How will Religion cope???

[JamesHunt]

If we find evidence of life on other planets?

Will they just bend and twist the words, and generally bullshit as they usually do, or will they eventually give in to the truth?

[Faldur]

Lol.. If.. Hahaha.. Good luck with that

[hippifried]

That's never going to happen.

Everybody knows that we're the center of Brahma's dream, that the earth is flat, that it sits on the backs of 5 giant elephants, & that those elephants are standing on the back of a giant turtle.

[rameses2]

Nuh-uh! It's the World Tree, with the Migard Serpent and the Rainbow Bridge and junk:geek:...

[trish]

His head spinning, after a long night of drinking Tequila sunrises alone, the Great God Bumba heaved and threw up the Sun which drifted upward and sailed across the sky. Still feeling sick, he tossed up the Moon and Stars. Then a crocodile, a turtle and finally the Boshongo people. That was the beginning of world, and of God's war against the pleasures of strong drink and nights out. After that He was just a general pain in everyone's collective ass.

[PomonaCA]

These are the same old questions that atheists have been getting their panties wet since forever.

What if we find life on other planets...

What happens when science can not prove there is a god...

Evolution proves there is no god..

Etc etc.


There have been better arguments against the existence of God and religions still continue to grow. It seems the only ones worshiping your so-called 'knowledge' are the profiteers at your local colleges.

[trish]

What if we find life on other planets... What if we do? That would neither [be] evidence for nor against the superstitions of religion. Though it would give us someone else to fear and to hate; that's always a plus for religious fervor.


What happens when science can not prove there is a god...This just illustrate[s] how much science you know__none. It is already the case that science cannot prove there are gods, nor can it disprove there are gods. So far, the hypothesis that there are gods has not shown itself to be useful in any field of science or technology. But one can always hope, right simplicio, I mean PomonaCA? The assumptions of science are only ever provisional. Science doesn't seek to establish proofs in the sense that mathematics does. Ultimately it is observational evidence that provides support for or against the hypothesis of science.


Evolution proves there is no god..Again, no it doesn't and never will. Though it's very doubtful that the assumption, "There's a God" will ever prove useful in establishing the cladistic and genetic relationships between the flora and fauna of the living and fossil worlds.


Etc etc.That all you got?


There have been better arguments against the existence of God and religions still continue to grow. It seems the only ones worshiping your so-called 'knowledge' are the profiteers at your local colleges. No. Professors don't worship knowledge. They spend their days criticizing each others claims to knowledge. The "profiteers" are the people whose lives have been saved by or bettered by the researches of academic bio-physicists, academic medical researchers and epidemiologists. The profiteers are you who are now enjoying the benefits of quantum field theory as it applies to the engineering of ever tinier computer chips. The profiteers are you who have thrown away your road atlases and navigate by GPS (a device that depends on the General Theory of Relativity for its proper functioning), or who text your friends umpteen times a day, or you who waste your days in front of video games, or you who fly to visit distant friends and family. The profiteers include those of you who simply enjoy peering into the night sky at a universe that's 13.7 billion years old and attempt to relate to the myriad of galaxies whose light has journeyed for eons to reach our eyes at just the moment we look up.

The best argument against the gods is that they're useless. God theory has just never produced any testable consequences which have withstood the scrutiny of observation.

[Faldur]

Imagine an event so significant that all time is either identified as before this event or after. So significant that the world clock was reset.

Everyone, upon leaving this life, will know the answer to the question is there a God. Until then live life as you see fit.

[hippifried]

Imagine an event so significant that all time is either identified as before this event or after. So significant that the world clock was reset.Would that be eastern or pacific time? Standard or daylight? Significance is relative. The whole world changed at 8:15 AM (unsure of the relation to GMT) on August 6, 1945 CE Gregorian. Anybody in here know why without looking it up? I'm thinking that anything that earth shattering as to instantly reboot time perception just might be actually earth shattering. So... Who's going to track the time & date when everybody stopped giving a shit about time & dates?



Everyone, upon leaving this life, will know the answer to the question is there a God. Until then live life as you see fit.
...& as Zeus meets you at the gate with a scowl on his face saying "What the hades were you thinking?!?"...
What can you say other than "Oops!"?

[bte]

Even if life is found on other planets, that will not change people's view on religion. Religion offers more than just the belief that some guy lives in the clouds and spies on us like some kind of voyeur. Religion offers people something to believe in, because how much would it suck to really know that nothing that you do in this life has no consequence whether good or bad in the next?

Plus people refuse to think that people are inherently bad. Every time something bad happens they say the devil made them do it or they have a demon inside them. Instead of fussing up and taking responsibility for their actions.

[trish]

Everyone, upon leaving this life, will know the answer to the question is there a God.Nonsense. First, the claim presumes that "knowers" persist beyond death. If there's no life after death, there's no knowing after death. Second, the claim presumes that once you pass through the door of death (and survive as an entity who can know things) the question of God's existence will suddenly become trivial and obvious. Why should that be? It could be the case that the gods are as elusive on the other side of the door as they are on this side.

[thombergeron]

There have been better arguments against the existence of God and religions still continue to grow. It seems the only ones worshiping your so-called 'knowledge' are the profiteers at your local colleges.

I don't think I could come up with a better illustration of prideful ignorance than this sneering derision of knowledge.

There is no evidence to support the assertion that religious observance continues to grow, at least on a global scale. In the U.S., however, there is clear evidence that religious observance is declining (PDF):

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

[circ]

God done gave us e-lectriciteh, and he also done gave us them innernets. He done gave you that there .pdf too. You don't needs no knowledge. Just get on the faith wagon and God gonna give you a whole lotta good shit.

[hippifried]

You can git a hole lot more good shit if'n I prays fer ya.
Just 3 easy payments of only $19.95 gits ya a week of daily prayers from me & all of my adherent. PM your credit card no.

[PomonaCA]

What if we do? That would neither [be] evidence for nor against the superstitions of religion. Though it would give us someone else to fear and to hate; that's always a plus for religious fervor.

This just illustrate[s] how much science you know__none. It is already the case that science cannot prove there are gods, nor can it disprove there are gods. So far, the hypothesis that there are gods has not shown itself to be useful in any field of science or technology. But one can always hope, right simplicio, I mean PomonaCA? The assumptions of science are only ever provisional. Science doesn't seek to establish proofs in the sense that mathematics does. Ultimately it is observational evidence that provides support for or against the hypothesis of science.

Again, no it doesn't and never will. Though it's very doubtful that the assumption, "There's a God" will ever prove useful in establishing the cladistic and genetic relationships between the flora and fauna of the living and fossil worlds.

That all you got?

No. Professors don't worship knowledge. They spend their days criticizing each others claims to knowledge. The "profiteers" are the people whose lives have been saved by or bettered by the researches of academic bio-physicists, academic medical researchers and epidemiologists. The profiteers are you who are now enjoying the benefits of quantum field theory as it applies to the engineering of ever tinier computer chips. The profiteers are you who have thrown away your road atlases and navigate by GPS (a device that depends on the General Theory of Relativity for its proper functioning), or who text your friends umpteen times a day, or you who waste your days in front of video games, or you who fly to visit distant friends and family. The profiteers include those of you who simply enjoy peering into the night sky at a universe that's 13.7 billion years old and attempt to relate to the myriad of galaxies whose light has journeyed for eons to reach our eyes at just the moment we look up.

