Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable.

And if it's undetectable, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the entire universe was actually created 6000 years ago, all that matters is that all the correlations line up to say that it started thirteen and a half billion years ago (give or take). So long as everything coincides with that, then the 'reality' is utterly irrelevant.

There's a saying "Perception is Reality", and it's absolutely true. It does not matter what the 'truth' so to speak, really is, all that matters is what you percieve. If you cannot percieve something or it's effects upon something else, then it does not matter.

True. But the Christian God is. And it's apart from nature, but able to interact with it.

What on earth gives you that idea.

The Christian God is the start, he is where nature begins. He creates the Universe and thus becomes a part of it, you could say that the Christian God is the 'pinnacle' of nature.

However, because it is not part, we cannot research it using the scientific method. "Acts of God" are not predictable.

Of course they are; all you need to do to be able to predict Acts of God is to have a chat with God.

On the scale of difficulty to predict, Acts of God are one of the easier ones, assuming of course that they are actually Acts of God.


If they're Acts of Reality then it's a bit harder.

The danger that I think Bauglir is trying to describe is to attribute natural events to "Acts of God", which merely lessens our understanding of the Universe. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been an Act of God since the beginning of the Universe (which was the first and only Act she did).

So what happens if it turns out that The Universe is infinite and cyclical in nature?

[Bauglir]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

Yes, it has a monopoly on knowledge. Religion doesn't provide knowledge, it provides beliefs, of which one may be as certain about as the existence of gravity, but are nevertheless not knowledge. There's nothing inherently worse about beliefs, when you're dealing with things that can't be known, and I don't think it's necessary to redefine words when useful ones already exist. But it is important to keep from trying to apply beliefs to things that can and are known.

[Neruz]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

Yes, it has a monopoly on knowledge. Religion doesn't provide knowledge, it provides beliefs, of which one may be as certain about as the existence of gravity, but are nevertheless not knowledge. There's nothing inherently worse about beliefs, when you're dealing with things that can't be known, and I don't think it's necessary to redefine words when useful ones already exist. But it is important to keep from trying to apply beliefs to things that can and are known.

Actually it provides Faith, important difference.

[Bauglir]

Bauglir: Agreed, up to a certain point. Also see the piece about creation: even if science says the world is older than 6000yrs, doesn't mean that it really is. It's just undetectable. It's not for science to decide, either, science has no monopoly on knowledge (even though it's doing a good job).

Yes, it has a monopoly on knowledge. Religion doesn't provide knowledge, it provides beliefs, of which one may be as certain about as the existence of gravity, but are nevertheless not knowledge. There's nothing inherently worse about beliefs, when you're dealing with things that can't be known, and I don't think it's necessary to redefine words when useful ones already exist. But it is important to keep from trying to apply beliefs to things that can and are known.

Actually it provides Faith, important difference.

Faith is what you have in beliefs, the beliefs are the specific ideas and are more analogous to knowledge. Faith is something more akin to an assessment of a study's methods as reliable and appropriate.

[Siquo]

But to hold science true is based on belief. Then believing scientific results is faith.

I fail to see the difference.

@Neruz If you create a clay ashtray in kindergarten, do you become a part of it? Nature may be a part of God, but not necessarily the other way around.
Also, you place an enormous amount of belief and relevance to your perceptions. There are people who don't, and doing it too little will probably kill a man, but there are healthy balances where impreceptible things can still be part of one's worldview.

If the universe is perfectly cyclical, we'll never know using science. So I wonder what you mean by "turns out to be". If it's imperfectly cyclical (every cycle is different), it may be detectable, but then it's still possible that there was a "first one".

@Andir: "As soon as science can"  Allright, I'll take that bet, your "as soon as science can" vs "as soon as God comes down from heaven". Science can't, so it's got nothing yet. Mind you: It may already be possible to start a "God-experience" in someones brain by poking into it, but that still does not explain the random occurrences of it, nor its meaning. Before and if science gets there, we're long dead.

[Andir]

@Andir: "As soon as science can"  Allright, I'll take that bet, your "as soon as science can" vs "as soon as God comes down from heaven". Science can't, so it's got nothing yet. Mind you: It may already be possible to start a "God-experience" in someones brain by poking into it, but that still does not explain the random occurrences of it, nor its meaning. Before and if science gets there, we're long dead.

You sound quite confident... There has been a lot of study into the brain lately and it's only a matter of time.  Mind you, I don't think it's going to take as long as you seem to, but then again, you are trying to protect your personal reality bubble.

[IronyOwl]

But to hold science true is based on belief. Then believing scientific results is faith.

I fail to see the difference.

Then you don't understand the function of science.

Science is our best guess at reality. It consists of looking at evidence and trying to figure out what seems to be true given the circumstances. It's "faith" the way facts are "opinions"- technically true, but they're above that threshold that makes one no better than the other. We can argue all day about whether God has a mustache or not, but the argument isn't really going to get anywhere, because there's nothing objective to go on- that is, it doesn't matter as far as anyone can tell. If we argue about the chemical composition of a rock, you can certainly believe anything you like, but it's possible to arrive at a conclusion supported by physical reality, which tends to be a fairly compelling proponent. You can claim it's pure carbon and simply be wrong in a way that's demonstrable.

[Siquo]

@Andir: Yeah, I'm confident because I follow the research into the brain, I'm quite the science-addict. Also I'm having dinner with (amongst others) a phycisist/neurobiologist tonight, I'll ask her what the current status is.
We're very far from understanding a lot of things that go on in our brain, and in our minds. Interesting material, to be sure, though. I'm still waiting for my neurojack so I won't have to type anymore...

Then you don't understand the function of science.

What is the function of science, then? I didn't know it had one.

to arrive at a conclusion supported by physical reality, which tends to be a fairly compelling proponent.

Religion can be compelling. It is to a lot of people. I can go to the Vatican and claim God is made of pure carbon, and they will have similar theological arguments that can disprove that statement within their worldview.

Science is can be, just as any religion and any faith is, just another worldview. (striked out 'is' because for instance the utilitarian view of science makes it "not-a-worldview", in which case you need to have another worldview).

Trying to convince others that your worldview is better than theirs makes you worse than Jehova's witnesses. Why worse? Because the Jehova's believe that recruiting other souls makes them more eligible to get a spot in heaven (it's like a pyramid game), but science says no such thing. That means that claiming that science is better than religion is just you, trying to force/coerce/argument that your view is better than anyone else's.

[Andir]

Then you don't understand the function of science.

What is the function of science, then? I didn't know it had one.

Neil seemed to sum it up in that video.  It helps us understand reality.

[Areyar]

That video sure pegged Siquo.

I disagree. As Tyson said(around 54th minute in), science can disprove fallacies like Earth being created 4000 B.C., but it's got nothing to say about whenever believing in Jesus will get you to heaven. It just doesn't concern itself with that kind of questions.
From what I gathered, Siquo's religiousness is centered around this personal affirmation of something good coming from his belief in God, and not around blind acceptance of every word in the scripture.

No, not that part.
At a certain point in the discussion, Siquo's view of "reality is what I percieve it to be. Everyone's opinion of reality is equally valid, nevermind any evidence." etc. is almost quoted literally.
As an example of the latest wave of magical thinking. IIRC.

[IronyOwl]

Then you don't understand the function of science.

What is the function of science, then? I didn't know it had one.

That's disturbing. Especially being said over the internet, using a computer.

to arrive at a conclusion supported by physical reality, which tends to be a fairly compelling proponent.

Religion can be compelling. It is to a lot of people. I can go to the Vatican and claim God is made of pure carbon, and they will have similar theological arguments that can disprove that statement within their worldview.

You misunderstand. I didn't mean having reality on your side was good because it was convincing, I meant it seemed to imply correctness in as close to an objective sense as you can get. If I claim something dissolves metal and you claim it can't, you can certainly make the argument that we're both correct or equally incorrect or what have you. But if I can run around dissolving metal in it and you keep losing metal objects because you refuse to believe they're being dissolved, it seems to imply that I am correct. It doesn't mean you can't claim otherwise, but your claims are largely useless babble at that point- they bear no more information than a dog barking, and quite a bit less than my claims to the contrary.

Trying to convince others that your worldview is better than theirs makes you worse than Jehova's witnesses. Why worse? Because the Jehova's believe that recruiting other souls makes them more eligible to get a spot in heaven (it's like a pyramid game), but science says no such thing. That means that claiming that science is better than religion is just you, trying to force/coerce/argument that your view is better than anyone else's.

Trying to make this argument is inherently ironic, because you are trying to convince me of it. Just thought you'd wanna know.

In any case, the overly defensive notion that attempting to reason with someone is an act of aggressive coercion is generally a poor one. It does have the advantage of sidestepping any actual comparisons, but if you join in on a debate you're pretty much automatically forfeiting any right to not have your beliefs challenged.

[Euld]

@Andir: "As soon as science can"  Allright, I'll take that bet, your "as soon as science can" vs "as soon as God comes down from heaven". Science can't, so it's got nothing yet. Mind you: It may already be possible to start a "God-experience" in someones brain by poking into it, but that still does not explain the random occurrences of it, nor its meaning. Before and if science gets there, we're long dead.

Heard from a friend that that was already done, although I can't find the article.  Apparently, the scientists stick a person's head in a machine that stimulates that certain part of the brain, and that person claims that they feel the presense of God (or a different god, I don't know the religions of the participants).  There's also a book (or probably several) that say this part of the brain is the reason anyone believes in any religion. 

But that makes me wonder.  Do only religious people have the "god area" of the brain, or does everyone have it?  Would that section be more "developed" in religious people?  And what if someone stimulates the god portion of the brain of an atheist?  Would that spur them to join a religion, or would they be able to resist it?  There's also a sense of irony if this portion of the brain came about through evolution; considering how pervasive religion is, apparently believing in a god adds more survivability, or starts more polygamous cults 

[Sordid]

You say practical, but you mean scientific. Those two are for you synonymous, but not for everyone.

Just what exactly does that even mean?

Both Sordid and Neruz finally got it, their viewpoints are that of science.

Well obviously. Science studies everything that can be studied, so adopting any other viewpoint would be needlessly limiting myself.

[Areyar]

everyone has the 'god' area in the brain, it is empathy IIRC, personifying inanimate things as well as nothing. IIRC it is also related to 'alien abduction' experiences and outofbody experiences.

Id sooner imagine that damage to a negative feedback mechanism is involved, rather than localized overactivity though.
Anyhow; the brain is highly plastic, it can adapt to most situations (when young).
Also training can alter how it is wired. So, no doubt seeing god can be trained for as well.

I know what article yu are refering to, but am having trouble locating it myself.
This is related: link
but this is more likely: damage


not related, but supporting my 'authority hypothesis' ; this
While this suggests, that it is a neurological insensitivity to 'wrongness' leads to uncritical thinking.

[Il Palazzo]

Following on that discussion I've linked to earlier, I've found this site:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival

I haven't even started watching it, but from the description, seems like it's pretty much along the lines of what is being discussed in this thread.
It's a lot of material though, but most likely worth the time.