I Believe (to address the complaints of last week)
-
I have a very old school friend John O'S that had a pretty reasonable
slant on religion. John was / is no saint, we smoked / drank and did
'other' stuff that was against the teachings of the Church and on some
occasions the Law of the Land BUT John always went to Mass every Sunday,
even with a major hangover!His thinking was fairly straightforward on the matter. He believed
in Insurance! We all begrudgingly pay for it and at the same time
hope that we never need it!Some 40 years later we are still friends and John still attends Mass
every Sunday! I suppose its what makes you feel comfortable and happy
that really matters. If religion makes one feel and act a better person
I'd say go for it. -
Good verdict in the Dover court. It can't be said loud enough of often enough; Intelligent Design or Creationism is NOT science.
Confusing Faith with Science is symptomatic of people who aren't clear about the distinction between the two and who, therefore, are in no position to teach either.TYpical simplistic hyperbole from the fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, saying that the people of Dover had rejected God. They did no such thing, they just rejected unproven and unprovable (in any truly scientific sense) religious propaganda.
Faith is faith; science is science. You can no more insist that the world is only 6,000 years old (as calculated by Archbishop Usher many years ago), because that is what the guardians of your faith tell you, than you can insist that someone is guilty in a court of law for no better reason than you just think he is...or voices in your head tell you he is...despite massive scientific evidence to the contrary.
Religion does have a place for many people, but that place certainly isn't in a science class.
-
Now this is truly funny -- especially to a former philosophy major with cancer. Still not a convincing argument, however. I'll stick with science.
-
better to stick with oneself, no Paul ? after all is all we have for sure
-
Well, I'm late to the party, and have not really been active for quite some time now, but I figured in the interest of the conversation at hand, and to get a different opinion being expressed, I'd give my views.
I Do believe in God, and God as creator.
I Don't believe in science, as science is defined as:1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>(merriam-webster online dictionary - I didn't cherrypick, this is the first one that I came up with - Bold is mine)
I don't believe that science leaves you any room for belief, good science is testable and true.I think that it is common today that the word science is used correctly and incorrectly and is flexible, but I think that the other problem with this is that the words truth and science are thought of interchangeably. Let me illustrate:
We have used Science to determine that the boiling point of water is 99.97 degrees Celsius at a pressure of 1 atm (thank you wiki!)
Science shows it is true that water boils at 99.97 deg Celsius at 1 atm.
It is true that water boils at 99.97c @1 atm
That sounds all good.Contrast that to what many people think of science in popular culture when any given newspaper reports on theory as science
Cold Fusion etc. (when it first was brought out in '89) or any given story written about discoveries of an ancient nature.Boy, I'm not doing a great job here with staying away from topics that will get me labeled an ignorant American bible-belter.. okay, well the idea is mainly that I see Science and Truth interchanged where it isn't necessarily so. I think that there are enough issues and "anomalies" to bring much of "science" into question.
To re-iterate. Science as defined as testable, repeatable, true. I don't believe in, I agree with. Science that relies on conjecture and theory, I may or may not agree with or believe and God - yep, I believe in Him for sure.
I think that should suffice to put myself on a skewer and light a fire underneath my delectable regions!
Who will be the first to dig in!
-
.... why should God be male (Him)? Surely God could be female (Her) just
as easily? Why would God be anything like us? Surely a God capable of
Creation would be NOTHING like us?From what I remember the Bible says that man was created in God's image or
some such words but Chimpanzees practically share the same genes as humans,
just 1.6% of a difference. So are Chimpanzees created 98.4% in the image
of God?I suppose the 1.6% is the big factor here. Maybe its our ability to think
but many animals are capable of thought, many of the great apes show this
ability. I would argue that their thinking when it comes to how to live
with Nature is better than humans in many cases.I think humans are extremely arrogant in their thinking that they are
created 'in the image of God' or that anything on Earth is created in the
God's image.If humans survive for a further 1,000,000,000 years I imagine they will
bare little resemblance to today's human. Will we still be regarded by
certain religions as created in the image of God? Will religions be
regarded at all?Evolutionary theorist Dr Oliver Curry has expressed some thoughts on this
subject, Human species 'may split in two' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm
-
Mike, I read a book a little while ago called "The Shack". It is an interesting piece of fiction that deals with some hard questions of the protaganist. I mention this book/think it pertenant because the author writes God in the tripartate as God the Father - 60 or 70 year old African-american, Jesus is the 33 year old carpenter dude (natch) and the Holy Spirit is sort of a wispy, hard to see track-suit wearing asian (that's the picture I have in my mind anyways - I can't remember the H.S. description too well) - but I'd say that I agree with the older, maternal lady cooking and enjoying her kids etc.. I think God is described as a man, because of cultural reasons and also because it's a 50/50 kind of thing - but God is clearly not a man, or the old dude with a beard etc.
I think it's reasonable to think that the good that we exibit are 'godly' traits, but I don't really have too much of an answer about your chimp thought - except to say that I don't think that DNA was the original intent - perhaps just the idea of ultimate good, of which we seem to carry on the intent of this, but not the execution.
-
.... but why should or would God think any more of Humans over a
snail, that's my point! We have evolved to what we are are present
from single cell entities!As far as us having 'God-like' qualities goes, I think it is very
presumptuous of us to amuse that we have 'these' qualities. How
could we possibly know what qualities God has?We have Law and Order for a good reason, self preservation! We do
'good' acts for the betterment and preservation of our species,
often to the detriment of other species and much of Nature. This
is an in-built program in all species.As I have said before, I don't expect or hope for much once I give
up the ghost
I'd prefer to get on with it and not push any
particular beliefs as being the 'right' one. -
Shaun (good to see you, bud :`), I was surprised to see your dictionary's definition so heavy on truth...I always had it in my head as more about method: which I confirmed everywhere I looked this evening. (My Oxford American didn't use the word truth at all for any of the words with science as a root. The site below did quote the Webster's New Collegiate did use the word ("knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world") but this certainly doesn't say science is truth.
Have a look here, "kids" science site, best I found: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html Here's part of the definition there, which fits what I was taught and thought science was:
"What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it."
So it's just a method of study...what's not to believe in?
Yes, some things have been proven by science...often called truths (and some "truths" have been disproven by more advanced science). I was taught this in grade school science class...aren't all kids? There are scientific theories, still under investigation, that have been partially proven. This taught also in grade school...what's the buzz?
I think it is the same buzz started by fearful Muslim clerics in the 14th century, who before then were at the fore-front of the world's scientific investigation and discovery. I certainly don't argue science over God, but I just can't under the premise of arguing God over science...apples and oranges (or whatever simile doesn't offend :`) The creation is here, how does the study of it have any bearing on how it was created?
Oh wait...is it about that story in that Book?
-
Tom and Mike, it looks like it's just a matter of perspective on those points:
Mike - at this point, we are looking at philosophy, and we have different perspectives based on our experiences and choices. An interesting note (without being acerbic - I respect you Mike, so please don't take this as insulting) is that you end your post with a statement that you'd rather not push any certain beliefs, but the post itself derides the possibility that a God might exist, and that He may have revealed something to us.Tom, good to be around - but I don't know what the next little bit holds - I'm vacationing in the next bit and will likely be away from the 'net. Again with the perspective, we don't carry that much of a different definition, and I am not saying that I'd gladly throw the truth away. What I am saying is that I question that which is foisted as truth, when that may actually be debatable. This part of the definition that you mentioned sticks out to me "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena." I like knowing that an understanding comes out of observation and experimentation. I don't like when theory is borne of conjecture.
Much has been "truth" in the past, and has now become fiction in the present. History repeats and I fully expect that our time is not immune from looking silly in our "knowledge" as any other time in history - I would just rather be skeptical than easily accepting when it comes to what I'm being asked to accept. (I'm fully aware of how funny this may sound to many of you!)
-
Not trying to insult anyone here, but it isn't religion quite heavy on the conjecture? (Morning, y'all!)
-
I think part of the problem that causes the Religion/Science schism is that most people...when they think of science...think of the likes of the old Newtonian physics with its mathematical certainties; certainties in which there are just the numbers and no room for anything like God.
Well, Newtonian physics is "good enough" when dealing with big stuff like bridges, buildings, automobiles or even us, but it's not the way the Universe actually operates. To understand how things actually work on the deepest level, you need to switch to Quantum mechanics...and quantum theory is shot through with uncertainty and probability; they are at its vey core.
Probability Theory, the Uncertainty Principle and Entanglement are all seriously weird concepts that are very difficult to get your head around.
Again, most casual readers would assume this means that we cannot be certain of the state of a sub-atomic particle, for intance, because we can't measure it accurately enough. This is a misunderstanding. The truth is that the particle itself is uncertain of where it's at. It doesn't exist at a fixed point, it potentially exists within a probablity cloud...in many different places simultaneously, only finally making up its mind at the last moment, if at all. There really are multiple universes and alternate realities....really.This isn't just scientists playing mind games which have no impact on the world as we know it, if this stuff was just an intellectual exercise and not the way things really are, then very real things wouldn't happen....a transistor wouldn't work; the sun wouldn't shine.
The Universe...reality...really is both stranger than we imagine and stranger that we can imagine. There really is so much we don't know yet that there is a massive amount of room to accomodate all manner of metaphysics. In a way, believing that science has bulldozed God out of the equation is as closed-minded as believing that the Bible is literal truth.
-
yes, we are a never_ending learners, so it seems.
-
Amen, brother!
-
"The Universe really is both stranger than we imagine and stranger that we can imagine. There really is so much we don't know yet that there is a massive amount of room to accomodate all manner of metaphysics."
And science seems to be getting harder and harder -- it takes real effort now even to get a small understanding of what's going on at the frontiers, let alone special relativity (which I almost understood for a little while after much effort).
A good read: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn -- written back in the 60's but a real revelation.
Can't wait to hear what happens when they fire up the CERN Large Hadron Accelerator later this year. Could really screw up current cosmology theory.
-
@mike lucey said:
.... why should God be male (Him)? Surely God could be female (Her) just
as easily? Why would God be anything like us? Surely a God capable of
Creation would be NOTHING like us?and who tells you that God:))) is male ?
and who tells you that God:))) does really want to be anything like us ????????????......but we are SOMETHING....................................
and how about if he did had told us before))))
how about that? Mike
how about it ?modelhead, why do you carry on in being a mouse ?
-
@unknownuser said:
The only viable religion IMHO would embrace a mouse as having a life that is just as important as mine.
I agree. A god that doesn't love all living things equally, is no better than we are.
-
@juanv.soler said:
well a mouse is not able to draw and change knowledge as we do, no ?
Juan, no. The mouse is quite capable within the limits of its brain power...just as we have the limits of ours. (And yes, I've seen a mouse dream :`)
@unknownuser said:
By the way can anyone name a faith/idiology/religion that will allow a mouse as equal??
Bruce, excluding the religions of the Book...don't most?
-
you are all feeling
well a mouse is not able to draw and change knowledge as we do, no ?
is a mouse
so we have more to answer to the one who created us
i dont think we will be judged by the same lines
or do you ?:)))
no:)
in any case i think it_is much better than being an idiotical_mousely_faced crew or whatever thing just to make it_it up to be another religion
-
i think i understand your point of view modelhead,
i will have to learn that maybe
Advertisement