forest dog Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 a system of hunches, guesswork and pure fantasy pretty good description of scientific discovery True Weed, however science will go on to refine those guesses with verifications and facts whereas religion will have you burned for even questioning the fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 whereas religion will have you burned for even questioning the fantasy. Really? When did you last witness this? When should I expect them to come with the faggots? Have you not even heard of liberal theology, or of (for example) Liberation theology? Across the board, people are questioning and changing their beliefs day by day without so much as a match being lit. Process theology, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) It's tested in as much as it's effectiveness to the believer, not in regards to it's 'truth'. Placebos work in tests. if its true for the person that believes, and it works for them...then what's the problem? ...you are trying to impose a scientific process on a religious one...which is about as valid as imposing religion on science ....also its been shown that placebos work just as well as popular anti-depressants from big pharma, but it doesn't stop the science pills from passing scientific/empirical testing...and are still being prescribed throughout the land ..maybe science would do better to worry about the beams in its own eye? Edited May 3, 2011 by weed_G 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 when I say why I mean: take something like electricity... science will explain it as something like movement or flow of electrically charged particles...and how this phenomena can be harnessed in a useful way...and at a later date explain more deeply in terms of sub-atomic particles etc..but what science cannot do and doesn't even try..is to explain why particles & matter behave in this way or say explain why anything should exist at all ..all science can do is observe, measure and describe with possibly some conclusion of it's practical use ..but at no point does it attempt to answer why Science doesn't say what's a useful application of electricity. It certainly does try to explain why particles and matter behave as they do though, it's believe called physics. Why anything should exist at all, is a bit of a leap... True it's difficult to imagine even purely theoretical vidence ever leading to answer that and many other questions. But then, it's even more difficult to imagine religion answering them, because religion by definition thinks it already has answers, and it doesn't do evidence. If it's far reaching questions about the nature of existence you're into you want philosophy, religion is redundant in this regard. that's so completely wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start..lets just stick to the science part for now Science doesn't say what's a useful application of electricity.....its nigh impossible to get funding for research without some explanation of how the work will be applied or exploited in a practical way...in fact for the people investing in your research only the application holds any real interest Long before any knowledge of electricity existed people were aware of shocks from electric fish. Ancient Egyptian texts dating from 2750 BC referred to these fish as the "Thunderer of the Nile", and described them as the "protectors" of all other fish. Electric fish were again reported millennia later by ancient Greek, Roman and Arabic naturalists and physicians.[2] Several ancient writers, such as Pliny the Elder and Scribonius Largus, attested to the numbing effect of electric shocks delivered by catfish and torpedo rays, and knew that such shocks could travel along conducting objects.[3] Patients suffering from ailments such as gout or headache were directed to touch electric fish in the hope that the powerful jolt might cure them.[4] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~nobody~ Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 It's tested in as much as it's effectiveness to the believer, not in regards to it's 'truth'. Placebos work in tests. if its true for the person that believes, and it works for them...then what's the problem? ... I didn't say that it was a problem. It's just that there's a difference between something being true and belief in said thing having some benefit. You were trying to suggest, by saying that religious faith is tested everyday, that because there's a benefit to believers then that proves that it's true. But we're going round in circles of semantic argument here. I would dearly love to believe in an omniscient and benevolent creator, or even just a meaning to life, but I simply don't buy any of the theologies that I have so far examined. They often contain many philosophical viewpoints that are laudable and with which I agree, but that doesn't convince me of the underlying fundamentals of the respective faiths ie the creator figure, the afterlife etc. Perhaps I'm being unfair but I've been hoping in these discussions that one of the believers would say something that started to convince me, but so far all I've read has been explanations of why belief in a god can be beneficial, and criticism of science as if science is somehow the enemy. @Arnold Layne, can you recommend some good Apologetic religious writing? I know where to go for the atheist viewpoint but I'd love to read some intelligent writing in support of faith. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) It's tested in as much as it's effectiveness to the believer, not in regards to it's 'truth'. Placebos work in tests. if its true for the person that believes, and it works for them...then what's the problem? ... I didn't say that it was a problem. It's just that there's a difference between something being true and belief in said thing having some benefit. You were trying to suggest, by saying that religious faith is tested everyday, that because there's a benefit to believers then that proves that it's true. it seems to be a problem in regards to it's 'truth' ...truth from a scientific perspective....which is what I was answering But we're going round in circles of semantic argument here. it's not semantics...a lot of it is just correcting inaccurate misconceptions ..both about science and religion and criticism of science as if science is somehow the enemy science isn't the enemy as such, its when people try to misuse science to beat religion over the head...then this misuse is open to criticism I would dearly love to believe in an omniscient and benevolent creator, or even just a meaning to life, but I simply don't buy any of the theologies that I have so far examined. They often contain many philosophical viewpoints that are laudable and with which I agree, but that doesn't convince me of the underlying fundamentals of the respective faiths ie the creator figure, the afterlife etc. Perhaps I'm being unfair but I've been hoping in these discussions that one of the believers would say something that started to convince me, but so far all I've read has been explanations of why belief in a god can be beneficial, . I wasn't sure you were being serious when you mentioned this before...what have you read so far from the 'non-science' side? I would suggest starting with The Perennial Philosophy(1945) by Aldous Huxley, gives a good overview of the main religions from an academic/rational pov, then straight after read The Doors of Perception by the same author...then come on here and tell us what you think(after some practical testing of your own) Edited May 3, 2011 by weed_G 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 when I say why I mean: take something like electricity... science will explain it as something like movement or flow of electrically charged particles...and how this phenomena can be harnessed in a useful way...and at a later date explain more deeply in terms of sub-atomic particles etc..but what science cannot do and doesn't even try..is to explain why particles & matter behave in this way or say explain why anything should exist at all ..all science can do is observe, measure and describe with possibly some conclusion of it's practical use ..but at no point does it attempt to answer why Science doesn't say what's a useful application of electricity. It certainly does try to explain why particles and matter behave as they do though, it's believe called physics. Why anything should exist at all, is a bit of a leap... True it's difficult to imagine even purely theoretical vidence ever leading to answer that and many other questions. But then, it's even more difficult to imagine religion answering them, because religion by definition thinks it already has answers, and it doesn't do evidence. If it's far reaching questions about the nature of existence you're into you want philosophy, religion is redundant in this regard. that's so completely wrong on so many levels its hard to know where to start..lets just stick to the science part for now Science doesn't say what's a useful application of electricity.....its nigh impossible to get funding for research without some explanation of how the work will be applied or exploited in a practical way...in fact for the people investing in your research only the application holds any real interest Saying 'that's wrong' is saying nothing. What it's possible to get funding for for is irrelevant, completely, but as you mention it what do you think the practical application or exploitation of the large hadron collider was said to be? You misunderstand what science is I think. Everything I stated in the above quote remains the case. Were you raised religious? Sounds like it. You seem confused. I've no idea why you're on about fish, either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnold Layne Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 @Arnold Layne, can you recommend some good Apologetic religious writing? I know where to go for the atheist viewpoint but I'd love to read some intelligent writing in support of faith. The world of Christian Apologetics is wide and comes from ever corner, from raving evangelical to far-out liberal. A quick Google threw this up, it might be of interest, I do not know. I never needed any apologists to confirm my faith.... C S Lewis Society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 What it's possible to get funding for for is irrelevant, completely,but as you mention it practical application ...an integral part of science is irrelevant? what do you think the practical application or exploitation of the large hadron collider was said to be? ...you appear to see relevance after all given how atomic science has been exploited over the last 100 years...it's not much of a reach to see how sub-atomic science will be exploited in similar ways...throw in the bonus of possibly discovering a single theory to explain Everything aka unifying field theory ...the effects of which could lead to a complete overhaul of the standard model(physics) ...at this point in time the practical applications of the large hardon are near infinite... ...think along the lines of splitting the atom and how that discovery has shaped the world we lie in today You misunderstand what science is I think. Everything I stated in the above quote remains the case. Were you raised religious? Sounds like it. You seem confused. I've no idea why you're on about fish, either... your lack of understanding on why I referenced the first recorded use of electricity...doesn't detract from the point being made ..it just means you didn't understand is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 You're totally lost in your own nonsense. Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) You're totally lost in your own nonsense. Catholic? :: ..wrong again ...are you actually going to quote and de-construct any of my nonsense, or should we just take your word for it? Edited May 3, 2011 by weed_G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam-i-am Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 You're totally lost in your own nonsense. Catholic? Would you be prepared to post that with the word muslim instead of catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I think we can take your word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwest Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 You're totally lost in your own nonsense. Catholic? Would you be prepared to post that with the word muslim instead of catholic? Mooooooooslem. Sure, why not. I didn't think he sounded muslamic though. He's got a Catholic sense of rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed_G Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 my 'underlying intolerance' detector is beeping like crazy... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now