The New "Religion Vs Science" Thread

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11121 - 11140 of total 11263 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Dec 10, 2018 - 07:58pm PT
Yer all enslaved already and has nothing to do with you people's st00pid religion ideas.

The minute you think you are the material body you are enslaved ....
AntiChrist

Gym climber
Urth
Dec 11, 2018 - 04:14am PT
The minute you think you are seperate from the physical body you are delusional. The moment you realize you are inseprable you are.

"Foregoing self, the universe grows I." -Edwin Arnold
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Dec 11, 2018 - 08:12am PT
DMT: . . . that piece said more in 10 mins than you manage in 500 posts, bud.

And certainly compared to reading all of those other eggheads, eh?

:-)
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 08:54am PT
"No power on earth compares to a mother's tender prayers."
Edwin Arnold

Yeah that Edwin could throw some quotes. All most as hopeless a Romantic as Matthew Arnold.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 11, 2018 - 09:41am PT
Ah, Matthew Arnold...

"caught between two worlds, one dead the other powerless to be born"

Wasn't that the wording...

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1445440&msg=1445440#msg1445440

Yes.

It's fun as heck disinterring an old post here! Or in this case, an old thread long forgotten!
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 09:50am PT
Below is Arnold's devastating retort to the arrogance of science:

"In 1875, Josiah Mason gave a gift to establish a college which was called the Mason Science College (now a part of the University of Birmingham). Within the terms of the gift to the institution, one of the stipulations was that classics not be taught. Of course at such an institution, the Founder Day's address was logically given by Thomas Henry Huxley on the place of Science in Education. Huxley preached the virtues of science and derisively dismissed all value in studying classics, and he wondered whether any rational person would choose to study classics over science. His conclusion was that the only people who would choose a study of classics are those like "that Levite of culture" Matthew Arnold. Arnold took the opportunity to respond to his friend. In his reply, Arnold acknowledged that nobody would expect him to engage Huxley in a debate about science, and though he wouldn't presume to take on Huxley in such a debate, he did want to mention something that struck him as he thumbed through a book of Huxley's friend. Arnold noted that he was struck by the idea that "our ancestor was a hairy quadruped furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in his habits.' Arnold acknowledged that he isn't a scientist and therefore doesn't dispute such a claim, but he did want to point out that even if that were true, with regards to this good fellow, there must have been a necessity in him that inclined him to Greek. And would always incline him to Greek. After all, we got there, didn't we?'"
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 11, 2018 - 09:54am PT
the arrogance of science...

devastating retort...

Interesting phraseology there.

cf: the arrogance of science vs the arrogance of the science community vs the arrogance of certain quarters of the science community vs the arrogance of scientists or science practitioners

Aren't they worth distinguishing?


re: choosing your battles

Another pov or yet a different level of consideration... the idea of critiquing nature (for all its injustices, inequalities, hardships, heavy lifting etc) as opposed to critiquing science.

They are different, you know.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:01am PT
Was the poet Matthew Arnold right when he said that modernity (in other words, the scientific era) is caught between two worlds, one dead and the other powerless to be born? Or was he wrong? and can humanity (H. sapiens) build afresh (new meaning and a new belief system) on top of this new understanding of the world and ourselves.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1052940&msg=1055295#msg1055295
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:02am PT
The arrogance is Josiah Mason"s and Huxley's notion that any education but one in science is superfluous and undesirable. You have to admit Arnold's response is, that's right, Classic.
Jim Clipper

climber
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:04am PT
wBraun

Yer all enslaved already and has nothing to do with you people's st00pid religion ideas.

The minute you think you are the material body you are enslaved ....

Antichrist

The minute you think you are seperate from the physical body you are delusional. The moment you realize you are inseprable you are.

"Foregoing self, the universe grows I." -Edwin Arnold



Oooh, snap! Now try it without the anger, anti-ness, or just quietly be? Some agreement? I can't say. no mas eh? Scorecard? Guru, 1. Anti 1/2, or 2/3? Don't neglect the missing part.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Dec 11, 2018 - 10:07am PT
I suppose, arguably, Matthew Arnold was right about any new world powerless to be born... in his time.

But hey, this is C21 and it ain't over yet.
...

Moreover, let's not forget this Matthew Arnold gem...

"The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next."


...

Curious, Paul,

(1) did you catch any of that Azim Shariff podcast? and if so, anything you particularly appreciated or could relate to that you could share here?

For ref: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629616978/creating-god


(2) do you accept the idea or "theory" that today's religious systems are evolved social systems (evolved products)... evolved over countless million regenerations... stretching back to our pleistocene years and in a kind of darwinian evolutionary sense?

(3) or is this now a partisan, third-rail or taboo subject you just won't touch?


...

Having a bone to pick with Nature makes more sense than having a bone to pick with Science. That's the way I've come to see it. A long time ago now.

Science is only a messenger. Critiquing science is only a step away from critiquing knowledge or truth or education. Is it not?

How many study history? How many people in our various public systems nd demographics have studied history? Are those really times we'd like to return to? I, for one, no. No way.

Let's face it: In numerous respects Mother Nature Herself has us over a pickle barrel. And the way I see it - for those wishing to partake/continue - to be or not to be and all that - the most productive and compassionate way to deal with it is... forward, onward, upward. Without any turning back.

For a sober look at history, I'd recommend...
https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

Not for the squeamish.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 11:35am PT
Let's face it: In numerous respects Mother Nature Herself has us over a pickle barrel. And the way I see it - for those wishing to partake/continue - to be or not to be and all that - the most productive and compassionate way to deal with it is... forward, onward, upward. Without any turning back.

