scientists about the futility of religion...I honestly expect Dawkins' book to be more of the same.
My general opinion of editorials that I have read in the past is that they put a "spin" on physics and science in general and draw more conclusions than science actually supports... the average reader/audience (even those with scientific B.S.'s) don't catch the "spin" because they are not intimately familiar with particle physics, advanced quantum mech., string theory, astrophysics & cosmology...I am very familiar with all of those topics and use some of them in my research.
I also find interesting to note that many, many great scientist of recent past became increasing philosophical, dare I even say "religious", as they became older.
To me, it patently obvious that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God... science simply unravels the mechanisms of our universe. The mechanisms by which our universe operates do not scientifically state anything about God.
Every major breakthrough has done nothing to disprove the existence the God. When it was proposed and later discovered that the earth is round... that said about "God". That just made "man a liar" once again and soiled the reputations of those who said the world was flat. It seemed that sort of thing happened a lot with religious entities, namely the Roman Catholic Church. But again, the idiocy of man say nothing about God per se.
Anyhow...cheers all!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm anything but a "mysterian." My basis for knowledge is observation and deduction. Mysticism is repulsive to me, which is why I find this pseudoscience religion so repulsive. Remember from threads past, you were the one who thought that believing in Advanced Alien Species is different from believing in God.
However, you missed the most important part of the "sharp stick" scenario while even mentioning it. "He tried it." Amazing. Why? Luck? Give me a break... Design? Irrelevant.
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,598
- 774
- 136
Yes, I should have said: "Bad things sometimes happen...".
I also understand that you claim your beliefs are not based on "opinions, superstitions or biases" and are true beyond question, while others (less blessed?) like Dawkins "simply airs their own beliefs, which are based primarily on their own biases." It's the presumption that your beliefs can claim preferential access to absolute truth that strikes me as somewhat arrogant (and unlikely). I realize you don't see it that way.
Well, I can't take credit for using the holocaust away from Dr. Bronowski. I'll agree that science\technology magnify the consequences of mistakes like this. But the real mistake was that people came to believe they had absolute knowledge, and were consequently entitled to do whatever was called for to pursue their truth to its ultimate end. That's why IMHO doubt is an essential human virtue.
[/quote]
If you're not a mysterian, I have to wonder why you've spent virtually the entire thread ranting against those that simply want more answers. Unlike mysterians, I don't claim with certainty what is knowable and what isn't, and certainly do not want science to stop just because it might offend the faithful.
No, no--I read too much into your comments. I do want to say that religion used to be respectable. It explained, say, why it rains. It was some god...we danced and sometimes it rained and we forgot when it didn't. But now science explains that phenomenon much better. Of course all reasonable people agree with this.
What I think faith is (although I could be wrong), is a new feature of religion to suck the rational person in. (Thus, I don't think it's an intrinsic element.) I can't believe that most religious people think that the evidence is against them. If they looked at the evidence they'd find that, say, prayer doesn't work. How many religious people think that prayer doesn't work? Very few, I'd imagine. But for those few, how they stay sucked in, is by this "virtue" of faith. It's sad.
Of course the more interesting thing here is about the psychology that's going on, which I don't understand at all. (See also the delusion on American Idol...) If anyone has a good reference on this stuff, I'd be grateful.
PowerEngineer,
It is not correct to focus on beliefs of the religious as the cause of the worlds problems, because the secular portion of the world has had their hats tossed in the ring also. Since beliefs is a common underlying factor to all world problems, the only way to eliminate these is to eliminate the human race...or convert them all to Christianity. I'm sure that will raise the cry about all of the "bad things" in the Christian Church's history, but when I said Christianity, I did not mean to any Christian Church made of matter. A true Christian never intentionally causes "bad things", nor is so likely to cause them unintentionally. But, when they happen anyway, a true Christian can forgive, not seek vengence. This meekness does not prevent a Christian from using force to protect themselves though.
Beliefs are common to mankind, not just to the religious. But, for those who are not religious, science is the most common source for basing a person's beliefs on. Therefore, science is not only a tool which can produce "bad things", but it is also the seed from which these actions grow. Consider the current situation in Iraq, how much of a threat would Saddam or any other Middle Eastern country or people have been, if not for the scientific technology that has been imported there? Was the countries that did this exporting of technology doubtful as to outcome of their actions? No, they had confidence that they would continue to exert sufficient influence over them to control the situation.
It is not correct to focus on beliefs of the religious as the cause of the worlds problems, because the secular portion of the world has had their hats tossed in the ring also. Since beliefs is a common underlying factor to all world problems, the only way to eliminate these is to eliminate the human race...or convert them all to Christianity. I'm sure that will raise the cry about all of the "bad things" in the Christian Church's history, but when I said Christianity, I did not mean to any Christian Church made of matter. A true Christian never intentionally causes "bad things", nor is so likely to cause them unintentionally. But, when they happen anyway, a true Christian can forgive, not seek vengence. This meekness does not prevent a Christian from using force to protect themselves though.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,710
- 31,074
- 146
I guess you haven't read much of the bible. The old testament is crammed with stories about faith. ...what's the point of reading about Abraham, about Job?
