Science vs Religion

[Felix_Jones]

OK. So, you have a bone to pick with econ, hence, it's all wrong. All of it. 100%. You are absolutely right.

Your so called humanities have a far more difficult task than the hard sciences, since we've not yet gotten to the deterministic aspects of those fields of study. So, if you ask me, the hard sciences are the social sciences. The other stuff is far easier to work with.

And yes, sarcasm noted, economics is a bankrupted field of study, in my opinion anyway. It's heavily influenced by those who most control the flow of money and whose interests lie mostly in protecting the rich and powerful.

You think the humanities are more difficult? I guess we have different ideas about what difficulty means. I've studied both and I got a B in sociology half asleep and attending maybe a third of the classes, Partial Differential Equations not so much.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As we can see, by Felix's example, there are science fundies just like there are religious fundies.

Felix, my dear, scientists are wrong, a lot of the time, and some scientists are wrong all of the time. the older and more established a science is, the less wrong you'll be-- because you are no longer looking for empirical data, you're building on the data that was hunted down before your time.

You admire, I'm sure, the brave pioneers that went out into the unknown and lost wagon wheels to rocks and died in the deep floods fording the rivers. yet you scorn the brave pioneers who are forging new areas of knowledge, incurring all the hazards of uncharted territory-- because they are not yet infallible.

Faith teaches people to expect infallibility, science should teach people to accept and expect a measure of uncertainty.

We need to be sending our children to science schools on Sundays, instead of Bible schools.

And, sitting in a class is not the same as being out in the field.

 

[teknight]

And yes, sarcasm noted, economics is a bankrupted field of study, in my opinion anyway. It's heavily influenced by those who most control the flow of money and whose interests lie mostly in protecting the rich and powerful.

You think the humanities are more difficult? I guess we have different ideas about what difficulty means. I've studied both and I got a B in sociology half asleep and attending maybe a third of the classes, Partial Differential Equations not so much.

Conspiracy theories FTW.
George Soros taught each and every one of my econ classes and the dictum always was- FUCK THE POOR. If you wrote that on the exam instead of the expected answers, you still got As. Cool, huh?

So, you took an easy sociology class and PDE, which I'm guessing wasn't math 101, and, by that you've proven that the hard sciences are harder than the social sciences? OK. I"m assuming the level of the sociology class. What levels were the two classes?

And, what's more, your experience is only valid for one person, namely you, as you've not yet made a convincing argument in favor of the difficulty of deterministic based fields of study vs fields of study that involve stochastic elements.

 

[Felix_Jones]

As we can see, by Felix's example, there are science fundies just like there are religious fundies.

Felix, my dear, scientists are wrong, a lot of the time, and some scientists are wrong all of the time. the older and more established a science is, the less wrong you'll be-- because you are no longer looking for empirical data, you're building on the data that was hunted down before your time.

You admire, I'm sure, the brave pioneers that went out into the unknown and lost wagon wheels to rocks and died in the deep floods fording the rivers. yet you scorn the brave pioneers who are forging new areas of knowledge, incurring all the hazards of uncharted territory-- because they are not yet infallible.

Faith teaches people to expect infallibility, science should teach people to accept and expect a measure of uncertainty.

We need to be sending our children to science schools on Sundays, instead of Bible schools.

Do you really believe that modern science does not use recent data? Then what are all the laboratories and universities doing? Shit, at work we collect data by the second...from which we learn lots of things. You call this fundamentalism because you don't have better word for it, and it puts me on the same level as those crazies pushing for ten commandments in court houses and banning abortions. An adherence to scientific study and the results is not the same as a belief in some made up ancient stories.

And I do not admire pioneers, they were brutal violent people, ask the American natives how romantic those pioneers were. My sympathies lie with those fighting the ignorance of the public and their entrenched ideologies; Edward Jenner, George Orwell, Nicola Tesla. Still do you really equate the hardship of living in the wilderness with the difficulties of someone putting together some lame questionnaire or reading a bunch of books?

 

[satindesire]

Stella, here's a link you might find interesting when you talk about how all Christians somehow believe that homosexuality is wrong:

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/heaven.html

I personally believe that God loves everyone, regardless of their sexuality, identity, and everyone will earn a place in paradise with him. The bible was written by humans, and is a human conception, and therefor is as flawed as human beings are. With however many times it's been edited, things taken out and added, and translated, the only thing I trust in it are the Ten Commandments, and I saw nothing about homosexuality in there.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do you really believe that modern science does not use recent data? Then what are all the laboratories and universities doing? Shit, at work we collect data by the second...from which we learn lots of things. You call this fundamentalism because you don't have better word for it, and it puts me on the same level as those crazies pushing for ten commandments in court houses and banning abortions. An adherence to scientific study and the results is not the same as a belief in some made up ancient stories.

the labs and universities are building on previous work. depending on thefield, of course. what's your field? I ask out of respectful curiosity.

And I do not admire pioneers, they were brutal violent people, ask the American natives how romantic those pioneers were. My sympathies lie with those fighting the ignorance of the public and their entrenched ideologies; Edward Jenner, George Orwell, Nicola Tesla. Still do you really equate the hardship of living in the wilderness with the difficulties of someone putting together some lame questionnaire or reading a bunch of books?

it may be that your sociology class consisted of "reading a bunch of books--" and so did your math classes-- but the anthropologists and sociologists that I know do a lot of field work, and fight a lot of ignorance and intrenched ideas.

 

[ImOnIt]

If you discard the stories specific to each sect and look at the core values - there is very much about many religions that coincide with reasonable beliefs.

Stories like 'moses literally parted the sea' and 'all the animals went on a boat' are confusing and worthless. The same with ' this guy had a shitty life but he's treated extra cool now in heaven'. There is stuff like 'give us your money' and 'women should always be swaddled in cloth or men can't help but rape them' that just smack of meddling: like greed, jealousy and ego.

'Science' is not a thing. Science didn't drop any bombs. The people who ask questions are respected as pushing the boundaries of information. Some orders however tell people what to do, ie. it's jihad and crusade o'clock. To imply that we would be better off without knowledge of celestial bodies, blood transfusions and atomic particles is counter to the curiosity that drives thinking individuals.

What of the expected outcomes? The old testament seems mightily close to some other books, almost seems like they were translated from the same thing. It makes no sense to have preordained morality - let's not think, our conclusions are already laid out in this manual. What about the interpretations? Like the Catholic/Anglican split. Who do we have to thank for that? Given enough time this leads to an infinite number of churches....

Has someone already said that faith fills in the holes in one's understanding? To consciously live ethically saves the trappings, tradition, confusion, schisms and weight of monstrous history attached to theist orders.

 

[Felix_Jones]

the labs and universities are building on previous work. depending on thefield, of course. what's your field? I ask out of respectful curiosity. it may be that your sociology class consisted of "reading a bunch of books--" and so did your math classes-- but the anthropologists and sociologists that I know do a lot of field work, and fight a lot of ignorance and intrenched ideas.

Mechanical Engineering

 

[teknight]

the labs and universities are building on previous work. depending on thefield, of course. what's your field? I ask out of respectful curiosity. it may be that your sociology class consisted of "reading a bunch of books--" and so did your math classes-- but the anthropologists and sociologists that I know do a lot of field work, and fight a lot of ignorance and intrenched ideas.

What are their specific research topics?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, here's a link you might find interesting when you talk about how all Christians somehow believe that homosexuality is wrong:

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/heaven.html

I personally believe that God loves everyone, regardless of their sexuality, identity, and everyone will earn a place in paradise with him. The bible was written by humans, and is a human conception, and therefor is as flawed as human beings are. With however many times it's been edited, things taken out and added, and translated, the only thing I trust in it are the Ten Commandments, and I saw nothing about homosexuality in there.

Thank you, lovie. I know that not all Christians believe the homosexuality is wrong. But the ones that do-- have all the power, and also believe that they have a mandate from their god to make sure the entire world behaves the way they think their god dictates.

The fact remains that if it were not for Christian morality and the combined voting power of believers and their dupes, an awful lot of people would be happily married right now.

Until Christians themselves start changing the way Christianity is practiced in this country, Christianity as an institution will be a very functional, effective, enemy to me and mine-- as a woman, as a queer, as an atheist.

Please, just accept that. It's a fact.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Thank you, lovie. I know that not all Christians believe the homosexuality is wrong. But the ones that do-- have all the power, and also believe that they have a mandate from their god to make sure the entire world behaves the way they think their god dictates.

The fact remains that if it were not for Christian morality and the combined voting power of believers and their dupes, an awful lot of people would be happily married right now.

Until Christians themselves start changing the way Christianity is practiced in this country, Christianity as an institution will be a very functional, effective, enemy to me and mine-- as a woman, as a queer, as an atheist.

Please, just accept that. It's a fact.

One of the funniest things about Toronto is that a big part of the gay neighbourhood runs along Church Street. I'll give you three guesses as to why it's called Church Street.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What are their specific research topics?

The people I know are old-timers now; they did work on the nature of tribal identity, the ways that societies change in response to outside influences.

One man worked with neurologists on how human development progresses from infancy to adulthood-- how we achieve the balance between personal selfish need and group solidarity.

Stuff like that.

One of the funniest things about Toronto is that a big part of the gay neighbourhood runs along Church Street. I'll give you three guesses as to why it's called Church Street.

It'll take all three guesses, too!

 

[Felix_Jones]

The people I know are old-timers now; they did work on the nature of tribal identity, the ways that societies change in response to outside influences.

One man worked with neurologists on how human development progresses from infancy to adulthood-- how we achieve the balance between personal selfish need and group solidarity.

Stuff like that.

It'll take all three guesses, too!

Everyone's kneeling for one reason or another in that part of the city.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Everyone's kneeling for one reason or another in that part of the city.

I was thinking of kneeling three times.

 

[Felix_Jones]

I was thinking of kneeling three times.

Hey, and around these parts you'd be well accommodated...there's churches with rainbow flags all over the place. Or dark-ish basement type places with medieval looking furniture if that's your thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hey, and around these parts you'd be well accommodated...there's churches with rainbow flags all over the place. Or dark-ish basement type places with medieval looking furniture if that's your thing.

Those basement places sound good to me...

 

[Felix_Jones]

Those basement places sound good to me...

Easy enough to find I'm sure, google maps has them marked with riding crop thumb tacks.

 

[teknight]

A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell -- mouths mercy, and invented hell -- mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
-- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

He says it better than me, plus he has more brand recognition. Doesn't that count for almost everything?

 

[JamieJ424]

You can't really lump all religions and all religious views into a single discussion. As we've seen, there are a lot of bright, open-minded people who believe in some flavor or another of a higher power.

The real problem is closed-mindedness. It seems like people have the capacity to categorically accept one point of view, excluding all others. In islam, look at the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. In Ireland it's the Catholics versus the Protestants. The ideological differences to an outsider looking in are small, yet think about all the people who've died in the fighting.

Religion isn't the only side you find that on. Science supporters often pride themselves on their open mindedness, but a lot of fact-minded people are quick to ridicule religion without ever really understanding it. It's easy to blow religion off because there's little empirical support and it seems like it's just a bunch of stories in a book, but the moral structure of the laws in western civilization is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Turn the other cheek. Thou shalt not kill. Forgive those who trespass. Help thy neighbor. Like it or not, there it is.

I wish more people around the world were better at just saying, "I don't get the praying towards Mecca six times a day, but you're a good neighbor, it's cool that our kids are friends, and sure I'll keep an eye on your house and pick up your mail for you while you're on vacation." IOW, let's let ideology be a personal choice, but understand that we're all sort of in this together.

 

[teknight]

Religion isn't the only side you find that on. Science supporters often pride themselves on their open mindedness, but a lot of fact-minded people are quick to ridicule religion without ever really understanding it. It's easy to blow religion off because there's little empirical support and it seems like it's just a bunch of stories in a book, but the moral structure of the laws in western civilization is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Turn the other cheek. Thou shalt not kill. Forgive those who trespass. Help thy neighbor. Like it or not, there it is.

The moral structure is JC? What the FUCK? What, do you believe that before Christianity spread all over, people were killing each other indiscriminately, stealing and fucking whoever they wanted?! WE ARE NOT SAVAGES WITHOUT YOUR PRECIOUS WORD OF "GOD." You don't need to hear the specific JC lullabies to act like a good person, or at the very least, not to commit evil deeds. Do you really, honestly think we were savages before Christianity spread its balm over us? That's a wrong view to hold.*
Because, you know, NO ONE breaks the 10 commandments now that we have them, and all of you turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass.
The moral structure of laws?!?! YES, the people who made the rules clearly and objectively evaluated all the options, or, YOU KNOW, they'd been spoon fed your stories from the get go, by one of the MOST POWERFUL organizations in history, and weren't at all free to choose. Not to mention that JC is original with its ideas: don't kill, forgive, help. What a crock.

Like it or not, you can't think. Turn the other cheek now, since it's Jesus' word.

 

[naughty4Daddy]

You can't really lump all religions and all religious views into a single discussion. As we've seen, there are a lot of bright, open-minded people who believe in some flavor or another of a higher power.

The real problem is closed-mindedness. It seems like people have the capacity to categorically accept one point of view, excluding all others. In islam, look at the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. In Ireland it's the Catholics versus the Protestants. The ideological differences to an outsider looking in are small, yet think about all the people who've died in the fighting.

I wish more people around the world were better at just saying, "I don't get the praying towards Mecca six times a day, but you're a good neighbor, it's cool that our kids are friends, and sure I'll keep an eye on your house and pick up your mail for you while you're on vacation." IOW, let's let ideology be a personal choice, but understand that we're all sort of in this together.

Well said. I couldn't agree more, especially the last part.

 

[Chiara_searches]

The moral structure is JC? What the FUCK? What, do you believe that before Christianity spread all over, people were killing each other indiscriminately, stealing and fucking whoever they wanted?! WE ARE NOT SAVAGES WITHOUT YOUR PRECIOUS WORD OF "GOD." You don't need to hear the specific JC lullabies to act like a good person, or at the very least, not to commit evil deeds. Do you really, honestly think we were savages before Christianity spread its balm over us? That just makes you a judgmental, horrible creep.
Because, you know, NO ONE breaks the 10 commandments now that we have them, and all of you turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass.
The moral structure of laws?!?! YES, the people who made the rules clearly and objectively evaluated all the options, or, YOU KNOW, they'd been spoon fed your stories from the get go, by one of the MOST POWERFUL organizations in history, and weren't at all free to choose. Not to mention that JC is original with its ideas: don't kill, forgive, help. What a crock.

Like it or not, you can't think. Turn the other cheek now, since it's Jesus' word.

Like it or not, he can think. He articulated his position rationally, without attacking anyone specifically. It also appears you missed his thesis statement: "The real problem is closed-mindedness." I also think you may have skewed his opinion by putting in theories about savages that he did not state. Perhaps your anger is really intended for someone else, since it seems you missed his point entirely? Perhaps you are casting stones and being a "judgmental, horrible creep" by locking into two words and ignoring the rest of an intelligent position?

And, quite frankly, I know more about his belief system than you do. I'll leave it for him to decide if he wants to debate you. I'll just say, I know for a fact that you completely misjudged him.

 

[teknight]

Like it or not, he can think. He articulated his position rationally, without attacking anyone specifically. It also appears you missed his thesis statement: "The real problem is closed-mindedness." I also think you may have skewed his opinion by putting in theories about savages that he did not state. Perhaps your anger is really intended for someone else, since it seems you missed his point entirely? Perhaps you are casting stones and being a "judgmental, horrible creep" by locking into two words and ignoring the rest of an intelligent position?

And, quite frankly, I know more about his belief system than you do. I'll leave it for him to decide if he wants to debate you. I'll just say, I know for a fact that you completely misjudged him.

So, you're harping on my personal attack, because you have nothing to say to anything else?
And, it's not closed minded to state that JC thought forms the basis of morals in the west? Why is that a fact, and a well thought out argument?

He's a nice guy, and therefore he can spread untruths?

Alright, J, maybe you are not a creep, but, then, come out and explain why that is "truth" and what you were tying to say by emphatically stating that morals in the west are judeo christian.


P.S. There's no evidence of thought if you don't support your claims. Stating something and calling it a "fact" serves as proof of nothing.

ETA: Oh, the virtue of speaking from IGNORANCE (since you might know him, but don't know me ): You don't think it's an attack to say that morals have a religious fundament. Well, then, what about all those non christian judgmental creeps? What? Do they have no morals? Or are they benefiting from the munificence of the church's benighted moral position?

 

[Chiara_searches]

You can't really lump all religions and all religious views into a single discussion. As we've seen, there are a lot of bright, open-minded people who believe in some flavor or another of a higher power.

The real problem is closed-mindedness. It seems like people have the capacity to categorically accept one point of view, excluding all others. In islam, look at the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites. In Ireland it's the Catholics versus the Protestants. The ideological differences to an outsider looking in are small, yet think about all the people who've died in the fighting.

Religion isn't the only side you find that on. Science supporters often pride themselves on their open mindedness, but a lot of fact-minded people are quick to ridicule religion without ever really understanding it. It's easy to blow religion off because there's little empirical support and it seems like it's just a bunch of stories in a book, but the moral structure of the laws in western civilization is fundamentally Judeo-Christian. Turn the other cheek. Thou shalt not kill. Forgive those who trespass. Help thy neighbor. Like it or not, there it is.

I wish more people around the world were better at just saying, "I don't get the praying towards Mecca six times a day, but you're a good neighbor, it's cool that our kids are friends, and sure I'll keep an eye on your house and pick up your mail for you while you're on vacation." IOW, let's let ideology be a personal choice, but understand that we're all sort of in this together.

Very well said. I think we need to strive for that better understanding of others. Ideology should be a personal choice because one has to live within the bounds of that belief system; but that doesn't mean we have to reject others' because they are different. I don't reject people because they like chocolate ice cream. Why should I reject them because they like a different deity or they like not having a deity? We could learn a lot from a foundational tenet of the Bahá'í Faith: "the spiritual unity of all humankind"** is something to strive for, even if your "spiritualism" is a belief in science or a lack of a deity.

I am not a practitioner of anyone faith. I am not a religious scholar. But what l understand from the Bahá'í Faith is that we should have respect for others' views or ideologies even if we disagree with them. I especially believe as they do: that there should be "condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national."**

Well said. I couldn't agree more, especially the last part.

And I agree with you about the last part as well.

** Apologies on the less than scholarly source; all my books are packed and stored 1,400 miles away.

 

[teknight]

Oh, yes, it would be nice if we didn't judge. And yes, we shouldn't judge*. But that's up to the individuals to decide. Last I checked, Christianity** was pretty strict on fraternizing, and was also hell bent on evangelizing to those who have not received the "word". I'd say that's fundamentally intolerant.

*Although, saying something "should" happen is such a weak proposition. The verb should carries so little weight in and of its own.
**granted, my primary example here comes from old school Christian Orthodoxy, but, what do the first four parts of the Decalogue say?