Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Mar 19, 2014.
That would be news to the greeks I'm sure.
I didn't get that out of your posts at all
Newton, Galileo and Descartes were religious nutters.
Evidently we've wasted 7 pages getting the thinktheyreskeptics to agree with us that laboratory procedures aren't the only way of knowing.
I can understand that you wouldn't, gman, as some of my post were more direct and kind of short. However , in a few different posts, I wrote to religion and science, or to belief and empiricism being different ways of knowing. One post very specifically.
My earlier question to you about asking for "proof" (or a better word is evidence, I was sloppy with my language) was not b/c I truly wanted it from you (I honestly don't expect it), but it was to challenge you a bit given the debate in which you were already engaged. That said, I really don't think or expect you or anyone needs to provide evidence of a God, since your belief and belief system would be a perfectly suitable answer in my mind, and I respect that.
On the other hand, if you start offering evidence, I can only use the standards to 'judge' it that I know well, which are empirically based.
I can only hope that God has a sense of humor. If I were God I'd probably be pissed to find out that I was in the dock, over-the-barrel, under investigation, standing before a judge, etc.
"If only God would give me some sign, like making a large bank deposit in my name." - Woody Allen
The way I read the Bible, God's had it up to here with Jewish people.
I could tell you a story my mother conveyed to me after her near death in 1991 but I'm sure that would be interrupted into a mind delusion in her unconsciousness.
Well sheeesh, how many warnings can you give about worshipping false gods. We do see it in present day but these are people that don't know what happened or don't believe it happened.
The God of the Bible did seem to have a short fuse. He only gave people hundreds and thousands of years. The bastid.
Knowledge of God being metaphysical I've typically classified it as synthetic a priori, but lately I'm not so sure. If a number of people share subjective experiences simultaneously, it is hard to know how to classify that information.
Groupthink? Naked Emperor? Somatoform disorders? Social Construction of Reality?...none of which I mean in any negative connotation of the terms, only to touch upon the psychological aspects of all this. In a purely observational sense, classification would largely center on the belief of what they witnessed. Whether the actual thing or event was real or true might take a different type of evidence, but it depends on what that thing is.
I mean, if some folks were sitting around at dawn and saw the sun rise, they wouldn't need additional evidence to prove it since this is directly measurable and accessible to everyone, but if these same folks saw some apparition in the air and claimed it was a space invader, they'd need something more than witnessing it to determine that the apparition was actually not something else which is explainable with other evidence. But yes, a god's existence is metaphysical and to some extent, I don't believe we can escape the conundrums this causes nor that we necessarily ever have to.
I'm going to respond to this post again as my first response last night was apparently deleted for including too much information. To not respond is not fair to Power.
Gatorpower was a major contributor to MB's Roman's thread so it is incorrect to imply "this poster [n]ever offer[ed] anything to this forum."
I do agree with gatorman that the ratings system should require a reason for giving a negative rating. I gave out a few when this system was inaugurated but decided to stop the practice. If you received a 'Neg' from me, contact me and I will remove it. Rick, I think you may have 1 or 2.
Went through the list and found 4. Rick, I must have previously deleted the 1 or 2 as I didn't find any. I left 2 as the comments I "disliked" then, I still "dislike" now, and think they still deserve a thumbs down.
Good info, I didn't know that. But the show was magnifique.
I watched it because it was "sold" as a zombie movie, but it really wasn't. It was pretty creepy and interesting, but it didn't quite make much sense to me.
Many people die for a religious belief, unless you believe the Branch Davidians had it right, Jim Jones' followers had it right, and the Heaven's Gate followers are all enjoying their time on the mothership!
While only a theorem that cannot be proven, isn't it plausible that Jesus was a very dynamic person that created a cult of personality a la a David Koresh? And that Jesus' followers believed so much in his divinity that yes, they would have died for a lie because in their heart of hearts, it was the truth, and nothing could convince them otherwise? As proven above, something like this is not an unique event.
Now, I'm not saying I have proof Jesus was nothing more than the Koresh of his time, and certainly the two men had vastly different messages. Just saying again that when it comes to religion, evidence offered by believers will ultimately require faith.
Science, on the other hand, requires observation and repeatability. If a scientific theory is wrong and proven so, then the theory is changed. In contrast, religion already has the answers, and evidence is always tweaked to fit the narrative. Yes, there have been specific scientists who have attempted to do exactly that, falsify evidence to fit their theory, but ultimately, when peers cannot repeat results, the facts win the day.
Last but not least, there is nothing wrong with having religious faith. And if it works for you, great. Just understand it's not for everyone. And when your religious narrative runs counter of scientific fact, don't be surprised by the response.
The longer duration of the show may make the difference. They may be zombies, but not the plodding, rotten droolers of Walking Dead or the lightening fast foamers of 28 Days Later. They haven't explored that yet (only one season down, right?) They are "normal", just back from the dead. Or are they? But the "what would you do" aspect of someone turning up alive is pretty good. And there is a back story of a flooded valley, the peons getting railroaded out of their homes and such. And there is definitely a strong religious theme. It's unclear where that is headed, but I don't think it's going to an insult-the-believers spot. I expect the American version to lay it on thick with the religious angle, but that's obviously just a guess.
Yeah, more time with the families of the returned might make for a better chance to care about their grief and understand the particular dynamics of their lives, add a more human element. I had all the episodes on my DVR, just never got around to commiting 8 hours of my life, plus I had seen the movie, so I kinda knew more or less what was going to happen. I think its on Netflix now, so I still have a chance, once I get around to Top of the Lake maybe that will be next.
Ian H.Hutchinson, Head of Department of Nuclear Energy. Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. ASA Conference, 4 August 2002. "Science: Christian and Natural," http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/asa2002/.
Going further, though, I believe there is a constructive case to be made for the phrase Christian Science.
First, as represented by the theme of this conference "Christian Pioneers", we should recognize that modern science is built upon the foundational work of people who more than anything else were Christians. Christians were the pioneers of the revolution of thought that brought about our modern understanding of the world. MIT, my home institution, the high-temple of science and technology in the United States, has a pseudo-Greek temple architecture about its main buildings. The fluted columns are topped not with baccanalian freizes, but with the names of the historical heroes of science (not to mention William Barton Rogers, the founder). A rough assessment was carried out by a few of us some years ago of the fraction of the people listed there who were Christians. The estimate we arrived at was about 60%.
Any list of the giants of physical science would include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, all of whom, despite denominational and doctrinal differences among them, and opposition that some experienced from church authorities, were deeply committed to Jesus Christ.
Second, I observed over the years in my interactions with Christians in academia, that far from scientists being weakly represented in the ranks of the faithful, as one would expect if science and faith are incompatible, they are strongly overrepresented. The sociological evidence has been studied systematically for example by Robert Wuthnow [Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America's Soul, Eerdmanns, Grand Rapids, (1989), p146.], who established that while academics undoubtedly tend to be believers in lower proportion than the US population as a whole, among academics, scientists were proportionally more likely to be Christians that those in the non-science disciplines. The common misconception that scientists were or are inevitably sundered from the Christian faith by their science is simply false.
Third, the question arises, why did modern science grow up almost entirely in the West, where Christian thinking held sway? There were civilizations of comparable stability, prosperity, and in many cases technology, in China, Japan, and India. Why did they not develop science? It is acknowledged that arabic countries around the end of the first millenium were more advanced in mathematics, and their libraries kept safe eventually for Christendom much of the Greek wisdom of the ancients. Why did not their learning blossom into the science we now know? More particularly, if Andrew White's portrait of history, that the church dogmatically opposed all the "dangerous innovations" of science, and thereby stunted scientific development for hundreds of years, why didn't science rapidly evolve in these other cultures?
A case that has been made cogently by Stanley Jaki [Stanley L. Jaki, The road of science and the ways to God, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1978).], amongst others, is that far from being an atmosphere stifling to science, the Christian world view of the West was the fertile cultural and philosophical soil in which science grew and flourished. He argues that it was precisely the theology of Christianity which created that fertile intellectual environment. The teaching that the world is the free but contingent creation of a rational Creator, worthy of study on its own merits because it is "good", and the belief that because our rationality is in the image of the creator, we are capable of understanding the creation: these are theological encouragements to the work of empirical science. Intermingled with the desire to benefit humankind for Christian charity's sake, and enabled by the printing press to record and communicate results for posterity, the work of science became a force that gathered momentum despite any of the strictures of a threatened religious hierarchy.
So I suggest that there is a deeper reason why scientists are puzzled about how one might pursue a Christian Science distinguished from what has been the approach developed over the past half millenium. It is that modern science is already in a very serious sense Christian. It germinated in and was nurtured by the Christian philosophy of creation, it was developed and established through the work of largely Christian pioneers, and it continues to draw Christians to its endeavours today.