Also, you'll find many faithful people convinced that they have proof that prayer works. I've never seen any evidence that prayer doesn't work. Not that I am arguing that it does work, just calling you out for claiming that there is such airtight evidence against it.
zinfamous,
I suppose that the world might be a more peaceful place, if people were all converted to one set of beliefs, regardless of what they were. But, without lobotomizing them, that will never happen. Ultimately, the world shall be converted to Christianity, but not by any mere man. Buddhism has some good qualities, as does all religions, but it is still a false religion.
I suppose that the world might be a more peaceful place, if people were all converted to one set of beliefs, regardless of what they were. But, without lobotomizing them, that will never happen. Ultimately, the world shall be converted to Christianity, but not by any mere man. Buddhism has some good qualities, as does all religions, but it is still a false religion.
Dawkins aside, I don't see it as that there are two choices, just evolution or creation. I would agree evolution has no "purpose", it's just a process that occurs. Much the same when someone builds a house, nailing two boards together is a process that is constantly repeated, but you can't say one leads to the other. So, I fail to see why the religious minded can't accept that maybe evolution is a process God uses to create his "perfection", or God's creations employ evolution (but are still perfect). To say God has to create something perfect and static, but not perfect and dynamic, seems to overlook a very interesting possibility.
I don't believe there is a God in the typical religious sense. White beard, miracles, water/wine, etc. All of that would seem to me a human's best interpretation as to the higher processes in nature and their cause.
There is a substantial amount of beauty in randomness, and if you've ever read in-depth on chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, etc. - there often times is a great deal of higher order structure that is greater than the sum of its parts. In my mind, its much the same way our consciousness is a result of our brain's cell structure.
Originally posted by: Vic
Why? Because you write things like:
This leads me to think that you're either a mysterian that "knows" what we can and cannot know or that you and denigrates those that don't care for such arbitrary limits to knowledge, or you've constructed a monumental straw man, because no one I know claims to know it all.
If its the latter, perhaps you should understand what people are saying before you criticize. As I mentioned before, the ultimate point of the book is that science should continue as it has until now, without regard for the feelings of the religious, the mysterians, the new age hippies or anyone else like that.
Martin,
Myisterian or not, if you believe that science has the potential of answering ALL questions, and offers unlimited knowledge, then you are more devout than most scientists. Science does not have that potential, regardless of how many millenia that it has to study, experiment and theorize. This is a good example of the religion of science.
Myisterian or not, if you believe that science has the potential of answering ALL questions, and offers unlimited knowledge, then you are more devout than most scientists. Science does not have that potential, regardless of how many millenia that it has to study, experiment and theorize. This is a good example of the religion of science.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,710
- 31,074
- 146
That's silly. If you're building a house (your goal), then nailing the boards together is a process towards that goal. In this case, naling two boards together indeed leads to a house being built. This is, in fact, a great analogy to expalin my point! Thanks for misinterpreting, i guess...
Anyhoo, I actually agree with your points, and I do believe you agree with mine. I should have followed up with: if a devout person is willing to accept a god with no intent purpose in creation--that is, an infallible being willing to initiate a random process like evolution just to see what happens, then that would be a place for accepting evolution with a creator. however, this expressly contradicts creationism, which asserts that evolution is God's method of creating man. Evolution is in fact, no method for creating anything in particular. That is a fundamental fact to the theory, which to accept evolution, must be obeyed. The reason I find it extremely difficult to accept any kind of divine creator in the light of evolution is that express intent at the hands of such a creator is almost necessary. (what then, would be the purpose of believing in a creator if that creator had interest in our well-being?)
This however, does not discount the importance of spirituality as a significant corollary to the evolution of humans. As I have said before, as long as death is part of the human condition, so to will be the need for spirituality.
I agree with beauty in randomness, and really get into chaos theory. I did a bit of work on neural development, a stage of the process called "arborization," which simply describes how neorons extend and grow as branches develop off of a tree. To recognize the randomness, yet apparent order between living systems is absolutely mind-blowing. I spend a lot of time within the cell (I create mice with ES cells); and enojy watching these processes repeat themselves on a macro scale while watching the tide at a beach.....
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Vic
Why? Because you write things like:
This leads me to think that you're either a mysterian that "knows" what we can and cannot know or that you and denigrates those that don't care for such arbitrary limits to knowledge, or you've constructed a monumental straw man, because no one I know claims to know it all.
If its the latter, perhaps you should understand what people are saying before you criticize. As I mentioned before, the ultimate point of the book is that science should continue as it has until now, without regard for the feelings of the religious, the mysterians, the new age hippies or anyone else like that.
Wow, man... apparently delusions aren't limited solely to the God believers. Thanks for quoting me out of context though!
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,710
- 31,074
- 146
Wow...just...wow! And you wonder why people think you have lost touch with reality.
:disgust:
EDIT: I dont' know an honest Christian that would claim such patently ridiculous BS. My mother, an ordained minister, would wonder at what point in your life was your "theology" wrecked.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter