Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Then there's the God v Science question.


Forums Forums Humanism Then there's the God v Science question.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #332804
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    Forum posts are not meant to be addressed to professors.

    As for entropy etc, evolution does include the sun’s power. Not sure what it has to do with God.

    (I just edited that to say “includes the sun’s power”, don’t know what I was thinking there. I could go in to more detail. A look at how species were pushed to change around the equator, and likewise the Galapagos, is a good example.)

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Lausten.
    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Lausten.
    #333170
    @widdershins
    Participant

    There really is no science “verses” anything.  Science is.  That’s a fact.  It’s also a fact that it is the best method of discovery known to man.  In any “verses” one has to win and one has to lose.  That is not a competition the religious should want because science isn’t going anywhere.  You can try all you want to bury and obscure knowledge, but in today’s information society (what’s on your mind?  Some dork here knows what I’m talking about) you’ll never eliminate actual knowledge or the methods by which it is maintained.  So if it ever does come down to “science v God” then God is going to lose because science and reality are one in the same.

    #333249

    So if it ever does come down to “science v God” then God is going to lose because science and reality are one in the same.

    If what ever comes down to science v. God?

    Seems to me within the hearts of easily half the people and our government Faith Based Thinking has been kicking the shit out of science based rationalism and constructive learning, and the ability to assess competing claims soberly and to learn from that debate, rationally.

     

    Well okay, when faith = furthering self-interest and political power, things get mirky.

    #333257
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    If what ever comes down to science v. God? –CC

    I see “it” in terms of the big “It”. The survival of the species. When looked at from that perspective, you can find value in the memes of religion; the Leviathan, the rituals that taught, the ties that bound community in a positive way. As science became more dominant, the untruths of religion had to adapt to survive, they had to pit themselves against science, or admit their traditions were wrong. Every religion that is either small or not practiced at all has de facto admitted that defeat. This was true before science as we know it, when drought could not be fixed child sacrifice. There are a lot of ex-religions. Every ancient rock with a picture on it represents them. Every little building in the corner of a small town that is struggling to keep the heat on.

    But when those go away, as they continually do, what survives is not the names of the gods or the timeline of their creation story, but the truth that we all die, that mothers love their children, that young men get into trouble and that hard work pays off in the long run.

    #333267
    @pianowan
    Participant

    So, you have never heard of Deism? Incrcedible ignorance. I am not a Deist but still, you ought to know about it. No good wallowing in iggarance you know, old being.

    #333276

    @pianowan, “So, you have never heard of Deism?”

    Well,

    “Deism”   belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.   WIKI

    Pianowan, and your point is?

    My point is that these gods are characters in your mindscape and no part of physical reality.

     

    #333292
    @pianowan
    Participant

    Every semantic purport in your intent is wrong. 1  I am not a Deist, simply throwing that at your obvious ignorance. I am on most days an atheist, except when confronted by people like you who I despise. 2  Deists don’t believe in Gods, as you know. 3   In truth there is no Objective Reality – all is witnessed from an individual perspective. If you believe in something beyond that, perhaps you believe in some kind of God. Objective Realists worship the God of their imagined Objective Reality (the Third Person, the Passive Tense, indocrtrinated by the novel and the science write up) beyond all viewpoints, except that we others know we simply deduce adduce and accept the Objective method as the working model. You cannot discuss reality as you wish before the advent of Modern Science, which changes our world picture day by day. No one will discuss reality billions of years hence. You are lucky you can bandy it about, glibly, today. Modern quantum physics has it that there is no position nor momentum regarding a particle before inquiry. Maybe there is no local realism. Scientists have many views about this and the philosophy of Physicalism is just one of them Chalmers has asserted that the hard question of consciousness is to do with a category error. The notion of the zombie, you for example, robotically responding to my post, or myself, posting. Well, if that (that we were not conscious) were so, there would be no real discussion nor reality.

    #333301
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    except when confronted by people like you who I despise  –pwan

    I try to keep up, but I don’t read everything. I can’t see what set you off. Deism has been discussed here many times in the past and the regular posters are fully aware of it. It seems you didn’t see it mention in this one thread and that led you to a million assumptions. Your welcome to hang around, but maybe try to get to know a few people here before going off on rants about quantum physics.

    #333332
    @widdershins
    Participant

    What I’m saying is that science isn’t going away or changing.  Who cares what the ignorant masses do or think.  Science is the genie let out of the bottle and there will always be scientists doing science since then.  Science is here to stay.

    It’s kind of ironic that science is the one not claiming to have “the answers”, even though science must back every claim with empirical evidence.  But is also the one which is forever unchanging.  Sure, there was a push in the last few decades to allow supernatural explanations so that science could be abused as a proof of God, but it didn’t change actual science one bit.  Sure, it made the ignorant masses trust it less, but science is exactly the same as it always was.

    Religion, on the other hand, does claim to have “the answers”, absolute truths backed by no empirical evidence.  Yet religion changes all the time.  The believers often think they’re doing things the same way the founders did, but they’re not.  Since the “truths” are all really just “beliefs”, those beliefs have to evolve with society.  There’s no way around beliefs evolving as the world changes.  So religion changes secretly all the time.

    And for those wondering what “it” is, “it” is a common colloquialism in the American English language.  I can certainly understand not knowing that if American English, or especially English in general, is not your first language (I don’t pretend to know the first language of anyone here, though I must say all of your American accents are absolutely spot on, in my head, at least).

    #333514

    Another one worth framing.

    @widdershins:   What I’m saying is that science isn’t going away or changing.

    It’s kind of ironic that science is the one not claiming to have “the answers”, even though science must back every claim with empirical evidence.

    But is also the one which is forever unchanging.  Sure, there was a push in the last few decades to allow supernatural explanations so that science could be abused as a proof of God, but it didn’t change actual science one bit.  Sure, it made the ignorant masses trust it less, but science is exactly the same as it always was.

     

    Religion, on the other hand, does claim to have “the answers”, absolute truths backed by no empirical evidence.

    Yet religion changes all the time.  The believers often think they’re doing things the same way the founders did, but they’re not.  Since the “truths” are all really just “beliefs”, those beliefs have to evolve with society.  There’s no way around beliefs evolving as the world changes.  So religion changes secretly all the time.

    Nothing to add, just something worth mulling over.

    #333515

    @pwan
    “Every semantic purport in your intent is wrong.”

    Well okay.  Instead of worrying about that,

    why not just tell us what you are thinking?

    Simple and straightforward, the gotcha games get sooo old.

    ===========

    In truth there is no Objective Reality – all is witnessed from an individual perspective.

    True dat.  I’ve been thinking about “Objective Reality” a bunch and like you say, it’s personal perspective.  Product of our minds and an inhabitant of our mindscapes.

    No one knows what “Reality” is, at least so a lot of over educated coddled salesmen will lecture about for hours on end.

    I find it interesting that “Physical Reality” is something you won’t find mentioned too often.  I find that curious because simple physical reality, the atoms and stuff we are made out of, natural laws and Evolutionary processes that created us and will swallow us in the end as it moves on.

    So Physical Reality is the ultimate “IT”, amazingly constant as we flash across the stage of Earth.

    Then there’s all the thoughts that our amazing human minds and lives have afforded us.  Religion started early and is closes to humanity’s need make senses of stuff.  Then came science, simple clear rules for objectively, that is beyond personal biases and self-interest, observing, studying, and learning about Physical Reality.

     

    It’s really simple as that.  I know someone like this Donald Hoffman, will tell you with a straight face that we don’t know anything, that an important, critical something is still missing from our understanding before we’ll be capable of making sense out of Reality.  Self-indulgent and contrived – still, he’s busy milking a career and making discussion, and he’s got the education and writing chops to make it work, so there it is.

    Still, don’t tell me we don’t understand the human body, or mind, when doctors and mend and manipulate and exchange and keep alive.  A godly power if there ever was.  Saying we don’t understand the physical reality around us is false and foolish.  Setting impossible expectations is easy.  Who ever said we have a need or a right to know everything.  What’s wrong with accepting that some of this stuff is beyond and it’s okay, there’s plenty of truly fascinating and more important stuff right under our noses that we should be focusing on.

     

    Oh but how I digress.

     

    {I have easy duty, Nana is with me this time, and he’s 15 months, and baby whisperer is last years news.  He wants Nana and I better keep my distance.  Then again he’s endlessly fascinated at what I’m doing and keeps a close eye on me.  I get smiles and even a kiss now’n then and we get into a bit of tag’n it, but he’s all about being with Nana.  That’s cool, I tend to be passive, kids need to want to hang with me, works out really well (actually, didn’t do so bad with the woman either).  

    To each season, it’s weather  😉  <3 }

    #333521
    @widdershins
    Participant

    Setting impossible expectations is easy.

    An insight I hadn’t considered before.  People who say that we don’t understand reality seem to be mistaking “not knowing everything” for “not knowing anything”.

    #333682

    👍

    #334129
    @timb
    Participant

    I used to be the king of establishing rapport with toddlers under 3 yoa. I could help you have the little one crawling all over you for your attention, in no time.

    But I think you are each traveling the path that is best, already, so no need for such a change.

    #334145

    @timb   I used to be the king of establishing rapport with toddlers under 3 yoa.

    I bet you still are, given the chance.  But, I bet you also know sometimes stepping back is a good strategy.  We wound up having plenty of quality one on one time before our 11 days was over, just had to give him a couple days to make the decision himself.  Besides, I remember my Oma, and really now, what self respecting toddler wouldn’t rather cuddle with a Nana, than a lean boney ol Napa.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 105 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.