The best argument against the gods is that they're useless. God theory has just never produced any testable consequences which have withstood the scrutiny of observation.

Actually what I said is that the profiteers are your local colleges worship "so called knowledge", which they do. But maybe a better way to say it is to say that the profiteers at your local colleges worship 'so called intelligence'. Questioning information is not intelligence nor is it knowledge. Nor is the fruit of questioning information. Human intelligence is incapable of 'knowing' anything. What your best intelligence 'knows' today will not be what it 'knows tomorrow'.

[trish]

Questioning information is not intelligence nor is it knowledge.Nor is it worship.


What your best intelligence 'knows' today will not be what it 'knows tomorrow'. So what didn't you understand in my use of the word "provisional"?

[PomonaCA]

Nor is it worship.

So what didn't you understand in my use of the word "provisional"?


The knowledge you worship is 'provisional'? Ok, good luck planning a life like that.

[muhmuh]

The knowledge you worship is 'provisional'? Ok, good luck planning a life like that.

1) is it really so hard for you to get into your thick skull that people dont worship knowledge (whats that even supposed to mean?)
2) welcome to the scientific method that served us well for the last 350+ years and helped us get out of the dark ages

[trish]

The knowledge you worship is 'provisional'? Ok, good luck planning a life like that. No asshole. Try reading for comprehension. You're the only one claiming to be a worshiper.

[yodajazz]

If we find evidence of life on other planets?

Will they just bend and twist the words, and generally bullshit as they usually do, or will they eventually give in to the truth?

Seems pretty simple to me. God is defined as creating the universe. So everything that is created or discovered in the future comes from God.

[russtafa]

Religion is basically a philosophy for the masses.Islam is a bad philosophy i prefer fascism it works better than democracy and things get done .Any religion is a tool the state should use to control the masses

[hippifried]

Religion is basically a philosophy for the masses.Islam is a bad philosophy i prefer fascism it works better than democracy and things get done .Any religion is a tool the state should use to control the masses
Why am I not surprized?

Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler?

[russtafa]

Franco or Mussolini i love wearing those black or brown shirts and looking after communists and liberals in our own special way in our special fascist holiday camps

[PomonaCA]

No asshole. Try reading for comprehension. You're the only one claiming to be a worshiper.


And I'm the one calling you a worshipper, which you are. You just don't know what you worship.

[trish]

And I'm the one calling you a worshipper, which you are. You just don't know what you worship. For the word, “worship” Merriam-Webster lists two meaniings

1. to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power.
2. to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion <a celebrity worshipped by her fans>

http://dictionary.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worshippers

Of course meaning (1) is anathema to the project of developing quantitative parallel and provisional understandings of natural phenomena and subjecting them to exacting tests until they break. Anyone who worships science in the sense of meaning (1) just doesn’t understand the enterprise. Anyone who thinks a scientist worships science in the sense of meaning (1) doesn’t understand the enterprise.

On the other hand, most people who find themselves pursuing one profession or another will no doubt display some respect for what they do, the job they perform, the project in which they are involved. I confess to have a modest respect for practices of mathematicians and scientists and for the public benefits of their achievements. I have even attended a conference or two that were held in honor of a senior colleague’s work. But I do not think these examples of respect rise to the level of great and/or extravagant. I can definitely say I hold no colleague in reverence, no theory in reverence, no technique or experimental result in reverence. All of the above (except for the colleagues of course) are fair game for the chopping block. If you do not believe I have given a reasonably accurate description of my own thinking on this matter, then the burden is on you to prove that you know my mind better than do I.

[hippifried]

My oh my... The challenge has been laid.

Trish,

You should never underestimate the power of claire voyance that comes with being that obtuse. Of course he knows what you think better than you do. Just ask him. That is, after all, the chief talking point that's memorized by the mesmerized.

There's no possible point to be made here. You can't argue with the irrational, & humoring them just exacerbates the crazy. You might as well be baying at the moon or shouting at a stump. They make a good object of derision, but other than that, they're just boring. That was always the problem with Alinsky's tactics (that the teabaggers, Limbites, followers of Rove, Armey, & bug eyed Becky have adopted) & why they always backfire.

[PomonaCA]

My oh my... The challenge has been laid.

Trish,

You should never underestimate the power of claire voyance that comes with being that obtuse. Of course he knows what you think better than you do. Just ask him. That is, after all, the chief talking point that's memorized by the mesmerized.

There's no possible point to be made here. You can't argue with the irrational, & humoring them just exacerbates the crazy. You might as well be baying at the moon or shouting at a stump. They make a good object of derision, but other than that, they're just boring. That was always the problem with Alinsky's tactics (that the teabaggers, Limbites, followers of Rove, Armey, & bug eyed Becky have adopted) & why they always backfire.


Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it.

[thombergeron]

Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it.

As many times as I see this, it's still mind-boggling. Here's a person with full access to the vast breadth of human knowledge, who has no conception of how fortunate he is to live in a time and a place where where he has that access, and he still insists on being ignorant. Not only that, he stands up in a public forum proudly declaring that ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery...

You're right, hippifried. It's pointless...

[doasuwill]

They will just use their usual god created them talking point. Kind of luck when I ask the nutty religious people in my family about the Trex, they say god put him here to mess with the Scientist, just nutty I tell yeah, just nutty.

[hippifried]

Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it.
LOL! As if I could ever discourage her from doing whatever she wants, or would even give the slightest consideration to trying. I think you've miscalculated & really don't know who you're messin' with. It'd be perfectly understandable if she decided to just ignore your silly pointlessness, but if she decides to allow you to piss her off, I'll get some popcorn & sit back while you get eviscerated. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to even realize it's happening. More likely scenario is that she would feel pity for your stupidity & try (for some unfathomable reason) to reason with you. Until you piss her off of course. Either way, it's entertainment to me. Far be it from me to intervene.

[trish]

Originally Posted by PomonaCA http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/ca_serenity/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?p=811552#post811552) Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it. Oh my, I might cite a paper that details an experiment and reports on the result. And then I might goof and cite a dozen or so other papers that report on attempts to reproduce the original result. Can't have that. After all, the tenets of science are "only scientific opinion." Take conservation of mass-energy, for example. Even though various versions of the principle had been in use during the eighteenth century, it hadn't been fully developed until the nineteenth century. It took until then for it to become "scientific opinion." It had to be revised in the twentieth century to accommodate special relativity. It's still difficult to interpret in some general relativistic settings. It has not yet been tested at Planck scales. Who knows if it will hold in that domain? Never mind that engineers, architects and doctors as well as physicists and chemists and biologists seem to find it applicable. Those are just liberal types who are simply too stupid to realize prayer is all you need to build a bridge or manufacture a MRI machine. Science is just politics. Special relativity is an outright Jewish deceit (or so the Nazi's tell us); and the conservation of energy is something that liberals cite when they try to argue that if more energy strikes the Earth each day than can radiate away, the excess heat energy will begin to accumulate. Citing the first principle of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) is an act of communism, pure and simple. It's an attempt to establish a one world government.

Sorry to disappoint you hippiefried, as you can see, I gave up and joined the other side. Praise the lord.

[hippifried]

The rapture is upon us! My girl has seen fit to partake of the poison tea! I guess I knew things were about to get topsy turvy as soon as that godless commie scientist managed to kill Pluto.

Oh well. It's a good thing God invented those nukes to get us to the end of days.

[yodajazz]

Oh my, I might cite a paper that details an experiment and reports on the result. And then I might goof and cite a dozen or so other papers that report on attempts to reproduce the original result. Can't have that. After all, the tenets of science are "only scientific opinion." Take conservation of mass-energy, for example. Even though various versions of the principle had been in use during the eighteenth century, it hadn't been fully developed until the nineteenth century. It took until then for it to become "scientific opinion." It had to be revised in the twentieth century to accommodate special relativity. It's still difficult to interpret in some general relativistic settings. It has not yet been tested at Planck scales. Who knows if it will hold in that domain? Never mind that engineers, architects and doctors as well as physicists and chemists and biologists seem to find it applicable. Those are just liberal types who are simply too stupid to realize prayer is all you need to build a bridge or manufacture a MRI machine. Science is just politics. Special relativity is an outright Jewish deceit (or so the Nazi's tell us); and the conservation of energy is something that liberals cite when they try to argue that if more energy strikes the Earth each day than can radiate away, the excess heat energy will begin to accumulate. Citing the first principle of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) is an act of communism, pure and simple. It's an attempt to establish a one world government.

Sorry to disappoint you hippiefried, as you can see, I gave up and joined the other side. Praise the lord.

As much as I disagree with PomonaCA on other issues. I think that he could have use the concept of 'faith' rather than worship. That is to say that some of what science believes to be facts, are only theories. But we have faith that these theories are correct. There could possibly some scientific discoverys that would turn our views of important things on its head. I'm not saying that science is not basing theories on solid evidence, however. Its just to say that we all have some kind of faith in things that we have not proved for ourselves.

[yodajazz]

Just give her time to talk. It's obvious she has the disease of liberalism. You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is that the no matter how peer reviewed, the studies are only scientific opinion, nothing more because sciences KNOWS little yet you guys worship it.

This is off topic, but when did "liberalism" become a disease? I see this type of thinking as a sign of serious brainwashing. No wonder our nation is going downhill. Some people can no longer see a nation where people are equal, but have differing opinions. Someone who disagrees with the views of Glen Beck, is now diseased? The word 'liberal' is now only a coded brainwashed term, so associated with negatve terms, that are not related at all to being liberal. I can tell the signs of those people that used those coded terms. And they are trained to defy logical information. Their masters tell them that facts, come from the liberal media.

But after some thought this does relate some to the original topic. Control is not the domain of religion. You have a whole group of people in the US today, who are being controled by media masters, tied to political agenda. They do sometimes use religious trappings, but its more about classical brainwashing through repetition. To make myself clear, I'm talking about the Rush Limbaughs, etc. Once people are convinced not to see others as human, their leaders have complete control, even to take away those 'non-human' lives.

[muhmuh]

That is to say that some of what science believes to be facts, are only theories.

that just shows a complete and fundamental lack of knowing the first thing about science ie the lingo
in science a theory is basically the word used for what the great unwashed would call a scientific fact

[circ]

No, a theory is just that, a theory. It is superseded by fact when that becomes available, but you won't hear about that because you're not a scientist or don't bother reading. Let me give you an example of a theory that is however taken as fact. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Yet somehow creationists and ID advocates take the theory of man co-existing with dinosaurs, 6000 years ago, as fact. They completely ignore carbon dating and other scientific methods of dating. And it's not even a scientific theory, there are no experiments conducted, no use of logic or reason, nothing. Just made up things. This is called faith, or retardation.

[trish]

That is to say that some of what science believes to be facts, are only theories. But we have faith that these theories are correct. There could possibly some scientific discoverys that would turn our views of important things on its head. I'm not saying that science is not basing theories on solid evidence, however. Its just to say that we all have some kind of faith in things that we have not proved for ourselves.Actually I don't think our differences here are all that great. I wouldn't say that scientists have faith that their theories are correct. In this context I have more difficulty with the word "correct" than the word "faith", though I would use neither. I prefer "expectation" and "accurate." E.g.: if a theory is widely accepted it is because the preponderance of evidence warrants the expectation (faith?) that the theory provides an accurate description of the phenomena (is correct?) within its domain of application.

The distinction between fact and theory can be a tricky one. The most controversial fact/theory dispute is of course the one about evolution. Many biologists will take the stance that evolution is a fact and "natural selection acting through phenotypes on randomly mutable gene pools" is a theory that attempts to account for the fact.

Putting this dispute aside, in most cases the distinction between fact and theory is reasonably straightforward. I suppose you could say it's a theory that if you carefully measure the radiation in any skyward direction you will find in the microwave bandwidth a blackbody distribution of about 3.5 +/- 1.5K. It is, however, a fact that this experiment has been performed (by robotic satellites) hundreds of thousands of times and have come up with readings in that range each time. Based on the experimental evidence, I'm comfortable with saying it's a fact, not a theory, that we're immersed in a blackbody distribution of microwave radiation with a temperature in that range. One theory that predicted this fact is George Gamow's theory of the early stages of cosmic expansion.

What is provisional here and what is not? Certainly Gamow's theory is provisional. The combined data on these microwave measurements is much less provisional. In the future someone might discover valid reasons to question some of the measurements. Perhaps someone discovers that during one series of measurements an antenna was not properly calibrated. Perhaps one series of measurements is subject to the charge of fraud. So even facts are sometimes subject to further investigation and are in this sense provisional.

Every argument ultimately rests upon a set of premises. In science the premises are either measurements (e.g. the described device gave a reading of 3.3K in the microwave band etc.), or they are hypothesis whose consequences are to be tested (e.g. the horizon of last scattering was 250 000 years after nucleosynthesis). I'm not sure there's anything here I would call faith. I've certain expectations. I expect colleagues act in good faith when conducting and reporting their work. I expect experimental evidence will fit with well accepted theory. When it doesn't, one double checks the veracity of the evidence (how was it collected? when? under what circumstances). If the troublesome evidence passes this inspection, then one tries to reproduce it. If it can't be reproduced then there's probably not sufficient warrant to toss out or modify the theory. If independent labs can reproduce the evidence, then we start looking at the theory. Is it simply being misapplied? Does it require modification? Are the required modifications too ad hoc? Is there a theory that does better? Etc. etc.

If you are merely asserting that "faith" in science is synonymous with these sorts of "expectations" and that scientists are more or less willing, when warranted, to revise their "faith" and sometimes toss it out entirely, then we have no substantial dispute...just a difference in word preference. The sticky point here is that often "faith" is thought of something that one persists in even when all evidence is against it.

[hippifried]

It's all theory. But at least a theory is based on evidence. If someone thinks they have an alternative, just present the evidence. That's not what's happening. It's just an attack from those with no ideas.




This is off topic, but when did "liberalism" become a disease? ~Yodajazz~
In the 1980s, there was a concerted propaganda effort to memetically equate liberalism with communism. That's when it happened. What made it possible was the refusal of liberals to refute it. There was a lost decade where all the moise came from the right. The same thing happened to conservatism, at the same time, but without the vitriol. Conservatives got rebranded as right wing. The more extreme or even fanatical & reactionary someone was on the right, the more "conservative" they were. The reality is/was that there's nothing conservative about trying to change the national mindset to one of intolerance. We allowed a handful of fanatic loudmouths to completely dominate the national debate. It victimized everybody of all bents, & it's taken another 2 decades just to start talking again. This is why I don't want the left doing the exact same thing.

What so many adherents of the loudmouths don't seem to realize, with all the revisionism that's happened, is that everything we consider conservative traditions today began as a liberal idea that started a big fight. In the end, liberalism always wins out. If it didn't, we'd still be serfs, under the thumb of some asshole just because of who's sperm went where.

[PomonaCA]

Oh my, I might cite a paper that details an experiment and reports on the result. And then I might goof and cite a dozen or so other papers that report on attempts to reproduce the original result. Can't have that. After all, the tenets of science are "only scientific opinion." Take conservation of mass-energy, for example. Even though various versions of the principle had been in use during the eighteenth century, it hadn't been fully developed until the nineteenth century. It took until then for it to become "scientific opinion." It had to be revised in the twentieth century to accommodate special relativity. It's still difficult to interpret in some general relativistic settings. It has not yet been tested at Planck scales. Who knows if it will hold in that domain? Never mind that engineers, architects and doctors as well as physicists and chemists and biologists seem to find it applicable. Those are just liberal types who are simply too stupid to realize prayer is all you need to build a bridge or manufacture a MRI machine. Science is just politics. Special relativity is an outright Jewish deceit (or so the Nazi's tell us); and the conservation of energy is something that liberals cite when they try to argue that if more energy strikes the Earth each day than can radiate away, the excess heat energy will begin to accumulate. Citing the first principle of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) is an act of communism, pure and simple. It's an attempt to establish a one world government.

Sorry to disappoint you hippiefried, as you can see, I gave up and joined the other side. Praise the lord.

That entire post was ramble on. I think you had 1 solid point in there, not that I agree with it, but when you said "those are just liberal types....". That part made sense, you're wrong, but at least it was coherent. And you've illustrated another liberal tactic, 'ridiculous exaggeration'. No one claims that prayer solves everything so your straw man tactics are fail again. Science is valuable, but it's only science. Once you understand that, my dear, the doors to the universe open up for you. You bow to science as if it's some kind of God and that's where you fail. It's only science. Calm down.

The rest of your paragraph was you using the same language that you worship. Derivative drivel. You're talking for the sake of talking.

[hippifried]

See Trish? Another Alinsky tactic. "Projection". They describe the things that are wrong with themselves to attack someone else. The tactics work on the stupid & gullible. How do you think he got brainwashed like that? Alinsky didn't make this shit up. It was old hat when he started as a radical. He just wrote it all down in a clear & concise manner. Most people had never heard of Saul Alinsky until these bozos started droping his name constantly & claiming that everybody but them was folowing him like sheep. This latest aspect of the lunatic fringe right is everything we were told to beware of from the commies during the cold war.

[PomonaCA]

See Trish? Another Alinsky tactic. "Projection". They describe the things that are wrong with themselves to attack someone else. The tactics work on the stupid & gullible. How do you think he got brainwashed like that? Alinsky didn't make this shit up. It was old hat when he started as a radical. He just wrote it all down in a clear & concise manner. Most people had never heard of Saul Alinsky until these bozos started droping his name constantly & claiming that everybody but them was folowing him like sheep. This latest aspect of the lunatic fringe right is everything we were told to beware of from the commies during the cold war.


Amazing. So now we understand the roots of liberal elitism. So this alinsky guy, he believed that the majority of Americans were stupid and as a result, likely willing to fall for some kind of political or religious savior. Am I right?

That sounds like a nice way of saying that most people are stupid and need someone to help them organize and manage their lives.

Whew! Thank God for liberals! How did mankind live all this time without them planning our lives and doing all the thinking?

[trish]

Science is valuable, but it's only science.Very good. That's exactly my point. Sorry I was long winded. I'm just puzzled though. If science is valuable, why shouldn't one cite a scientific study in support of an opinion. Wouldn't that support, even though it's only "scientific opinion" be valuable? Since when is citing a study in support of one's position a form of worship?
You'll see her cite some study or quote in order to justify her opinion. The problem is ...
You bow to science...Isn't this a "ridiculous exaggeration"? Isn't it setting up a straw man?
'ridiculous exaggeration'...straw man tactics
True enough. I made use of a ridiculous exaggeration within the context of sarcasm. But that's partly what sarcasm is. Your ridiculous exaggeration is made with all seriousness....wait a minute....you got me....you've been using sarcasm and I missed it. Well slap my knee!

[PomonaCA]

Very good. That's exactly my point. Sorry I was long winded. I'm just puzzled though. If science is valuable, why shouldn't one cite a scientific study in support of an opinion.

Another exaggeration. No one is telling you to not cite. What I'm telling you is to not worship (which you do, whether you agree with it or not).

[trish]

No you seem to think that my citing a paper (an instance of which you never linked to) would be evidence of my worshiping science. Why do you think that?

[PomonaCA]

No you seem to think that my citing a paper (an instance of which you never linked to) would be evidence of my worshiping science. Why do you think that?


I'm too lazy to search then link. I'll point it out as you do it. Remember, the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

[trish]

No problem here. You're the one who seems to have the problem. I'm just trying to understand what it is that's bugging you. So once again, why do you think my citing a paper would be evidence of worship?

[PomonaCA]

You must have skipped a post. I already told you how I was going to answer.

[trish]

No you didn't. You said that since you couldn't find a link where I cited a study, you'd point out when I did it next (as if I wouldn't know I was doing it). But that's a separate issue from explaining why citing a study would be evidence of worship. So just go ahead and explain it. Why would my citing a study be evidence of worship?

[PomonaCA]

No you didn't. You said that since you couldn't find a link where I cited a study, you'd point out when I did it next (as if I wouldn't know I was doing it). But that's a separate issue from explaining why citing a study would be evidence of worship. So just go ahead and explain it. Why would my citing a study be evidence of worship?


You must be stoned again. What I said is that I'm too lazy to find a link and that I'd point your foolishness out as we go along.

[PomonaCA]

Also take note. The originator of this thread has gone awol. He must have realized that idiots have been asking that question for almost a millenia and religion is still around, ever growing. It's funny when mankind gets too far into it's own vanity and starts believing it's own hype bullshit.

[trish]

Okay you're too lazy to search for a link. But that's no reason why you can't explain now, why citing a study is evidence of worship. So go ahead and explain. Why would my citing a study be evidence of worship?

