The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Then on shuffle, next: .../02 - Ancient Foundations - Greek Philosophers and Physicians.avi.AVI

@Philip

Probably- is a word that should have been left out. As Tesla if he was alive would tell you.

Dogma is not just confined to religious institutions. I stand by that statement because I live in the real world.

Religion started out as a noble adventure and high goals. Then people stepped in and threw a dead cat into the party.
The same can be said for science depending on funding and sponsors.
So it does not get a by on me on everything.

Nothing having groups of people involved is really pure in this world.
Personalities won't allow it.
So even though I do not like blanket statements.

I guess I am making one.

Hi rokytnji

Probably- is a word that should have been left out.

I see your point perfectly. I started with that word intentionally, because I don't know of any such case for sure, even if like you I'm aware of the "darker side of human nature". However, enorbet was trying to explain once again what science actually is: a process, a tool which has proved to be successful for understanding how our natural world works. Something that religion and superstition cannot do.

On the other hand, while the so-called "business", or governments, can afford to buy scientists and use them in order to promote research in given fields, I wouldn't say this is an evil in itself, as long as nothing illegal or harmful is done. And when something harmful does happen, then I wouldn't blame science as a process, a tool and a culture, but I would blame money, power, greed, ignorance and the individuals responsible for corrupting and pushing research toward harmful goals. Regarding "snake oil science", I guess there's only one name for it: fraud.

As Tesla if he was alive would tell you.

Are you referring to the alleged "Tesla vs. Edison" story? I'm not much informed about that.

As the Tesla vs everbody story. Edison was just one rock in his shoe so to speak.

Edison did not burn down his wireless tower. (But I can't swear to that)

Here is a long boring (1.5 hour) BBC youtube life story version to be watched in the office with head phones when things slow down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyimMmiHBGo&html5=1

I have my own motorcycle shop and I am the boss so I do as I please when I please, (mostly).

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix However, enorbet was trying to explain once again what science actually is: a process, a tool which has proved to be successful for understanding how our natural world works. Something that religion and superstition cannot do.

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. 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. Theoretical science, such as theoretical physics, is the purest form of conjecture.

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.

The blind men will never see the elephant, nor will they stop arguing about it, and yet their argumentation will also never overcome their blindness. They can't break-out from the limits of what their senses tell them; nor can they acknowledge to themselves or to one another that their senses never will. Whereas, someone who does not confess to "know the truth" might well be able to piece together from clues a great deal of insight as to what an elephant is and what it looks like. Although he will never know for sure, his undertakings certainly are "quite valid, too."

Because sometimes the horse isn't dead... religion like theory is evolution,,, there is no spoon unless we make it!!! Experimental + + Evolution.

And, funny you should [obliquely ...] mention "evolution" ... perhaps the most-crucified scientific idea, simply for being the most-misunderstood. IMHO, the folks who most earnestly wanted to "replace god/God/religion with 'science'" positively jumped upon this idea ... and in so doing, entirely missed Mr. Darwin's subtle, philosophical point. It was reduced in a stroke to "Darwin said that man descended from monkeys." (When he actually said no such thing.) There was even a "monkey trial," not too far from here.

Darwin [correctly] observed the natural phenomenon of evolution, and consciously engaged in the scientific-philosophy exercise of seeing just how far this phenomenon could (maybe) go without encountering an obvious contradiction. He concluded that it could go quite far indeed. And ... that's both the beginning and the end of it. Is that, "TRVTH?" No one knows. No one (other than your local friendly neighborhood deity of choice?) ever could. But it was an extremely important scientific exercise, nonetheless.

Science, understood, is very valuable indeed. But science, misunderstood, is the source of much grief and confusion. Science without "the means of dealing with what we don't, or can't know" (which is where philosophy comes in ...) is even more naked. It's just not all there, so to speak.

And I'd say the same thing(!) about religion, superstition, and so forth. These are all very subtle pursuits, yet they (to some ...) openly invite "absolutism," and, "absolute judgment/damnation." Which is, I think, sad.

Evolution by definition eventually replaces superstition\religion\precondition\tradition\murder\stupidity\&c... (can't have one without the other) just saying.

Nonsense ... no it doesn't ... unless you interpret it (erroneously ...) to actually be "a flat-out statement that this is how the entire diversity of life came to be."

Darwin never said that, and never would have. He was engaging in a then-well-understood practice of speculative reasoning which was a Victorian gentleman's parlor-game. (He knew the rules of the game, and expected that his listeners did, too.) The observation that "he could find no apparent contradiction" did not actually mean that "no contradiction exists." Remember, he titled his book, "The Origin of Species." He said nothing about Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, or Genus. Nor would he have, even as he did observe that he found no apparent contradiction in the thought that evolution could account for some of these other, larger, groupings.

And there are, in fact, some very real "possible contradictions" that perhaps Darwin did not know of, or did not consider, at the time. For instance, the mule: a cross-breeding that you can do between a horse and a donkey, but which for some reason always produces an offspring that is sterile. Most crosses simply don't work: you can't fertilize a hen with, say, duck semen. By some mechanism that we don't fully understand, either the fertilization does not take place or the fertilized egg immediately self-destructs. Some "possible combinations" live to birth; some do not. Some live to birth but cannot further reproduce. Some gestation-cycles are completed; others self-destruct.

Whether you believe that the earth "brings forth every creature according to its kind" because Genesis 1:26 says so, or because of some biological mechansm, the fact remains that creatures do only produce reproductions of themselves that vary "only by species," although they do seem to produce a fairly-endless supply of species. It would make front-page news (or at least, a good internet meme ...) if a hen's egg hatched and a duck came out. A certain number of offspring are stillborn or miscarried, apparently because they failed some kind of genetic error-correction mechanism (??).

Does this mean, then, that "evolution is wrong?" No one really knows. Yet. The closer we look at biology, the more mysteries (not answers) do we find. While we can speculate that "we find no apparent contradiction ..." it could well mean that we simply haven't found it yet. Darwin's findings were interesting and his reasoning was sound, therefore his findings created a worthy place for him in history, but that doesn't mean that "we know 'The Answer™' now."

I simply have problems with the folks who brazenly proclaim that they do know "the answer," whether they get that "answer" from science, from science-as-god, or from their god. It is much more realistic, and much more fun, to be relentlessly searching for "more mysteries." If God did design and make all of this, including me as the one who's speculating about it, then I certainly don't expect, nor do I want, for it to be "that simple."

But I do want to look up at the sky and say, "I'm gonna figure You out, you know! I'm gonna do it!" People have been doing that, albeit without success (yet!!), for as long as there have been people.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Evolution by definition eventually replaces superstition\religion\precondition\tradition\murder\stupidity\&c... (can't have one without the other) just saying.

To quote the Urban Dictionary

Just saying a phrase used to indicate that we refuse to defend a claim we've made

And from the OED

Superstition Irrational awe … credulity

Current statistics show nearly 90% of the world's population practice a religion. Is it likely that they are all irrational, including those who are distinguished academics?

And how can a theory about the origin of biological species replace religion? They don't have any connection!

My impression of you is that you're probably a 14-year old with an attitude and no life. Just saying.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann My impression of you is that you're probably a 14-year old with an attitude and no life.

So you're saying this just because he said "just saying"?

And how can a theory about the origin of biological species replace religion?

He's obviously talking about a possible evolution of Homo sapiens, that will bring us beyond superstition, religion, etc.

Originally Posted by rokytnji Here is a long boring (1.5 hour) BBC youtube life story version to be watched in the office with head phones when things slow down.

Thanks a lot for the link. I'm going to watch this on the next dark, rainy day.

I have my own motorcycle shop and I am the boss so I do as I please when I please, (mostly).

I saw the pictures, very nice bikes. You must have a lot of fun out there in TX.

Darwin didn't say it just me and the dictionary...

2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution" synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More transformation, adaptation, modification, revision "the evolution of language"

Unless you still praise zeus?

♪ people are crazy ♪

...what happens if you have a baby and then leave it to raise itself ☠☠☠ in religious words even the "unborn fetuses get into heaven" as ghost? Hypothetically if she or he could grow up by them self they'd be even less sane than the rest of us animals. Religion does not dissolve and fade away (except to unfathomable amounts of time) it blows up in the blink of an eye!

My impression of you is that you're probably a 14-year old with an attitude and no life. Just saying.

See.

Of course "the dictionary" might have such a definition within its august pages, but that's really not the point. "Biological evolution" is a readily-demonstrated fact, but we have no idea how far it actually does or does not go. On the one hand, "the discovery of a new species" is a great way to get your (albeit "Pig-Latin-Bowdlerized" ...) "name in print," but apparently it more-or-less happens all the time. On the other hand, we think that we've uncovered truly ancient skeletal and fossil examples of life-forms that seem to have changed very, very little.

Darwin's philosophical "rules of the game" are specifically devised to promote conjecture, because, as sort-of with theoretical physics, that's really the only option we have when we really don't and can't know. Trouble is, lots of people just didn't take it that way. They wanted certainty, so they simply concluded for themselves that this was what "evolution" provided. They ignored the possibility that God(?) biology might have a few as-yet undiscovered tricks up His(?) its sleeve . . .

But if you stop and think about it, any (especially, biological) data-transfer system, which relies upon self-reproduction across untold generations to produce offspring that will not only survive, but prosper, on this planet, must possess at least these two things:

1. Evolution: The ability to produce adaptations from the original plan which will survive in unanticipated conditions, and to promote successful adaptations while destroying or penalizing inferior ones, all entirely without celestial supervision.
2. Miscarriage: The ability to actively prevent (terminate ...) biological possibilities which "stray 'too far'" (whatever 'too far' may mean ...) or that will not be able to survive, before gestation takes place. This is an error-correction extermination mechanism, which also must be able to function without celestial project-management.

There's zero doubt that "evolution" exists in our natural world. We can see it (in moths, for example). But the counter-mechanism is considerably harder to contemplate because, although we do see it in action, we don't really understand it at all in this (contrived ...) context.

After all, many life-forms, such as moths or bacteria, do reproduce at truly prodigious rates, such that (if all of our present postulations are correct ...) we should be able to watch "entirely new life-forms" popping-up, at least "every now and then." However, we don't. It never happens. And we don't know why (not). Life forms on this planet do (only ...) reproduce "according to their own kind."

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann Current statistics show nearly 90% of the world's population practice a religion. Is it likely that they are all irrational, including those who are distinguished academics?

I would claim 100% of humans are irrational. Humans tend to have these messy, irrational things known as "feelings".

Human beings are not rational, but rationalizing animals.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix [jamison20000e]'s obviously talking about...

I am mildly astonished that anybody would claim they know what jamison20000e is talking about, let alone that it's obvious.