The New "Religion Vs Science" Thread

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11881 - 11900 of total 12032 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 12:13pm PT
So at least somebody read the post. Yes, August, it was your "switch-a-roo," otherwise known as a change of perspective or change of framing.

Science is now learning a great deal from religion, just as it has, is now and will, from culture and language and bacteria and countless other areas /systems / categories / processes.

Science, the world at large, and general life experience at large in recent decades have learned so very much from religion, all the world's many and various religions, that new systems re sense making, community support, etc are bound to emerge, perhaps even from your philosophy category. Time will tell.

Because of all the countless advances of the modern age and because of changing attitudes, religion or religious systems no longer get a free pass, an exemption, from study, inquiry, investigation.

Religion as practiced in terms of God (e.g., God Jehovah and His Son, God Jesus) and theology, immortality and supernatural forces and beings needs to come to an end and be replaced / superceded*** - that's the view of many - just as astrology (by way of giving way to astronomy, a science) came to an end.

***At least for the reasonably educated.

...

"given that I completely reject the supernatural parts (and that I am opposed to teaching kids to believe the supernatural parts), I would imagine most Christians would think me hostile to Christianity"

Thank you for not standing on the sidelines re what many consider important and for speaking up.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 8, 2019 - 12:59pm PT
But there are plenty of posts on this site, if not necessarily this thread, where people are happy to dismiss scientific evidence in some narrow situation where it conflicts with their belief.

I certainly don't do that and I don't see anyone else in this discussion doing that. I've said here many times that religion must submit to our nature knowledge, but that doesn't mean religion isn't important to billions of human beings, the majority of which are not psycho fundamentalists blowing people up but sincere human beings attempting to reconcile themselves to the tragedy of living. I don't see science as having an exclusive hold on truth and certainly not an exclusive hold on eudaimonia.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:19pm PT
I don't see science as having an exclusive hold on truth...

Certainly not the way Jan defines it.

...

FWIW, I have a "spiritual fitness program." It doesn't have a bit of God Jehovah or God Jesus in it, nor a single bit of appeal to the supernatural in any way or form, nor a single bit of belief in immortality or immaterial demons... nor, FWIW, do I call it "religion."

What's more, I have a physical fitness program.

They work together as a whole, in a kind of systemic whole. Synergistically, you could say. I can't help but think my eudaimonia profits from it.
WBraun

climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:32pm PT
Fruitloops says -- I have a spiritual fitness program ...

No, you don't, you're completely clueless as usual and making up more bullsh!t than ever,

Nothing spiritual about it at all period.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:34pm PT
I don't see science as having an exclusive hold on truth...

I bet you could get 100s of "grievance study" "scholars" to agree with you. And 100s of postmodernists or postmodern sympathizers to agree with you too.

...

re: the physical/spiritual fitness program

As soon as someone gets around to naming this "systemic whole" - be it an academic, a celebrity, a songwriter musician type, or a popular whomever - and the word-symbol-name-meme sticks in the English language system, it's likely to out-compete "religion" even "spirituality" starting with the reasonably educated. That's the way it works.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:40pm PT
I bet you could get 100s of "grievance study" "scholars" to agree with you. And 100s of postmodernists or postmodern sympathizers to agree with you too.

Fascinating. Anyone that finds an equivalency in Star Trek and Hamlet is much more of a postmodernist than I ever dreamed of being. I'm not sure you understand what is meant by the term.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:53pm PT
I wanted to add this...

I bet you could get 100s of "grievance study" "scholars" from far left liberal arts colleges to agree with you.

Carry on.

...



Timestamp: 1:47:00... Taking the red pill, a demoralizing matter, time for mental training, a "free will" that's free to respond, public shaming, teaching mindfulness to six year olds, etc

"Now some people find this to be a frankly demoralizing picture, okay, well you're telling me I'm just a robot..." -Sam Harris

https://youtu.be/ZA106wrMUe4?t=6478

Turns out, ST is not the only venue with public conversation difficulties.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 8, 2019 - 01:58pm PT
He he, well if they agreed they'd be right wouldn't they?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 8, 2019 - 03:00pm PT
why so many "Joe Rogan Experience" links?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 03:33pm PT
why so many "Joe Rogan Experience" links?

why else but to further show the difference between our two personalities and temperaments of course

Believe it or not, there is more to life than...

highly speculative "bloody edge" physics.

...

Switching subjects... have a good weekend.

:)
WBraun

climber
Feb 8, 2019 - 03:45pm PT
There's more to life than Joe Rogan.

Fruitloops thinks --- There's no God but Joe Rogan and Sam Harris are God .... lol

Clueless people claim there is no God and immediately masquerade themselves as God ....
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Feb 9, 2019 - 07:48am PT
God is what one really wants to be, and is.

In an ultimate sense, thereís no masquerade.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 9, 2019 - 07:19pm PT

The Ex-Mormon Who Weaponized Facebook to Wage War on the Church

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-secret-facebook-war-for-mormon-hearts-and-minds?ref=home
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 10, 2019 - 03:25pm PT
Just watched Black Mirror, Hated in the Nation, again. I had forgotten how good it was. The story concerned AI and ADIs (Autonomous Drone Insects) gone amuck and murdering people.