The problem with modernist theory, which is so intimately tied to science, is its continual side effect of unintended consequences. The direct effect of science and modernist theory has been, for instance, a massive explosion in human population as well as an accompanying massive explosion in pollution. Call out religion all you want but science and its advancements in technology have much to do with the present human ecological dilemma. Furthering the problem is this unbridled modernist enthusiasm that declares "sure we've made some mistakes but we're mankind's only hope to clean it up." As in onward and upward: I'm not so sure, problem is you're not always going upward.
AntiChrist

Gym climber
Urth
Dec 11, 2018 - 01:14pm PT
I just had a talk with Jesus.
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Dec 11, 2018 - 01:44pm PT
The direct effect of science and modernist theory has been, for instance, a massive explosion in human population as well as an accompanying massive explosion in pollution. Call out religion all you want but science and its advancements in technology have much to do with the present human ecological dilemma.

I have good news then - we the people can leverage religion to more effectively fight the wars to cull the herd.

Win win!

DMT
AntiChrist

Gym climber
Urth
Dec 11, 2018 - 02:34pm PT
Ironic isn't it. Most modrnists/scientists I know have 0 to 2 children, avarage per scientist is probably around 0.25. They also support a woman's right to proper birth control.

On the otherhand, most religious peple I know have 3 to 10 kids, average probably around 5 per nutjob. They have faith in god, until faced with death or adverse health, at which time the run crying to science for a fix. They oppose birth control and breed like rabbits... with the help of science.

And we are back to the same old stupid issue... you piss yourself silly when people criticize religion because others exploit parts of it for their own purpose (e.g. gay marriage, birth contol, terror attacks, etc), but you don't hesitate to criticize science when idiots exploit it. Nearly every scientist I know tries hard to reduce their footprint and live responsibly... you see far more jesus fish and crosses on big diesel trucks than you do on priuses (prii?).

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
moosedrool

climber
Andrzej Citkowicz far away from Poland
Dec 11, 2018 - 02:45pm PT
Well said, Anti!

Moose
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 02:56pm PT
I have good news then - we the people can leverage religion to more effectively fight the wars to cull the herd.

Ah, if only it was that easy. Unfortunately, except for a relatively small number of fundamentalist fanatics, religion has too little taste for war and science remains deep in the service of its benefactors as in better living through chemistry. Seems there is very little hope.

I just had a talk with Jesus.

Hopefully he told you to either pick up your balls or hit them over the net.

On the otherhand, most religious peple I know have 3 to 10 kids, average probably around 5 per nutjob. They have faith in god, until faced with death or adverse health, at which time the run crying to science for a fix. They oppose birth control and breed like rabbits... with the help of science.
Ultimately everybody dies and science can't do much about that and that's one reason close to 85% of the earth's population remains religious.

Nearly every scientist I know tries hard to reduce their footprint and live responsibly... you see far more jesus fish and crosses on big diesel trucks than you do on priuses (prii?).

Yes the lab-coat boys at Monsanto have a new saying: "Let's all get a Prius." or was that "let's all make a new kind of Roundup?" Or maybe "let's make a new kind of chicken?" Can't remember.

You make two mistakes: I'm not arguing against the benefits of science and you read the sacred texts as though they were failed attempts at science. They are not.
AntiChrist

Gym climber
Urth
Dec 11, 2018 - 03:45pm PT
Ultimately everybody dies and science can't do much about that and that's one reason close to 85% of the earth's population remains religious.

You're almost there, but you make a subtle mistake. They don't remain religious because they die and science can't do much about it (other than continually increase the quality and quantity of life for the vast majority of people). Oh no, they remain religious because they are chickenshits who can't handle the truth... and they use religion to block out the reality of their ephemeral existence.

Yes the lab-coat boys at Monsanto have a new saying: "Let's all get a Prius." or was that "let's all make a new kind of Roundup?" Or maybe "let's make a new kind of chicken?" Can't remember.

There you go again, mistaking corporate driven motives with science. Don't worry, it is a common mistake idiots make all the time.

you read the sacred texts as though they were failed attempts at science.

Again, for at least the 3rd time, I don't read "sacred texts" as though they are attempts at science... I read them as the ancient fairytales they are, concocted during the infancy of one particular manifestation of civilization, handed down orally for thousands of years, and altered to fit the needs if the ruling class and subjugate the masses...uhr, I mean "the inerrant and eternal word if god."
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 11, 2018 - 04:57pm PT
Oh no, they remain religious because they are chickenshits who can't handle the truth... and they use religion to block out the reality of their ephemeral existence.

Well maybe everybody can't be a he-man like yourself. Ha! Yeah, some poor women who lost a child is a chickenshit because she might find comfort with religion in her grief and doesn't face up to your version of reality? You need to go back and talk to Jesus some more.


There you go again, mistaking corporate driven motives with science. Don't worry, it is a common mistake idiots make all the time.

There you go again mistaking politically driven motives with religion. Yeah, idiots make that mistake "alot."

Again, for at least the 3rd time, I don't read "sacred texts" as though they are attempts at science... I read them as the ancient fairytales they are, concocted during the infancy of one particular manifestation of civilization, handed down orally for thousands of years, and altered to fit the needs if the ruling class and subjugate the masses...uhr, I mean "the inerrant and eternal word if god."


Failed attempts at science, failed attempts at science. That's exactly what you're doing. They're fairy tales not real science and that's your critique period.
AntiChrist

Gym climber
Urth
Dec 11, 2018 - 06:18pm PT
Glad you enjoy playing with my balls Paul.
Messages 11121 - 11140 of total 11263 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta