The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I would like to add that Aristotle said some rather stupid s***. For example, check his recipe on how to create flies. The only useful thing he did were his writing on rhetoric: ethos, pathos, logos, and stuff like that.

Now, now, let's not be too hard on old Ari. Yes, his writings on physics and biology are outdated, to say, the least - but he contributed a lot more than just his rhetoric. He is the founder of classical logic, had ideas on ethics that have lost none of their relevance, his philosophy of politics is still worthwhile studying as is his poetics and his ideas about mind/soul/body are frequently quoted by contemporary neurologists and philosophers of mind.

Absolutely, If a scientist is shown a proof that their theory is wrong, they will change their stance straight away because they are concerned with the truth (or what we think is the truth given our limited perception of the world).

It is a lot more complex than that. Scientists will change their stance if the error was not too grave - but if it is fundamental, if it requires a completely new way of thinking (a "paradigm shift"), they have often resisted rather than accepted. A historian of science has remarked that fundamental innovations in science do not occur until a whole generation retires or dies and a new one takes over, one that is not going to lose a life of hard work and whose reputation is still to be made.
I would recommend looking up "The Structure of scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn or the books of Bruno Latour. Both tend to exaggerate the case but they offer some evidence that is hard to deny.

I don't believe it takes a whole generation to die off (you're talking 60 years or more). Einstein's theories were actually accepted and built upon by many within just a few years of being published. There were as I mentioned previously those who couldn't accept them but I don't believe they were able to hold off the "paradigm shift" his theories caused for an entire generation.

Originally Posted by Jeebizz that nobody really KNOWS what happens after death.

But one thing is certain. Sooner or later we will all find out.

I don't believe it takes a whole generation to die off (you're talking 60 years or more).

The problem with that argument is that relativity may not be radical enough to be considered a paradigm shift. Such a shift would be like the transition from ancient and medieval physics to the modern physics started in the Renaissance and continuing to this day. It is a revision of the most fundamental rules, including truth conditions, methodologies, etc.
By the way, the death of a generation refers to academic ascendancy, the time between the arrival of an innovative new generation and the retirement of their professors and a generation of engineers whose work is based on a more conservative view. That would be less than sixty years, more like thirty, forty at most.

Originally Posted by brianL But one thing is certain. Sooner or later we will all find out.

Not necessarily - I take the prospectus view: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Agree. The trouble with "life after death" is that life is usually defined as what precedes death, so if there is anything after death, it definitely won't be life, at least not in any way we understand it.

Originally Posted by MensaWater Not necessarily - I take the prospectus view: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I didn't mean we would find out in "The Last Judgement" sense, of where we were going after death. I meant we were certain to find out whether anything happened, since we will all die (I'm assuming none of us is immortal).

The good news is...well good for some..."No one is lost" since all the names of the living were entered into a book that was compiled before the world was made and before the big bang... LOL

yea right you cant understand this because its an eternal enigma... why not get a copy of religion for dummies free from the church of the sub-genius.

Originally Posted by hughetorrance since all the names of the living were entered into a book that was compiled before the world was made and before the big bang... LOL

Can we get that book from Amazon?

brianL All things are possible *but* most things are unlikely... does Amazon give books away for free... ?

Originally Posted by brianL I didn't mean we would find out in "The Last Judgement" sense, of where we were going after death. I meant we were certain to find out whether anything happened, since we will all die (I'm assuming none of us is immortal).

I understood what you meant. I was saying that simply because for eons generations have all died is no guarantee that we will. Sure there's strong reason to believe it will happen but no guarantee of it. I prefer to think I'll live forever (or as long as I choose to do so). If I'm wrong I won't be around to be surprised by the mistake.

I'm not so sure that I'd want to live forever...might get really boring after a couple of thousand years. Who was that character in Greek myth who got granted immortality, but forgot to ask for everlasting youth - so he got more and more decrepit, shrivelled, and tiny? He obviously hadn't read "How To Ask The Right Questions".

Just sharing a very inspirational video from a guy I'm subscribed to on Youtube, precisely about the type of "spirituality" one can experience without religion. At least for me there is a lot more to following a philosophy like science than just "practical usefulness":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk

Sorry jay73, but for me speculating about the existence of a deity is pointless; you are trying to convince people of the unknowable, things that lie outside of (our perceivable) reality.

Hope you can understand my point of view better with that video

Originally Posted by brianL I'm not so sure that I'd want to live forever...

Hence the reason for me saying "or as long as I choose to".