NOVA on Intelligent Design
It's really the same thing.
Either way, it's all faith.
Whether you take your
proof from mere empirical
evidence, or some holy
book written thousands
of years ago by men, neither
gives one a definite grasp of
reality.
I thought so too; but i looked it up. Seems Christianity is the largest. Hardly the most prosecuted though! Criticism is not prosecution. Prosecution is jail, torture and murder.
Perhaps someday science will decide to look into the possibility of a god(s). But as there are no logical tools for examining the concept, its a moot point. Scientists might choose to believe at home though. Or not.
Nah. I think more people believe
in empirical evidence.
Some Christian beliefs ARE persecuted against
in some places though.
And THEN science will lose ANY credibility that it has,
going against its very precepts.
Au contraire. There are certainly LOGICAL tools.
There just aren't ones which conform with the
fundamental definition of what a natural science
is. If you find Aquinas or Aristotle as lacking in
logical capacity, I fear you're sadly mistaken.
Nah. I think more people believe
in empirical evidence.
Some Christian beliefs ARE persecuted against
in some places though.
And THEN science will lose ANY credibility that it has,
going against its very precepts.
Au contraire. There are certainly LOGICAL tools.
There just aren't ones which conform with the
fundamental definition of what a natural science
is. If you find Aquinas or Aristotle as lacking in
logical capacity, I fear you're sadly mistaken.
You are quite right in all that you say.
Perhaps a better way for me to put it is that science has no bounds to what we may learn. If its out there, its for us to learn. What IS out there(or not) is kinda moot. The only goal is complete knowledge. We have no means to test any god concept, so god is not a concept that science cares about.
Anyone that says we shouldnt test fully any concept(when/if it becomes possible) is being religious. If we suspect its there, and we can apply scientific method to it, we should. Relentlessly.
To reiterate: I dont mean let us look for god, I mean let us look for everything.
I wont accept that there are facts that humanity should not know. Science wants no dark corners. None.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
What created the laws of physics?
What created the forces that created matter?
Why do these things exist?
The problem is that those are not legitimate scientific questions. They are teleological issues and should be addressed by philosophers and theologians, not by biologists, paleontologists, or physical anthropologists.
Cheers,
Mark
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
Well, the Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhism are the most persecuted religions in China. Does that testify to their "inherent power," too?
Cheers,
Mark
Perhaps a better way for me to put it is that science has no bounds to what we may learn. If its out there, its for us to learn. What IS out there(or not) is kinda moot. The only goal is complete knowledge. We have no means to test any god concept, so god is not a concept that science cares about.
Anyone that says we shouldnt test fully any concept(when/if it becomes possible) is being religious. If we suspect its there, and we can apply scientific method to it, we should. Relentlessly.
To reiterate: I dont mean let us look for god, I mean let us look for everything.
I wont accept that there are facts that humanity should not know. Science wants no dark corners. None.
There might be things with no POSSIBILITY
of the scientific method discovering them though.
See, when you base something on being reproducible,
in order to be believable, then you effectively are claiming
that anything which cannot be so conceived actually ISN'T.
I'm not sure that this distinction matters, but I'm uncertain
about ALL things.
I'm not sure that this distinction matters, but I'm uncertain about ALL things.
In ancient Egyptian religion , for a couple of thousand years anyway, the non-existent was as important as the existent.
The non-existent had power. It was important to remember, and respect, and understand ,and even celebrate the ( paradoxical reality of the )"non-existent" so that it would not destroy humans.
I think that this may have become forgotten about in the last 500 years or so, if not before!!
Science has taken over the "half"role of paying great attention to what is observable , measurable,etc which religion had previously included , up to a point!, and what was left of Western religion could perhaps have resigned itself to that and still retained a very important role in observance of the non-existent.
But I get the impression that the biggest brains of Christian religion were so seduced by the new theories( and perspectives arising from them ) in science that to a certain extent they lost touch with the importance of the "non--existent" .
Having too readily abandoned belief in and respect for that which does not exist ,they insisted instead on the "existence" of god,and ways of "proving it "! !, and lost the influence that went with that role of intermediare with the "other half" (! ! the non-existent one)of reality .
It's like society has literally lost the headspace for the non-existent. Except aliens.!
OR that in fact those things which ARE non-existent , in our everyday lives, are either not noticed , or are erroneously believed to in fact to have existence . There is total confusion in society about what is non-existent!
Hence all the post-structuralists, and deconstructionists, and ists of all kinds ( modern high priests!), currently working on the issue!! !!
While there continue to be so many non-existent things all around us without our recognising and understanding them they have great and often dangerous power!
So it's odd that some fundamentalist religious groups now want to take back some of the genuinely existent stuff to set themselves up with instead ! ! Pre-Galilean.
Are they hoping to draw attention away from that other work on the non-existent?
Is it a territorial dispute along the frontier , or is it just diversionary tactics ; by concentrating on the obviously real ( which tends to get peoples attention) they can undermine the real priests of the non-existent today, make their interpretations and explanations look trivial?
I can't remember how the ancient egyptians explained the origins of the universe.
I think "the origin of everything" is beyond the scope of the "study of the existent" ( that is to say , science). Before the "big-bang" the universe was non-existent , and that needs other tools to deal with it than discussions about proof and repeatable results! In other words it is still matter for religion.
But I think that everything measurable and observable in the development of the universe since this mysterious moment of emergence from non-existence , is more accurately and usefully described by science.
.
So it's odd that some fundamentalist religious groups now want to take back some of the genuinely existent stuff to set themselves up with instead ! ! Pre-Galilean.
Are they hoping to draw attention away from that other work on the non-existent?
Is it a territorial dispute along the frontier , or is it just diversionary tactics ; by concentrating on the obviously real ( which tends to get peoples attention) they can undermine the real priests of the non-existent today, make their interpretations and explanations look trivial?
As far as I know, most fundamentalists are generally threatened by the possibility that the bible could be wrong. The idea that the bible should not be interpreted literally is not a new idea however, for this has been around since at least the middle ages. It did not really start picking up ground once we were able to prove that the reality around us contradicted what was said in the bible.
They attributed to deities. Not that it really matters since it falls along the same lines of modern religion.
But I think that everything measurable and observable in the development of the universe since this mysterious moment of emergence from non-existence , is more accurately and usefully described by science.
We really don't know what happened before or during the Big Bang. The big bang is such a bad term to use in any case, what we (scientists and cosmologists) really mean is that about 13.7 billion years ago, the current expansion of our universe began.
_________________
Philosophy: A good way to demonstrate our ability to make stuff up.
Religion: A good way to demonstrate our ability to believe things that just aren't so.
What created the laws of physics?
What created the forces that created matter?
Why do these things exist?
The problem is that those are not legitimate scientific questions. They are teleological issues and should be addressed by philosophers and theologians, not by biologists, paleontologists, or physical anthropologists.
Cheers,
Mark
Physicists can also answer these questions, or at least have the potential to. However, it may be possible that asking such questions has very much a Russian Doll effect.
However, where these properties of physical laws came from is not, as you say, questions that can be addressed by biologists of any sort. Unless they actually research physics as well.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
I would suggest that physicists may be able, at least at some point, to answer a couple of those questions (in terms of immediate causation). However, ultimate causation is not a valid scientific question. It is why so-called "intelligent design" is not a science.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
I would suggest that physicists may be able, at least at some point, to answer a couple of those questions (in terms of immediate causation). However, ultimate causation is not a valid scientific question. It is why so-called "intelligent design" is not a science.
Hmm. Whoever supports ID nowadays puts the memetic equivalent of a "kick me" sign on their arse.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
Yes, and back when I used to debate IDers online, before I tired of it, I was more than happy to oblige (figuratively speaking).
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
Are you a holocaust denier? Don't the 6 million holocaust victims and centuries of pogroms make Judaism the most persecuted religion?
I thought that Falun Gong was the most oppressed religion today, and that it's persecution by the Chinese government has made it grow exponentially?
-- Doctrine of the Knights of Christ/Knights Templar, First Crusade
Either way, it's all faith.
Whether you take your
proof from mere empirical
evidence, or some holy
book written thousands
of years ago by men, neither
gives one a definite grasp of
reality.
Jesus Christ calandale!! ! would you quit being a contrarian? ? ? (impossible i know) You know better that this so I can't see why you're posting it.
The "truth" of science is only provisionally acepted as it is always subject to falsification by new evidence.
Religion purpously avoids any contradicting evidence and only changes it's doctrine whe social sensebilities change.
_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
How glorious are the victors that return from battle! How blessed are the martyrs that die in battle! Rejoice, courageous athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord, but exult and glory all the more if you die and are joined to the Lord! Life is indeed fruitful and victory glorious, but according to Holy Law, death is better than either of these things.
-- Doctrine of the Knights of Christ/Knights Templar, First Crusade
Now that's something any suicide bomber could take to heart.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
People That Swear Make Better Friends & Are More Intelligent |
20 Mar 2024, 11:08 am |