LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Poll: You are a...
Poll Options
You are a...

You must log in and have one post to vote in this poll. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
Results will be available after the polls close.

The nominees are:

firm believer
Deist
Theist
Agnostic
Atheist

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-16-2014, 06:02 PM   #5251
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,447
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381

For obvious reasons: http://www.captura.uchile.cl/bitstre...FC1?sequence=1 ... what part about zeuϟ is hard to understand\ing he was a grasp at it!

Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-16-2014 at 06:25 PM.
 
Old 12-16-2014, 08:06 PM   #5252
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware{,-current}
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 122Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
But there is more than one way to (attempt to ...) "understand how our natural world works," and I submit that both religion and philosophy ... and for that matter, superstition ... are also legitimate ways to do that.
First of all I hope that it is clear that I'm not willing to fuel any stereotyped "Science vs. Religion" debate. However, I am also not willing to blur the established meanings of words, to a point where they become interchangeable. For instance, when referring to our understanding of the natural world I'm talking about objective, verifiable knowledge (that's what the word "science" normally means) which can be obtained through careful observation, experiments, a rational approach toward gathered data, and peer review. I guess (but of course I'm not sure) that's what enorbet was thinking about when describing science as a process and an exploration tool.

Of course science is not the only possible approach (I didn't say that), however it is by far the most reliable, and the closest to objectivity. Philosophy can be useful, but unless it bases its speculations on a world such as the one known and investigated by the natural sciences, it might drift away and become some kind of soft theology. Regarding religion, it is based on the faith in the existence of supernatural beings and their alleged revelations, therefore it doesn't produce nor improve our knowledge of the natural world (the only one we know of). It might borrow it, use it, try to interpret it, however it is passive in that respect, and that's probably why sacred books are obsolete when they talk about "scientific" matters, never having been reviewed and updated. In fact religion is so defined:

Quote:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
1 b : (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
(Merriam Webster)
Regarding superstition, I would say that it is exactly the opposite of knowledge and understanding:

Quote:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
1 b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
(Merriam Webster)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Science is very powerful, but it is also blind. Experimental science is merely waiting for the right experiment to be performed, or for the results of a previous experiment (e.g. the dropping of two iron balls from the top of a tower) to be interpreted differently.
Science is based on observation and evidence, so I don't understand exactly why you say that it is blind. Of course the natural world is difficult to decipher, for this reason it might be difficult to ask the right questions, thus not all experiments might be meaningful or useful. Religion of course can give many beautiful answers quickly, and can afford that because it is not expected to prove its own statements, thus its life is fairly easier. Philosophies are somewhere in the middle, depending on the "school", but in order to be credible I guess they have at least to show some consistency. That's why a large part of today's philosophy seems to be focused on very specific and rigorous topics, like logic and language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Theoretical science, such as theoretical physics, is the purest form of conjecture.
Yes, but theoretical work is based on a great corpus of already established knowledge, and from there it proceeds with mathematical rigor. Sometimes the experimental confirmation comes much later, because of huge technical problems, see the Higgs boson for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
But, religion is also "a form of conjecture," if you please, at least in one sense. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen," and we humans take things "on faith" all the time. I certainly don't think that we should ever dismiss these things; that we should ever presume to brand them, "wrong." Both philosophy and religion are important components of our "understanding of how the natural world works." We need everything. No single source of information no, not even "science" is by itself sufficient to allow us to exclude any of the others.
One difference between theoretical physics and religion is that the conjectures of religion are subjective and not supported by any shareable evidence. I mean, the "evidence of things not seen" is basically a matter of personal feelings, and is supported by sacred books, which in turn are based on personal feelings. I'm not saying that such feelings are not important, perhaps even more important than everything else, for a believer. I do have feelings and emotions myself of course, and I'm really far from dismissing them, however I have no evidence, even a totally subjective one, that leads me to interpret them in a religious sense. That's why I stick to the least common denominator, so to speak, and I appreciate Ockham's razor.

Regarding what you say about humans who take things "on faith" all the time, there's a huge difference between faith in the existence of something supernatural for which there is no evidence, and confidence based on experience and inductive reasoning. The latter, in the end, is always based on some kind of evidence, be it direct or indirect, while the first is not. If I walk into a bar and order one beer, I am confident that I will not be served some kind of poisonous drink. While not being absolutely certain, it is in fact extremely probable. I know that this usually doesn't happen, and in fact I don't remember of any such case. Moreover, if it happened, I know that the bar would be shut down, the owner would be locked in prison for a long time, and that's how such an unlikely criminal behavior is discouraged. On the other hand, I wouldn't be so confident to drive a car at 100mph on flat tires: I'm not sure that I would crash somewhere, but it's highly probable, as there's a great amount of established knowledge (scientific and not) which it related to that. Therefore, I would clearly distinguish between faith in the existence of supernatural beings, and confidence based on experience and inductive reasoning.

Of course I'm not saying that a scientific monoculture is desirable. Let's just get rid, as much as possible, of wishful thinking and self-deception.

Last edited by Philip Lacroix; 12-17-2014 at 11:10 PM. Reason: English
 
Old 12-16-2014, 09:16 PM   #5253
rokytnji
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 13 , MacPup,Linux-Lite 2.0, SaliX
Posts: 2,847
Blog Entries: 18

Rep: Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912Reputation: 912
Quote:
Let's just get rid, as much as possible, of wishful thinking and self-deception.
Reminds me of buying lottery tickets at the quick stop/convenience gas station store.
One can only pray (like someone is listening).
Ever notice? Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to Bad People?
Koch Bros, Dick Cheney. Just examples.
Even read a study saying psychopaths make the best CEO's.
God must approve. It seems to make the world go round.

I love reading about myth and superstition.
I rate that equal to my love for reading sci fi books.
I have a belief that myth and superstition has some roots in fact.
It keeps my father-in-law. A former jarhead like me. Thinking I am a good son in law for his daughter.

I wonder why Neanderthal man and other off shoots of the human genome never evolved.
But Cro Magnum steps up out of no where and takes over the human race.
They still have not figured out really what the switch in our brains was flipped
on making us the top of the food chain.

Cave Men buried their dead. Mourned their losses. Cared for their elderly.
All before gods came into play.
In the circle of time. Neanderthal ran our woods longer than us. 100 of thousands of years.
I guess god did not like them. Like a red headed step child.
 
Old 12-16-2014, 09:20 PM   #5254
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,455

Rep: Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172
Okay, okay, given that we are all, by agreement, "gemtlemen philosophers" here, let's have a little fun with these various propositions, to wit . . . (emphasis mine ...)

Quote:
Of course science is not the only possible approach, however it is by far the most reliable, and the closest to objectivity.
Yes, yes, but this is also its most-profound weakness: at the very moment that it is compelled to acknowledge that it it is no longer "reliable" nor "objective," it rather-abruptly also becomes "useless."

Quote:
Philosophy can be useful, but unless it bases its speculations on a world such as the one known and investigated by the natural sciences, it might drift away and become some kind of soft theology.
"Aye, but this is precisely philosophy's point (not to mention its very raison d'entre)."

Philosophy has been aptly described as "thinking about 'thinking.'"

As such, it might well be described as, "thinking about that very point at which ["scientiic," "objective-based", etc ..] 'thinking' ... becomes useless."

"It is precisely at just such a very point ... that Mr. Darwin once found himself," but this point is also where he fully expected himself to be, because this is precisely the place that "the philosophy of science" was intended to explore: namely, "the place beyond which we have irrevocably committed our attentions away from the diving-board and into the pool."

After all, this is the very point against which all of us must somehow equip ourselves: "B-R-I-D-G-E . . . O-U-T . . . !!"

