Prev Topic | Next Topic
| Author |
Posts
(Read 35783 times)
|
|||||||
|
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 05:55 PM CDT
I did. My whole point was to indicate that it takes faith, belief, in science to ultimately accept it unconditionally without reservation. Why that may Irk you, I don't know. It certainly irks a bunch of people for anyone to mention that they have faith in God, or to question science. In my view it is as rational to have faith in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit as it is to have faith in science. |
|||||||
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 06:22 PM CDT
I'll just take this whole thing a little left turn in the direction of music and say that this looks pretty neat, and the snippets I've heard sound pretty good:
http://www.amazon.com/Oh-Happy-Day-All-Star-Celebration/dp/B001PUTNJS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1248823208&sr=8-1 iTunes just got it... "We have to remember...when it's surrender that's called for, it's not surrender of your brains. It's surrender of your ego. It's a different thing." --Bruce Cockburn |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 06:28 PM CDT
nice turn Ed... I like your driving. |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 10:27 PM CDT
Is anyone bothered if I say that I think vegetarians are simply not very compassionate? I have never understood how they can justify eating only the defenseless immobile creatures. They can't even run away! How terribly inconsiderate. I prefer to eat things that at least have a chance at getting away, like grasshoppers for example. You want to eat something, eat those. They actually jump really well and get away a lot of the time. Plus, the damn things ALSO around eating poor defenseless plants. It is just wrong.
Uhhh point being... there are a lot of compassionate people in the world and they are so lost and confused!!! Totally independent new music: http://www.pollyputthekettleon.com |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 11:10 PM CDT
he's got a point there... although a little parsley on the side of my steak is nice... |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 06:59 AM CDT
well, where in my post do I state that I accept science unconditionally? That would be absolute folly again. I accept the concept of science, as an endeavor that is ever striving towards modeling nature as accurately as possible, but also realize, as does anyone who has been well schooled in science, that it is nothing more than a collection of theories that are in constant motion, refinement, and revision. I am sorry, but it really bothers me to see religious people slam science when it is convenient for their moral high ground stances, yet then turn around and feast on the tangible riches that it has brought to their lives. Almost EVERYTHING around you in modern life is a product of the scientific process. Do people think electricity, medicine, transportation, communication (computers/TV/phones/etc, etc) all arose from the ether? That they are some form of magic? No, these are all the culmination of years and years, sometimes even centuries of research, based on originally fallible theories that have been refined over the time. Many of these theories are still not entirely accurate, but they are accurate enough to bring power to your homes, allow you to transverse great distances, communicate with anyone on the planet, and stave off death for years on end. It bothers me when religious people 'pick and choose' what is good science and what is inaccurate bad science only to fit their agenda. Isn't it convenient that all those chemists, physicists, materials scientists, and electrical engineers who made it possible for them to have computers and the internet were all great scientists but the biologists studying evolution have no idea what they are talking about? And it isn't it convenient that the chemists and biochemists who formulate the medications that keep their blood pressure down (or their schl**gs up) are great scientists, but those archeologists digging up fossils and conducting carbon dating tests are incompetent? Evolution is a theory. It is far, far from a perfect theory. But it will continues to evolve as a theory as more data is accumulated and more research is conducted. For the record, I believe in a Creator AND I believe in evolution. I do not believe in the basic premise of Christianity due to the base contradiction at the very heart of the religion: 1) That God is a loving and caring God and that 2) God is all powerful. Either God is not all powerful because he can't defeat Satan OR he is not loving and caring because he allows the existence of Hell. The fundamental flaw in logic here makes it impossible for me to believe in this concept. However, I hold our Creator in great awe. I consider this entity to be beyond our comprehension, unlike the god in Judeo-Christian religion which is created in the image of mankind. Believe it or not I am deeply spiritual and probably spend more time contemplating our place in this universe and our place amongst people than most. I believe this Creator has set the laws of the cosmos - heat flow from source to sink, electrostatic attraction/repulsion that governs atomic interactions... that this Creator guided our evolution from single celled organisms. There is great beauty and symmetry and even a painful exactness to chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, and life as a whole. I have been in the past an active Christian, trying many different flavors of the religion in an effort to understand what people get from this. I have been met by hypocrisy and attempts at control and domination at every turn. While I AM 100% sure that there are exemplary, amazing religious organizations throughout this planet, I have never encountered one. I don't deny anyone their right to espouse whatever beliefs they see fit, but I also think it is important to understand our surroundings and environment in the most complete way possible, and that means learning about the science that allows you to live the life that you live. Mason |
||||||||
|
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 09:27 AM CDT
Did I say that you do, Mason? Dare I say that many people do, even knowing that science is as you have described below?
If you are referring to me, I guess I'm trying to figure out where I slammed science, or that I discount its practice. However I have seen people do as you say. I have also seen so many people slam creationism as folly based on their firm faith in science to provide all of the answers. Have you ever watched the discovery channel where production is consistently bent on presenting scientific theory as if it is fact with carefully staged statements? It is laughable propaganda. It is a fine line to draw between what our children are actually taught in school is science theory or are taught is scientific fact based on theory. I have to admit that I have a problem with believing postulations that man and all the diversity of life on earth evolved from some microbial speck in the sea billions (?) of years ago, because I believe in God as creator. I don't fully trust carbon dating to that extreme. I think honest scientists' study in this area is in earnest and would not contest their competency. Furthermore, I can't say that I fully understand how Genesis applies - and some people seem to think they do. I don't believe that God has revealed everything to us. . - Harold |
|||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 10:39 AM CDT
Interesting post Mason. I quoted the part that struck me most, and all I wanted to add was that I don't see what you propose as a fundamental logical contradiction. While I can dig up a few contradictions of my own, this wouldn't be one of them. The thing is, we don't know WHY things are taught to us the way they are, or WHY we have to endure some of the things we endure. The idea of an "all powerful" god is fine, but I think it is possible that there is a "mostly powerful" god. Why not? In other words, this god may be a father of sorts, he may be many times (infinitely) more capable than we are in our human form, he may be able to influence space and time, matter and energy in ways that are completely beyond the scope of our comprehension. From that angle... yeah he is "all powerful" by relation to us. It's kind of like .0000000001 vs 10000000000000. When we compare those quantities is is pretty easy to say they are "infinitely different", and in fact, as you know, the fractional results of division approaches infinity on the small and large end as you divide these things. So "infinitely powerful" is a convenient phrase and is essentially accurate. But I for one don't presume I know EVERYTHING, and so I assume that infinite could mean a lot of things. Who knows. So, if a god is just mostly powerful... this may mean that yes, he is living a life also. A life with challenges. Challenges that we could never comprehend. If I were a god I don't think I'd have it any other way! Therefore, he may be teaching us his children valuable lessons that we need to learn, via the route of pain, risk, etc. It may be just necessary. You know? Not illogical at all. This makes a lot of sense really, in that as far as we can tell absolutes don't exist purely in nature, only approximations, only values on gradients. Absolute power certainly does defy everything we have ever seen. Not that it is impossible, just that I view both options as possible. Yet as I mentioned I don't bother to argue about the phrase "all powerful" because it can be basically true enough and who cares about the minute difference. Consider a few weeks ago... I was playing soccer with my dog. I started noticing... well he was being pretty dumb. He was jumping right in front of the ball. Sometimes I kick it pretty hard. So I decided, given that I can't really sit down and talk with him about it, that I needed to communicate with him in another way. I needed to teach him about the danger of the ball. So... I started aiming AT him. Not too hard, but hard enough to get his attention. I did that a few times, harder sometimes. After a couple good hits I watched him shake it off and make a decision. Ok, that ball can hurt. I'm going to be careful! Suddenly he started making decisions that were much smarter! His movements were still enough to make him "ready" but not so stupid as to get him popped hard. I didn't do that to hurt my dog. I didn't do it out of some contradiction that I am not loving and caring. I did it FOR my dog, BECAUSE I am loving and caring. I would view the things that god may do "to us" in a similar light. We don't know everything, so we just have to be open to the possibility that there really IS a reason that we can't always see or understand. I hope this was useful to you. Totally independent new music: http://www.pollyputthekettleon.com |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 10:57 AM CDT
I think I posted this earlier, but a very good book that addresses the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies of logic is one written by Tim Keller called
The Reason For God. I've read it and watched some videos by him on the same topic. I think he addresses the various questions intelligently with integrity and respect. I post this without trying to wade into the conversation because as I said before, better minds have addressed these things; and a good place to start is to draw on the thinking of those better minds. best regards, Jack |
||||||||
|
Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 10:58 AM CDT
Right. It's tricky business. I (and many noted scientists) view the practice of science as simply observing what we can 'get our hands on' and trying to construct models that are predictive. In many cases there are no 'answers' at all. For example, we can very easily calculate a trajectory path at this point. It is nearly a parabolic curve based on a constant: 9.81m/s. Great. This is perfectly predictable and was derived from scientific inquiry and study. It JUST WORKS and it is very useful. But really, the further you dig, the more you find that there is more "down there". And you always have more questions. The "BIG WHY" is still out there and really, though science will always seek to understand it, science may never be able to answer that question WHY. WHY? This question is infinite in terms of the ability of science to fully answer it. I think a big problem with the contention between science and religion is a confusion about what science is trying to do. Science is just about looking around and creating models for things that we observe, models that can provide predictive results for other things. Scientific theories are all models, generally fallible, but also generally very useful. Even those things we call "laws" or facts are limited in scope. The LAW of gravity: Stuff falls (at a predictable rate of acceleration). "Daddy, why does stuff fall?" "Because of gravity" "Daddy, Whats grabbidy?" "Gravity makes stuff fall...." "Why daddy?" "Well... to hold things together I guess" "Why daddy?" "Eat your carrots." Religion does exist in part because of this inadequacy. This validates the existence of it to a point. People do have these questions, and they do for some reason want to know why. It gets tricky when religion *appears* to contradict what science teaches us. And it is really no fun at all to try to retrofit the religious teachings to make sense in light of the information we have gathered that appears contradictory. In my view, scientific information and models are fallible as are the religious texts passed on or pieced together through history across multiple languages spanning 1000's of years. I try not to get too bent out of shape about what appear to be contradictions. I do assume that truth is "out there", and can be found, and partially illuminated (possibly inaccurately). Totally independent new music: http://www.pollyputthekettleon.com |