Love Britain side by side with America. It's English and yet Britain's got its own vernacular, idioms and such.

Not unlike liberal arts colleges vis a vis hard sciences, I imagine, and not unlike a few here. They have their own. "Truth" comes to mind. "Belief" comes to mind. "Law" too.

Many a lesson here. But what can you do?

Once again, kudos to the team of BM writers. They do know their science and technology cutting edge, that's for sure. Very realistic material.
limpingcrab

Trad climber
the middle of CA
Feb 10, 2019 - 07:09pm PT
^^^^^Black Mirror is great!!!


I'm bored doing online trainings for work so I have question that you all can feel free to address or dismiss:

For those of you that see no possibility of a creator, or maybe that science leaves no room for creation, what are your thoughts on abiogenesis? Do you just ignore the problem, or maybe have faith that it happened in order to avoid considering alternatives? I guess I'm asking if you already made your decision and are awaiting evidence or if you came to your view based on evidence.

Honest question that I think about often.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Feb 11, 2019 - 07:45am PT
I, too, have a question, for my science-type friends.

Iím re-designing and re-painting a 11í mural, and in doing so I am trying slightly different colors. Iíve notice (right or wrong) that colors of the same hue go together, different hues donít so much.

If we are to believe that developments of perception are the result of evolutionary theory, then what would be a reasonable explanation for why we find it more pleasing or proper to view images exhibiting the same relative hues? Dusty colors with dusty colors, bright colors with bright colors, and so forth. (Iím making some broad generalizations here, but I think my experience is consonant with others.)
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 11, 2019 - 09:03am PT
Mike, wish I could help. I've been asking similar questions since puberty.

...

For those of you that see no possibility of a creator...

For the record, that's not me. I simply see extremely low to zero possibility (in possibility space) for God Jehovah or God Zeus or God Amon-Re as the creator in any for-real sense (like our ancestors believed). These are at best, as Paul would say, allegorical or metaphorical if not pure fiction... and entirely of human invention.

If memory serves, your background is biochemistry or biology?

what are your thoughts on abiogenesis?

What are yours? If your background is chem, do you find it hard - that hard - to see how a small group of molecules could, over vast time and numbers, self-organize into a crude replicator?

Do you just ignore the problem

Of course not. Curious as to your interest level. Has it been sufficent enough to compel you to read Dawkin's Selfish Gene.

I have no problem citing this work for the hundredth time because it serves wonderfully as a common ground for further discussion.
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Feb 11, 2019 - 09:27am PT
Honest question that I think about often.

Why do you think about it often?

DMT
limpingcrab

Trad climber
the middle of CA
Feb 11, 2019 - 10:25am PT
If we are to believe that developments of perception are the result of evolutionary theory, then what would be a reasonable explanation for why we find it more pleasing or proper to view images exhibiting the same relative hues? Dusty colors with dusty colors, bright colors with bright colors, and so forth. (Iím making some broad generalizations here, but I think my experience is consonant with others.)
Evolutionary: My guess would be that we evolved strong color perception for survival and strong contrasts are often linked to things we shouldn't eat?
Other: Created with the same skill and the ability to appreciate beauty?
*first hypotheses that popped into my mind and came out my arse

What are yours? If your background is chem, do you find it hard - that hard - to see how a small group of molecules could, over vast time and numbers, self-organize into a crude replicator?
Of course not. Curious as to your interest level. Has it been sufficent enough to compel you to read Dawkin's Selfish Gene.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. My background is ecology (which is pretty much just a bunch of evolution and statistics). I do find it very hard to believe, and I've tried to believe it. Even the basic monomers of RNA each assemble naturally under very different conditions for each part, and the conditions are mutually exclusive, so something had to produce them. But how was there life, or even any sort of organization, before DNA/RNA? The steps of the origin of life from nothing to something, and then from something to the ability to replicate and pass on instructions for replicating is seems so unfathomable. Once you get to genetics as the basic mechanism for evolution, as Dawkins writes about (he sort of brushed of the details about a molecule forming and replicating itself), it becomes easier to extrapolate and assume time is all that's needed for diversity, but getting to that point is the issue.

Why do you think about it often?
I'm somewhat fascinated by
a) the lack of, and contradictions within, the body of scientific knowledge on the subject, and
b) that it seems like so many people just take abiogensis for granted without really discussing the plausibility.

PS. I'm not here to try to change minds or anything, just to discuss the topic and learn how different people approach it.
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Feb 11, 2019 - 10:31am PT
Why do you think about it often?
I'm somewhat fascinated by
a) the lack of, and contradictions within, the body of scientific knowledge on the subject, and
b) that it seems like so many people just take abiogensis for granted without really discussing the plausibility.

PS. I'm not here to try to change minds or anything, just to discuss the topic and learn how different people approach it.

Thanks for the reply. Do you ever also consider the plausibility of your own views on the subject? Serious question. Or does your fascination end with the implausibility of the views of which you don't agree?

Rephrased - do you question all views?

DMT
Messages 11881 - 11900 of total 12032 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