[PomonaCA]

Okay you're too lazy to search for a link. But that's no reason why you can't explain now, why citing a study is evidence of worship. So go ahead and explain. Why would my citing a study be evidence of worship?


I'd rather just point it out as we go along. That way I can point out your problem and help you with it.

[trish]

Yeah, right. So let me get this straight. You claim my citing a study would be evidence that I worship science, yet you have no examples of where I made such a citation. In fact you've claimed that several others here also worship science. So what is the evidence for your claim? It can’t be that we all cite papers. So how do you know? Do you have a premonition that one of us is about to cite a study? Or a gut feeling that I’m the type who would cite a paper in defense of an opinion. It seems what you have is a gut feeling that there would be evidence if only I would just go ahead and a cite paper. But even if I cited a paper, you can't tell me why that would be evidence of worship. Oh I know, you prefer to evade the question I actually cite a study and you've had time to think up a reasonable answer (as if all evening wasn't enough time).

Since you claim to know our minds better than we do ourselves, I’ll treat you to a little secret about your own head. You won’t believe it. But it’s true. You’re jealous. Here we are, a bunch of non-believers, free of the encumbrances of superstition and there you are, unable to break free of your miserable little Middle Eastern desert god. You haven’t been able to throw off the yoke of belief, have you? Why? Does the threat of fire and brimstone loom just a little too large? Or perhaps you just can’t bare to disappoint family and friends. Your intellectual cowardice is something you insist on keeping even at the price of misery. Perhaps its the uncertainty of the world that frightens you. Better to pretend to certainty of the word of a fictional god, then attempt to make ones way in the world of uncertain knowledge and provisional solutions. Perhaps you just can’t comprehend not having something to worship. That’s why you’re so quick to accuse others of being what you are, a bent-knee worshiper. Inside you wail, “If I can’t find freedom, no one else really can either; not really.” Isn’t that right? Isn’t that how you feel? All those professed atheists, you think, are just kneeling down before other gods. They must be. They can’t be free. Perhaps they worship science, or philosophy or some sort of monolithic liberal politics. In your mind everybody has to worship something. I’m sorry for you. I really am. Because freedom really is exhilarating. I wish I could help. I've tried to engage you this evening, but you were too afraid to post anything but snide remarks. But hey, what is it you conservatives say, “every man for himself.” Perhaps you should just go back to the general forum and whack off to some TG-porn, and then pray that your little imaginary man forgives you.

[PomonaCA]

Yeah, right. So let me get this straight. You claim my citing a study would be evidence that I worship science, yet you have no examples of where I made such a citation."

You'll give me plenty of examples, just wait. Give yourself some time. You're like a goldmine of science worship and I'm confident you'll pull through. Don't be so hard on yourself. Remember, just be yourself and your science worship will reveal itself.

[hippifried]

No you seem to think that my citing a paper (an instance of which you never linked to) would be evidence of my worshiping science. Why do you think that?
Because he's gullible & stupid.

Gullible because he bought the bullshit hype & thinks it works.

Stupid because he can't figure out why it doesn't work on somebody who isn't gullible & stupid.

[trish]

Thank you PomonaCA for showing us, by your example, how religion will cope: with denial, evasion, sweeping displays of ignorance, accusations of idolatry, attempts at smug superiority and all the other Taliban tactics of religious fundamentalism. You can post anything you wish, PomonaCA, but you've so undercut your credibility, at least with me, and have so revealed the bad faith of your intentions, that I no longer have any reason to take anything you say as honest or accurate. Of course it's not entirely your fault. You're trapped in your cramped little mind and can't get out. You're jealous of the freedom all around you that others enjoy. You want to restrain them. You want to punish those who aren't trapped in the ways that you are. You hate us for our freedom. I get it. But I've had enough of it. You're just too pathetic a self-hating wanker to bother with.

[PomonaCA]

Thank you PomonaCA for showing us, by your example, how religion will cope: with denial, evasion, sweeping displays of ignorance, accusations of idolatry, attempts at smug superiority and all the other Taliban tactics of religious fundamentalism. You can post anything you wish, PomonaCA, but you've so undercut your credibility, at least with me, and have so revealed the bad faith of your intentions, that I no longer have any reason to take anything you say as honest or accurate. Of course it's not entirely your fault. You're trapped in your cramped little mind and can't get out. You're jealous of the freedom all around you that others enjoy. You want to restrain them. You want to punish those who aren't trapped in the ways that you are. You hate us for our freedom. I get it. But I've had enough of it. You're just too pathetic a self-hating wanker to bother with.


LOL you running away? Thats ok, I'll still be here to see our discussion through. You give us your thoughts, I'll expose them. I'll be right here.

[circ]

But you haven't exposed anything. All you've done is respond with beyond retarded snide remarks about your supposed mental superiority. You really have no clue what a debate is do you?

[muhmuh]

one more thing though trish
i gotta ask why did you waste so much time on him in the first place
i mean hes been here for a while now and its pretty much been clear right from his first post that theres less going on inside his noggin than inside tfans (that was the name wasnt it? it was a long time ago)

[hippifried]

Trish is just optimistic. She's relatively young. There's still plenty of time to develop into a total cynic.

[trish]

There are lots of people out there who think that science really can offer definitive answers and certain knowledge and then there are others who think science is just another religion complete with a priestly class with just a pretense to knowledge. Of course neither perspective is accurate. I find it useful sometimes to reflect on the lay of the land in between and put into words all the different ways some "understandings" can be warranted and at the same time only provisional. Writing often helps me crystallize my own thoughts and this is a topic I'm generally happy to think about and discuss. That's why some of the posts are a bit loquacious. I do prefer talking to sane people like hippiefried, muhmuh, circ and yodajazz (just to name a few of the many sane posters here). But when I'm in the mood to think about an issue, anybody's post might be a springboard. Also, it gets my goat when someone deliberately misrepresents me in a public forum. So thanks for the moral support guys.

[PomonaCA]

Well there you have it. You're popular.

[hippifried]

Of course she is. Smart tends to draw positive attention. Stupid just draws more stupid. But of course you would already know this.

[PomonaCA]

Of course she is. Smart tends to draw positive attention. Stupid just draws more stupid. But of course you would already know this.


Smart is a matter of opinion, unless it's your kind of smart...... then it's vanity.

[hippifried]

Ignorance is lack of knowlege.

Intelligence is the willingness & ability to rectify one's ignorance.

Stupidity is a misguided egoistic refusal to show intelligence.

Smart is smart. Vanity is opinion.

[PomonaCA]

Ignorance is lack of knowlege.

Intelligence is the willingness & ability to rectify one's ignorance.

Stupidity is a misguided egoistic refusal to show intelligence.

Smart is smart. Vanity is opinion.


Knowledge is also subject to opinion. Be careful what you consider knowledge, be more careful when you take pride in this alleged knowledge because then it's empty vanity.

[hippifried]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[trish]

Of course opinion enters into every sort of judgment human beings make. When I measure the width of a room I have an opinion about what sort of accuracy will suffice for my purposes. If all I want to do is estimate how roomy it will look if I buy that leather sofa I have an eye for, then in my opinion I don’t need a measurement that’s accurate to the nearest micrometer. I’ll just use a tape measurer. I bought my tape at True Value. It’s my opinion that it’s reasonably accurate for my purposes. Suppose I find the room is 20’6” wide plus or minus a couple of inches. That’s my opinion based on a single measurement. It’s also the width of the room. Am I proud of that knowledge? Naw. Would I have more pride if I measured it using a laser-echo device and getting an answer in angstrom units? Of course not. Pride just doesn’t enter into it. (Besides, the distance between the two walls varies by more than a angstrom depending on where the measurements are made and the temperature of the room when the measurement is made. In any case, it’s my opinion that the extra decimals are irrelevant to my purpose.)

Okay but that’s a rather mundane example. What about the theory that allows us to build those lasers that can be used to measure distances with nanometer accuracy? Does opinion enter into the theory behind light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation? Yes, it does. First, any physical theory starts by making simplifying assumptions based on the investigator’s opinion that for the purposes of understanding the simplifications are warranted. Second, experimental tests of the theory are subject to various opinions and judgments, just like those that enter into measuring the width of a living room. That’s why it’s always nice to have teams that want to verify the theory and teams that want to disprove the theory test it independently. In the end we have several models of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Each model suited to different domains and scales of accuracy. Each has been tested and is based on reams of evidence. Human opinion and judgments have had a hand in the process from the very start. Should anyone be proud of this knowledge. I’m not, I didn’t have anything to do with it, even though I did study a few of the models in school and ran a test or two as a learning experience. I think the teams who did the real testing can be proud of their work. But that’s somewhat different from being proud of the knowledge, because there is no absolute knowledge here...just some mathematical models that capture our current understanding and some physical models (i.e actual lasers) that seem to verify that understanding at the moment. I think Einstein and the other founders of the theory could have rightfully been proud of their work as well, but I also think Einstein might be the first to point out (were he alive today) that he can’t be proud of his knowledge because he has none in any absolute sense of the word.

Here are some related questions. Does opinion enter into faith? Should one be proud of one’s faith? Should one be proud to be a Christian, or is that empty vanity? If you have faith that a god exists does that mean you’re certain she or he exists? Is that certain knowledge?

[PomonaCA]

Of course opinion enters into every sort of judgment human beings make. When I measure the width of a room I have an opinion about what sort of accuracy will suffice for my purposes. If all I want to do is estimate how roomy it will look if I buy that leather sofa I have an eye for, then in my opinion I don’t need a measurement that’s accurate to the nearest micrometer. I’ll just use a tape measurer. I bought my tape at True Value. It’s my opinion that it’s reasonably accurate for my purposes. Suppose I find the room is 20’6” wide plus or minus a couple of inches. That’s my opinion based on a single measurement. It’s also the width of the room. Am I proud of that knowledge? Naw. Would I have more pride if I measured it using a laser-echo device and getting an answer in angstrom units? Of course not. Pride just doesn’t enter into it. (Besides, the distance between the two walls varies by more than a angstrom depending on where the measurements are made and the temperature of the room when the measurement is made. In any case, it’s my opinion that the extra decimals are irrelevant to my purpose.)

Okay but that’s a rather mundane example. What about the theory that allows us to build those lasers that can be used to measure distances with nanometer accuracy? Does opinion enter into the theory behind light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation? Yes, it does. First, any physical theory starts by making simplifying assumptions based on the investigator’s opinion that for the purposes of understanding the simplifications are warranted. Second, experimental tests of the theory are subject to various opinions and judgments, just like those that enter into measuring the width of a living room. That’s why it’s always nice to have teams that want to verify the theory and teams that want to disprove the theory test it independently. In the end we have several models of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Each model suited to different domains and scales of accuracy. Each has been tested and is based on reams of evidence. Human opinion and judgments have had a hand in the process from the very start. Should anyone be proud of this knowledge. I’m not, I didn’t have anything to do with it, even though I did study a few of the models in school and ran a test or two as a learning experience. I think the teams who did the real testing can be proud of their work. But that’s somewhat different from being proud of the knowledge, because there is no absolute knowledge here...just some mathematical models that capture our current understanding and some physical models (i.e actual lasers) that seem to verify that understanding at the moment. I think Einstein and the other founders of the theory could have rightfully been proud of their work as well, but I also think Einstein might be the first to point out (were he alive today) that he can’t be proud of his knowledge because he has none in any absolute sense of the word.

Here are some related questions. Does opinion enter into faith? Should one be proud of one’s faith? Should one be proud to be a Christian, or is that empty vanity? If you have faith that a god exists does that mean you’re certain she or he exists? Is that certain knowledge?


You're rambling again. If you have a point, say what it is.

[yodajazz]

Most people who believe in God, see some form of evidence that 'it' exists. You may not believe that the evidence warrants the belief. However you could easily have doubts about a popular scientific theory that is very popular. Many people see that the universe is governed by physical laws. But more importantly many people, seeing that human behaviors, have consequences, see these consequences that there are laws. That law would be called God. Some people believe that a person could kill someone and get away with it. A person who believes in God would feel that there would be consequence, even if the person avoided being caught and charged for the crime.

I think the issue is that too many people have an overly simple view of what God should be. They may feel that a loving God, would not let a good person suffer, or a child to die in a hurricane. So they don't believe that a God exists for this reason. But nature is a system that was 'designed' to balance.

@Trish. It is interesting that you used light as an example, because spiritual things are often described as 'light'. Somewhere in tlhe Bible, I believe it says, "Let your light shine, among men", or something like that. But just like you admit that some new properties could be discovered, I believe the understanding of God could be, and has been expanded beyond the words of the ancient Holy Book. I think too many people who believe in God, don't understand that God, defined as the creator, should be, and does create new words beyond the Bible. Most people would see God as truth. So as scientific knowledge expands human awareness, it should not contradict, truth but exapand truth. Many stories in the Bible can be used as allegory. So the 'seven days of creation', does not have to mean seven actual earth days, for example. Why would a god who is credited with creating the universe, limit his time frame to earth days?

So that is to say that for many people, the problem is not so much with God as it is the application what is God's meaning to specific life situations. It's the same as someone who starts off with sound scientifc theory, but comes to a wrong conclusion based upon faulty reasoning.

[trish]

Thank you, yodajazz, for your thoughtful post.

Suppose it is the case that most humans recognize the utility of adopting universal moral laws. Some might think that such a moral code will inevitably, over time, evolve out of our continued social contact. Others might think such a code is already hardwired by evolution into most human DNA. Others might think such a moral code is embedded in the fabric of the universe as laws of nature. Still others think such a moral code would be a set of commandments laid out by a god, or the gods. As an aside, I see no a priori reason to accept any of these explanations of moral law. But my real question is: Why would one wish to call any of these conceptions of moral law God? If for example, human beings eventually evolve a universal moral code simply for sociological reasons (all the better to get along without bloodshed and conflict), why would they want to call that common moral law God? Isn't that just calling something that isn't a god, God for the sake of having a god? Isn't akin to what some religions call idolatry? I think that would be one conception of god that would be easy to dismiss on the grounds that it's an empty conception. It's just renaming something that's not a god, God.

[yodajazz]

Moral law would not be called god. But law, or Law, is one of the two greatest aspects of how God is defined. But since God is defined as the creator of the physical universe, by many, or the creator of the world, then physical laws too would be part of God. Some may view physical laws as separate, but a supreme intelligence would know how to use laws, at its will. But in my philosophy, physical law is an aspect of God.

The other aspect of God is Love. So someone defined, the entire universe as, either law or love. The funny thing, is that there should be not much conflict with people who do not believe in god, and those who do. Any sane person should understand that there are laws in the universe. Also any sane person, should know there is a moral code, even if the details are in dispute.

[LaCosa]

If we find evidence of life on other planets?

Will they just bend and twist the words, and generally bullshit as they usually do, or will they eventually give in to the truth?

Theologians have already been working on how to respond to E.T.'s if humanity ever discovers their existence or learns of them. At least I have been told that.

To become a theologian you have to earn a Ph.D. in philosophy. That is no small task. One of the branches of philosophy is logic and logic is very much correlated with mathematics. Of course, logic does not equate to truth as much to validity of argument.

"Truth" is something elusive. Take life on another planet - and I'm not talking about single cell life but multicellular, complex life forms. It's all speculative and belief in it is predicated on faith.

Most people I encounter that believe there is life on another plant usually offer this explanation: "Man! The universe is so big you can't honestly believe we are the only ones in it?"

The problem with that used as a logical defense is it is as much a logical fallacy as the notorious God of the gaps defense, i.e., science can't explain X therefore God must be the explanation for X.

When I was a child I believed in aliens possibly visiting the earth. While I know it is possible (almost anything is possible - it's possible some man can punch through a concrete wall) alien can or have visited the earth, I don't believe they have or do, even assuming they exist.

Personally, I believe in God. I have reason too. One of which was almost being knocked unconscious by the gentle touch of a Priest that supposedly has received gifts from the Holy Spirit (from healing to reading people). He alluded to some things about myself it would have been impossible for anyone to know. Utterly impossible, because it had to do with my thoughts and heart with respects to something that occurred in my personal history.

Now, having said that, it would not surprise me if there is life on another planet. I'm not sure what that means. If one has ever taken a course in environmental science the notion and possibility of "invasive species" species should pop in mind. The Great Lakes in the Midwest are dealing with an invasive species problem right now. Be careful the door you open because you might not be able to close it back.

By the way, a number of stars are named after Jesuits for a reason. A year or so ago I was reading a book by a Jesuit who is both a theologian and a cosmologist (meaning he's a little bit better educated than most students graduating from U.S. public high schools, a number of whom are functionally illiterate, but no doubt believe in aliens). The Catholic Church actually operates two observatories in the Vatican and here in the United States. They also run an association of some of the worlds top scientists (regardless if they are atheist or of another religion). And Catholic theologians are by far the leaders in bioethics throughout the world. Reason being they began philosophical work on case studies, by the hundreds, before most secular people or any other religions began setting pen to paper in this area.

So "truth" and even "his-story" is a bit elusive. More often it is the case that people just have different perspectives. And some of the most hostile opinions are between scientists themselves with their competing theories. Richard Lewontin (a pioneering geneticist) and Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist) for example, have some pretty strong opinions. Aside from Dawkins great intellect and his popular fame, I'm not much moved to believe is view of genes in relation to natural selection is the "truth." Frankly, I think it's at least partly B.S.

[LaCosa]

..."profiteers" are the people whose lives have been saved by or bettered by the researches of academic bio-physicists, academic medical researchers and epidemiologists. The profiteers are you who are now enjoying the benefits of quantum field theory as it applies to the engineering of ever tinier computer chips. The profiteers are you who have thrown away your road atlases and navigate by GPS (a device that depends on the General Theory of Relativity for its proper functioning), or who text your friends umpteen times a day, or you who waste your days in front of video games, or you who fly to visit distant friends and family. The profiteers include those of you who simply enjoy peering into the night sky at a universe that's 13.7 billion years old and attempt to relate to the myriad of galaxies whose light has journeyed for eons to reach our eyes at just the moment we look up.

What does any of that have to do with God. Humans have intellect? Yes, and?

The Republic of Venice was an great engineering feat before the secular Republic of the United States (aside from the fact the U.S. did not become a democracy until 1920 when women gained federally protected right to vote) and the city of New Orleans came into existence.

Belief in God or the lack of does not stop human intellectual achievements from occurring.



The best argument against the gods is that they're useless. God theory has just never produced any testable consequences which have withstood the scrutiny of observation.

LOL. Scientific methodology and peer review is but one form of attempting to know and understand. Mind you, it's perhaps one of the best if not the best method when it comes to knowing the natural world. But it is a bit fallacious to leap to the conclusion science and peer review (or that is to say the majority opinion by a few elitist) only ever approaches truth and that philosophy and its sister theology is dead.

Industrial technology also helped screw up the environment through capitalism and communism. Pueblo Indians and their belief in a Great Creator didn't do that.

[trish]

So someone defined, the entire universe as, either law or love. The funny thing, is that there should be not much conflict with people who do not believe in god, and those who do.__yodajazz
I agree that if god were defined to be the universe, or defined to be law or love there should be no conflict with people who don't believe in the other gods(i.e. the ones who are not so defined) as long as the universe doesn't now become encumbered with the usual baggage and assumptions associated with "God".


What does any of that have to do with God. Humans have intellect? Yes, and?__LaCosa.
It has nothing to do with god or the gods or "God." The quote to which you refer was made in response to the remarks of another poster.


Scientific methodology and peer review is but one form of attempting to know and understand. Mind you, it's perhaps one of the best if not the best method when it comes to knowing the natural world. But it is a bit fallacious to leap to the conclusion science and peer review (or that is to say the majority opinion by a few elitist) only ever approaches truth and that philosophy and its sister theology is dead.
As I've said several times in this thread, I don't know what "truth" is. We have no operational definition of truth and no way of deciding for certain whether a single claim to knowledge is true. I prefer to stick to the more humble goals. I would be the last to conclude that theology is dead. I simply claim that it has so far proved useless for producing testable consequences, not only in the domain of science but also in law, morality, ethics, politics and other domains where humans seek publicly accurate understandings. I'll stick my neck out and offer as a hypothesis that this will continue to be the case.

I do find it a little odd that you should call scientific methodology and peer review "the majority opinion by a few elitist." The Jesuit cosmologists whom you celebrate belong to that "majority." The people to work their way through college and earn degrees of higher learning in <pick your field, biology, physics, English literature, art history etc.> come from all walks of life. Some are humble about their mental prowess, some are not. Just because a group of people have extensively studied and contributed to a subject of shared interest doesn't make them elite in any pejorative sense.


The Republic of Venice was an great engineering feat before the secular Republic of the United States (aside from the fact the U.S. did not become a democracy until 1920 when women gained federally protected right to vote) and the city of New Orleans came into existence.
Industrial technology also helped screw up the environment through capitalism and communism. Pueblo Indians and their belief in a Great Creator didn't do that.
Yes, and?

[LaCosa]

As I've said several times in this thread, I don't know what "truth" is. We have no operational definition of truth and no way of deciding for certain whether a single claim to knowledge is true.

You mean... almost akin to the vague concept of a "gene" which Richard Dawkins wants to resharpen the definition of because no scientist is entirely certain what a gene is? That vagueness of what a gene is does not stop academia from producing geneticist or stop research on the human genome. We still have a fairly good idea what a gene is... however inaccurate to whatever degree, that idea.




I prefer to stick to the more humble goals. I would be the last to conclude that theology is dead. I simply claim that it has so far proved useless for producing testable consequences, not only in the domain of science but also in law, morality, ethics, politics and other domains where humans seek publicly accurate understandings. I'll stick my neck out and offer as a hypothesis that this will continue to be the case.

You may possibly be right. I don't know, and partly because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "testable consequences" as it applies to law, morality, ethics, or politics.

German Jesuit economist from the late 1800's, Heinrich Pesch (who's work has recently been translated into several volumes of English) influenced Popes and Catholic thought on it's now current principle of solidarity. Which is one of the principles in the body of work (which began in the late 1800's) the Catholic Church calls its Social Justice Teaching. The concept of solidarity in Poland had some consequences (testable I don't know but historical for sure) as it brought down Communism across Europe. Former head of the Soviet Union Mikhal Gorbechev (spelling?) credits John Paul II and solidarity for the fall of the Soviet Empire. I'll also stick my neck out, like you, and speculate that Tony Blair's lobbying for high-income-nations to forgive the debts of low-income-nations (many in Africa) was influenced by John Paul II (he worked diplomatically for that), the Catholic principle of solidarity, and his Catholic wife. http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0205-storck

As for law... several European monks are credited with helping give birth to international law. And while U.S. law (excepted Louisiana) derives its law system from English common law, they all have some degree of origins or roots in Catholic Canon Law, albeit Catholicism derived that from the law system of the ancient Romans.

But... I will cede maybe you are right. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you or looking at this from the wrong angle. Certainly individuals within a religion don't make up the sum of the religion. Copernicus and Galileo Galilei are examples of that. Both were devote Catholics. Galileo was a Third Order Franciscan (a lay order) I believe.

But religion - at least as it is expressed in a Catholic sense of that - is more about the concept of sacramentalism. The sacraments of the Church. A sacrament being an outward sign that reveals a greater unseen truth. In that sense a sacrament is a combination of the material and extra-material reality. Assuming of course, there is a reality beyond the material.

The transsexual in a certain sense, can be thought of as a model of the concept of a "sacrament." Blood that has the accidents of wine, or in this case a girl that has the accidents of a boy.

So, in the sense of catholicity, religion is not merely reducible to "morality" nor are the greater spheres of secular life (e.g., politics, laws, economics etc.) it's primary domain. It's primary domains are the sacraments.



I do find it a little odd that you should call scientific methodology and peer review "the majority opinion by a few elitist." The Jesuit cosmologists whom you celebrate belong to that "majority." The people to work their way through college and earn degrees of higher learning in <pick your field, biology, physics, English literature, art history etc.> come from all walks of life. Some are humble about their mental prowess, some are not. Just because a group of people have extensively studied and contributed to a subject of shared interest doesn't make them elite in any pejorative sense.

I don't mean to dismiss scientists or peer review. I'm only suggesting that majority opinion does not equate to truth. For example: the majority of scientists during the life time of Galileo believed Aristotle was correct and that the sun rotated around the earth. Enter the 1930's and the majority of scientists in Europe and throughout the America's believed Eugenics was absolutely correct. Eventually that scientific concept would embroil the earth in its Second World War.

It strikes with irony that when the Nazi's rose to power, America's middle-class was reading comic books, their peers in Germany the great European classics and Germany had the most educated society on earth at that time. Yet they would burn Europe to the ground. And it wouldn't be the intellectuals and scientists of the United States to stop Adolf Hitler. It would be young boys barely educated with rifles in their hands. But scientists gave us the atomic bomb. So, hey! why stop with genocide when you can obliterate all humanity along with many other species on earth.

[trish]

You mean... almost akin to the vague concept of a "gene" which Richard Dawkins wants to resharpen the definition of because no scientist is entirely certain what a gene is? That vagueness of what a gene is does not stop academia from producing geneticist or stop research on the human genome. We still have a fairly good idea what a gene is... however inaccurate to whatever degree, that idea.Yes I mean exactly that. I gave the example of energy conservation earlier. The meaning of energy is refined with each generation of researchers. And with each generation conservation of energy is tested with greater accuracy in both greater and smaller regimes. It may fail anytime. If the failure can be repeatedly reproduced, and if it can be shown the failure is not due to experimental error, nor to misapplication of understood theory, then fundamental physics will undergo a major rewrite. In the regimes where the concept worked, it will still be used with the caveat that its not correct in all regimes. What would it take to falsify the hypothesis that at least one god exists?


I'm only suggesting that majority opinion does not equate to truth. For example: the majority of scientists during the life time of Galileo believed Aristotle was correct and that the sun rotated around the earth.And today our view is that both Galileo and Aristotle are correct on that point, for these days the laws of physics are thought to be covariant and consequently any coordinate chart is as "valid" as any other. Yes I agree, majority opinion doesn't have dibs on the truth. No one does. If there were gods, no one of them would have certain knowledge either, nor could they define for us what ultimate truth is.


...European monks are credited with helping give birth to international law.

...scientists gave us the atomic bomb. So, hey! why stop with genocide when you can obliterate all humanity along with many other species on earth.
Science gave us the bomb, religion gave us the crusades, science gave us nerve gas, religion gave us 9/11, science gave us industrial pollution, religion gave us child rape, science gave us the cure for polio and religion gave us the golden rule. I don't think this game goes anywhere, do you?

[LaCosa]

:) It's all good, Trish. You certainly are an intelligent woman. You may be right on some of your points, I don't know. You certainly are correct that science (when not corrupted by political or religious interests) is self correcting. Religion has dogmas.

(Doctrines and dogmas are not necessarily one and the same, the former are plenty the latter are few, the former evolves or can evolve, the latter really does not)

I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I do believe in God, very much so, I also believe in the "communion of saints."

I'm also not that well educated in the sciences. But then most Americans (and most humanity) aren't well educated in the sciences even if they profess faith in every sensationalized news article espousing something related to science.

But science is the new language of power (even over that of English) and religious or not, one has to begin to learn how to speak and understand that language if they are to adapt in this new world.

By the way, Trish, is that you in your profile pic, and are you transsexual? The only next question would be, is your butt as round as the moon? If so then this -> :Bowdown:

[hippifried]

Well looky here. My girl has a new admirer!

[trish]

Hi hippiefried ;)

To answer your questions, LaCosa: no, yes and almost.:oops:

[hippifried]

Hi Trish,

Whew! I was afraid you might get detailed there. I've got this whole fantasy illusion thingie going on &...