Quote:
Regarding religion, it is based on the faith in the existence of supernatural beings and their alleged revelations, therefore it doesn't produce nor improve our knowledge of the natural world (the only one we know of).
Waitaminit ... are we really so eager to dismiss our ancestors' wisdom, or [the validity of ...] their points-of-view, quite so quickly? Are we actually prepared to dismiss their worldview, in exclusive favor of "the only one w-e 'know of?'" (How 'arrogantly presumptuous' of w-e?!)

Quote:
It might borrow it, use it, try to interpret it, however it is passive in that respect, and that's probably why sacred books are obsolete when they talk about "scientific" matters, never having been reviewed and updated.
Ahem(!) ... "these kids today!!"

Hey hey ... for thousands of years, ahem, "these books" w-e-r-e "sacred!!" Are y-o-u actually prepared to, today, "sell all these people down-the-river?" Well, I am not. Even though we might today not be entirely able to reconcile their thoughts vis-a-vis "'scientific' matters, reviewed and updated," I'm not willing to ascribe these so-called "shortcomings" to (21st-Century ...) us. I'm not willing to dutifully strait-jacket their thoughts into our (my ...) touchstones.

Wouldn't it just be the ultimate irony ... at least from our point of view ... if they were "totally-right," and we(!!!) were "utterly wrong?" What if, when ultimately challenged to "think outside the box,™" we somehow absolutely couldn't? ... (just askin') ... (hey, it's a perfectly-valid question ...)

Now, wouldn't that be "the ultimate 'guffaw' in The Afterlife?

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-16-2014 at 09:31 PM.
 
Old 12-17-2014, 12:13 AM   #5255
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware{,-current}
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 122Reputation: 122
Quote:
Yes, yes, but this is also its most-profound weakness: at the very moment that it is compelled to acknowledge that it it is no longer "reliable" nor "objective," it rather-abruptly also becomes "useless."
Well, no one expects science to be perfect, do you? One would expect this only if he considered science the same way a religious person considers his deity of choice: perfect, almighty, etc. However, I guess this is not the way it works for most non-religious people. I don't see why a given method should be expected to work in every possible situation. Science doesn't, just like everything else doesn't.

Quote:
Philosophy has been aptly described as "thinking about 'thinking.'" As such, it might well be described as, "thinking about that very point at which ["scientific," "objective-based", etc ..] 'thinking' ... becomes useless."
Whatever.

Quote:
Waitaminit ... are we really so eager to dismiss our ancestors' wisdom, or [the validity of ...] their points-of-view, quite so quickly? Are we actually prepared to dismiss their worldview, in exclusive favor of "the only one w-e 'know of?'" (How 'arrogantly presumptuous' of w-e?!)
You see, the constant reference to "ancient wisdom" and "tradition" as values in themselves has proved to be dangerous, in the past, for the freedom and progress of knowledge, as well as for other things. There were bloody times because of that, literally. As I said somewhere else, it is easy to idealize the past, with its lasting traditions, just because it is said to be full of "ancient wisdom" and attractive myths. However, I don't see why the claims of a given tradition should be automatically considered true just because lots of people have followed them for centuries. Besides, often the past is heavily mythicized, which is just a polite way to say that it was turned into something that never existed.

Quote:
Ahem(!) ... "these kids today!!"
Yeah... So do you think that those books are not obsolete, scientifically speaking? I think they are, but I'm quite younger than most sacred books, so I might be wrong.

Quote:
Hey hey ... for thousands of years, ahem, "these books" w-e-r-e "sacred!!" Are y-o-u actually prepared to, today, "sell all these people down-the-river?" Well, I am not.
With all due respect, the fact that these books were considered sacred for a long time is not a great argument in support of their claims. Those people lived in their own time, and the books were the product of their own time, their culture, knowledge, myths, mistakes, ignorance, misconceptions, etc. I think we have made a few steps forward in the last two-thousend years. Perhaps, we would have made even more steps without these books, which were simply forced down the throats of millions of people who couldn't even read them, and were used as an excuse to destroy, kill and predate. Of course they were also an inspiration for doing good things. However, if there's some "ancient wisdom" in there, I guess that it hasn't been followed so much, despite of all claims.

Quote:
Wouldn't it just be the ultimate irony ... at least from our point of view ... if they were "totally-right," and we(!!!) were "utterly wrong?" What if, when ultimately challenged to "think outside the box," we somehow absolutely couldn't? ... (just askin') ... (hey, it's a perfectly-valid question ...)
Outside which box?

Last edited by Philip Lacroix; 12-17-2014 at 03:47 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old 12-17-2014, 11:50 AM   #5256
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 3,216

Rep: Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Unless you still praise Zeus?
I do, and so do a lot of other people.
http://www.hellenion.org/index.html
And we don't go round trying to convert people like Christians and Atheists, putting them behind fences as the Jews do in Palestine, or blowing them up like some Muslims.
 
Old 12-17-2014, 03:17 PM   #5257
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,447
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
Hope against hope...

Hi David.

I believe it and do what you like (except those killing, enslaving and other atrocities.) When we are dead, scattered back to gravity and time I personally will not be arrogant enough to think: that if we or random chaos crate AI, whether through teaching kids what we and they\everyone plus the times deem intelligence or by evolving some futuristic thinking software, that it will "live" on after decaying; because, I will be deadperiod

...die is cast.

Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-17-2014 at 03:21 PM.
 
Old 12-17-2014, 07:29 PM   #5258
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware{,-current}
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 122Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann
And we don't go round trying to convert people like Christians and Atheists, putting them behind fences as the Jews do in Palestine, or blowing them up like some Muslims.
Be careful this time with Socrates.
 
Old Yesterday, 08:39 AM   #5259
enorbet
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware 14 is Main OpSys on Main PC, 2ndary are OpenSuSe 13 and SolydK
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 339Reputation: 339Reputation: 339Reputation: 339
How can one equate "most reliable" to "no longer reliable", and "most objective" to "not objective"? Decimals, fractions and percentages exist for a reason.

How is it arrogant to dismiss the idea that the Earth is flat and the Center of the Universe, and such wisdom ad infinitum?

These things were not and are not wisdom, ancient or otherwise. At best they were conclusions based on exceedingly little or flawed observation, minimal evidence, and systemic misunderstanding. At worst and quite common evidence was ignored in the interest of forcing a square peg in a round hole to support a preconceived sacred cow notion or even to serve some far uglier, worldly action disguised as justifiable religious dogma such as declaring some lonely old lady a witch in order to confiscate her land.

If Science and the rules of evidence weren't demonstrably both superior in accuracy and more justly humane, the separation of Church and State wouldn't be the obviously huge leap in Jurisprudence that it was and is.
 
Old Yesterday, 11:22 AM   #5260
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 878Reputation: 878Reputation: 878Reputation: 878Reputation: 878Reputation: 878Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e
Unless you still praise Zeus?
I do, and so do a lot of other people.
http://www.hellenion.org/index.html
Uh, wasn't Zeus the one with the habit of raping women, and then his wife would find out and punish the woman?
 
Old Yesterday, 11:36 AM   #5261
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 3,216

Rep: Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
Uh, wasn't Zeus the one with the habit of raping women, and then his wife would find out and punish the woman?
You mustn't confuse folktales with religion. You should read some of the stories told by Christians in the Middle Ages: Jesus as a child killing other children, and a teacher who smacked him!
 
Old Yesterday, 01:35 PM   #5262
Philip Lacroix
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2012
Distribution: Slackware{,-current}
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 122Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji
Reminds me of buying lottery tickets at the quick stop/convenience gas station store. One can only pray (like someone is listening).
What's fairly reassuring here is that, while not being able to know if you will win, at least you can know exactly how probable it is. Of course some of the followers of this thread will dismiss "numbers" and, perhaps, entertain us again with some kind of belittling argument. Anyway, this is interesting: combination (while this is more focused on lottery).

Last edited by Philip Lacroix; Yesterday at 02:43 PM. Reason: format
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 07:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 02:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 03:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration